Íslenska leiðin - 01.11.2003, Blaðsíða 41

argue that with all the genocides that have
happened in the past two decades, that the last
half of the 20^ century saw far less carnage than
the first half. That there was more progress than
cynics are willing to recognize in peaceful
settlement of disputes and the reduction of inter-
state violence.
20**1 century history is full of conflicts and
bloodsheds between nation states. Isn't it
possible that what the world needs now is a
just and fair superpower, i.e. the US, that
polices, indicts, convicts and sentences rogue
states and other trans-national actors (such
as terrorist groups)? Authoritarian states
make a claim to sovereignty without any
democratic foundation for that claim. Why
shouldn't we rid the world of dictatorships
that breed intolerance, violate human rights
and threaten neighbor states?
I don't believe that anyone can be trusted with
absolute power. That is part of the quotation of
Lord Acton, i.e. "Power tends to corrupt and
absolute power corrupts absolutely". The United
States has on occasion used its power in an
exemplary way. The occupation of Germany and
Japan transformed those rogue states into good
global citizens. However, there are so many other
cases where the United States has put its own self-
interest above the interests of the authoritarian
government that it replaced. There are many
similarities between 1900 and 2000. A century
ago the U.S. took its first colonies, Puerto Rico,
Cuba and the Philippines. The people of the
Philippines had anticipated liberation from Spain
but instead had a new occupying power. The U.S.
brutally crushed a rebellion and thousands of
Philippinos died, in a way that does not do credit
to the argument that the U.S. can be trusted
because it has done it right. We operated a school
in the Americas that trained South-American
military personnel that committed atrocities in
support of fascist regimes. The U.S. was more
interested in opposing communism than it was in
promoting democracy, so we were supportive of
authoritarian governments. We do not always get
it right. We occupied Haiti for 20-30 years, and
they never developed enduring democratic
institutions. So now, just in the 1990s the U.S.
administration went back to Haiti and replaced yet
another military government there.
The U.S. and its president are not
comparable to a Stalin or a Hitler, that is part of
the genius of our system. We have managed to
put checks on power, but there is a real danger
today that our own system of checks and balances
is being distorted. The president is a self-
appointed global commander and chief now and
we are somewhat errant in this expectation that
we can drain the swamp of the Middle East and
transform that region into a group of democratic
modern states. That's a tall order. We have not
addressed problems with the Palestinian-Israeli
conflicts. Instead we apparently create more
problems by attempting to transform Iraq.
Germany and Japan may not be the model for
what happens in Iraq. I think it will be more like
Afghanistan when the Soviet Union came there
and was unable to maintain its foundation.
Do you believe that anti-American
sentiments are growing in the various
regions of the world? If so, what explanation
do you believe to be the most plausible one?
Yes, they are growing. I do not favor single factor
explanations. I think there are multiple causes.
Around the world, even within the U.S., there is a
reaction against modernization and a revival of
fundamentalism, be it Hindu, Islamic or Christian
fundamentalism in the U.S. We are a symbol of
modern industrial, post-industrial, high-tech kind
of society. There is a desire to preserve tradition
and a natural resentment against the most
powerful country, whatever that country might be.
We are seeing a backlash against the U.S. for
deviations from the United Nations, its
unwillingness to await Security Council approval
for what it chose to do in the military area. Anti-
Americanism is not new but I do think it has
increased. I hope that there can be a distinction
between the government of the U.S. and the
citizenry, which very often is disunited. There is
no consensus within our country on our foreign
policy. There is more anti-war-sentiment protest
activity than you may see in the world press or the
U.S. media. There are trans-national movements
that I think are most healthy to bring people
together in different countries, for example
Amnesty International, the environmental
movement, and the consumer associations. These
are part of the global civil society that help to
create a more cosmopolitan patriotism, that
people not only feel an identity and loyalty to their
own nation but you see also some broad allies like
the human rights movement.
Do you think that the U.S. will eventually
recognize the authority of the International
Criminal Court?
That's a difficult question. Not as long as the U.S.
is the single dominant power, militarily and
economically. If there were more of a balance
then perhaps our leaders might see it as in our
interest. We had similarly resisted the Law of the
Sea Convention, because we thought it would
curtail our ability to mine the ocean floor. When
the other parties felt it so important to engage the
U.S. that they were willing to modify it, then the
U.S. became more agreeable. It is conceivable
that the ICC might be modified, if for example the
U.S. got its way and the Security Council would
have to approve a prosecution that would give the
U.S. a veto overthe prosecution of a U.S. national.
Had that been incorporated in the statute, it would
be more likely that the U.S. could accept it, in the
assurance that it would always be able to block the
prosecution of U.S. forces. At this juncture, that is
bls.41