The United States and Great Power Responsibility in International Society

Wali Aslam

• Editore: Routledge
• Anno: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135043285
• Edizione: 1
• Argomento: Politics & International Relations
• Categoria: Politics

This book evaluates American foreign policy actions from the perspective of great power responsibility, with three case studies: Operation Iraqi Freedom, American drone strikes in Pakistan and the post- 9/11 practice of extraordinary rendition.

This book argues that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, American drone attacks in Pakistan and the practice of extraordinary rendition are the examples of irresponsible actions undertaken by the U.S. acting as a great power in international society. Focusing on a major theoretical approach of International Relations, the English School, this book considers the responsibilities of great powers in international society. It points to three obligations of great powers: to act according to the norm of legality, to act according to the norm of legitimacy, and to adhere to the principles of prudence. The author applies the criteria of legality, legitimacy and prudence, to analyse the three foreign policy endeavours of the U.S., and, developing a normative framework, clarifies the implications for future U.S. foreign policy.

This book will be of strong interest to students and scholars of international relations, international relations theory, American politics, foreign policy studies, international law, South Asian studies and Middle Eastern studies.

1Introduction

Introduction

United States foreign policy in recent times has been the subject of much discussion and controversy. Some of the most contentious policy issues include the invasion of Iraq in 2003 (codenamed Operation Iraqi Freedom), the drone strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan and the practice of extraordinary rendition adopted by Washington after the attacks on New York and Washington DC in 2001. All three of these cases have been widely debated and discussed. Just weeks before the invasion of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of people in the United Kingdom – and many more elsewhere – protested to register their opposition to the impending action. In much the same manner, the drone attacks and the practice of extraordinary rendition have been hotly debated all over the world. Where many concerns have been raised regarding the legality of these episodes, these debates have also brought into focus other hot-button issues of international relations; one of these is the notion of great power responsibility. A commonly raised question in this regard asks: can we describe these recent American foreign policy actions as examples of responsible statecraft conducted by a great power?

Arguments have been put forward from different camps declaring the United States as a responsible great power in all of these cases. For example, those who favoured the American invasion of Iraq claimed that this action was a responsible one. When making the case for war, they stated that it was the responsibility of all ‘free nations’ to support the imminent regime change in the country.¹ In his address to the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) before the invasion, then-US President George W. Bush specifically asked every member country to perform its responsibility concerning Iraq.² On the other side of the equation, a large number of people thought that by attacking Iraq, the United States was acting extremely irresponsibly. Some held that the UN inspections regime in Iraq prior to the invasion was quite effective and they asked for the inspectors to be given more time to complete the inspection process.³ One of the viewpoints held that international terrorism was a bigger threat to the US than the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was. This view believed that Washington acted irresponsibly by diverting its attention and resources from the bigger threat of international terrorism to a relatively minor threat posed by Hussein. Richard Clarke, counter-terrorism coordinator under President Bush, said that the attack on Iraq was a major mistake because it shifted ‘resources and attention towards destroying an enemy that was vicious but well contained and, in any event, unconnected to Al Qaeda, meanwhile ensuring the recruitment of countless new jihadists to anti-American terrorism’.⁴ It was also asserted that the hubris of American policymakers was the driving force behind the invasion more than anything else.⁵ Hence those opposing the American action implied that as a great power in international society, the United States had a duty to act more responsibly than other nations.

Though Washington took some interest in working through the Security Council of the UN to deal with the alleged threat posed by the Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),⁶ it soon pointed out that it could not simply ‘sit and wait’ when, according to its opinion, dangers were growing.⁷ The United States portrayed itself as the guardian of a world that was facing the threat of mass destruction. Its leaders believed that they had a moral duty to tackle the threat of Iraqi weapons because they were a threat to international order. By portraying the threat as imminent, the White House believed that it could bypass the Security Council and still not be described an irresponsible country. Due to this belief, it no longer felt obliged to actively seek the passage of the so-called ‘second resolution’ at the Security Council, even though many believed that it was needed if Washington wanted to justify this action on legal grounds.

Similarly, senior American officials have discussed the policy of American drone strikes in the tribal areas of Pakistan in terms of ‘rights’ and ‘responsibilities’. In justifying American raids inside the country, former United States Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff argued that

‘international law must begin to recognise that part of the responsibility of sovereignty is the responsibility to make sure that your own country does not become a platform for attacking other countries … There are areas of the world that are ungoverned or ungovernable but nevertheless technically within the sovereignty of boundaries. Does that mean we simply have to allow terrorists to operate there, in kind of badlands …?’⁸

On the other hand, those opposing the drone attacks have criticised them for causing many casualties among innocent civilians and creating more problems than they solve.⁹

The practice of extraordinary rendition has also been analysed from various legal and moral angles and from the perspective of the idea of a responsible statecraft.¹⁰ Bush administration officials went to great extents to justify this practice. For example, while vetoing a bill from Congress which would ban certain tough interrogation methods, President Bush described them as some ‘of the most valuable tools in the war on terror’.¹¹ In defence of certain ‘enhanced interrogation methods’ in March 2008, then-United States Vice President Dick Cheney argued that ‘they did work. They kept us safe for seven years.’¹² A contrary view held by individuals such as United States Congressman Bill Delahunt, however, criticised these extraordinary renditions for going against the spirit of American values, further highlighting the potential conflict between the said US foreign-policy practice and the notion of great power responsibility.¹³

Various recent analyses of American foreign policy have focused on conducting broader normative evaluations, but a cursory glance at such literature reveals that there is still no scholarly work that conducts a normative analysis that is specifically enshrined in the idea of ‘great power responsibility’ – a study that could describe an action as responsible or irresponsible.¹⁴ Hence there is a gap in literature and scope for an analysis that asks potent questions, including: what exactly is meant by a responsible action? What is meant by the phrase ‘great power responsibility’? Most importantly, can the above-mentioned recent US foreign-policy actions be described as example of responsible statecraft by a great power?

The case for a normative enquiry

When an act is discussed as being either responsible or irresponsible, the debate is set in a normative framework because the very connotations of ‘rights’ and ‘responsibilities’ are normative in nature. This book utilises the normative framework provided by one of the major theories of International Relations (IR), the English School, to focus on the idea of ‘great power responsibility’. This framework will then be employed to analyse the three case studies of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the US drone strikes in Pakistan and the practice of extraordinary rendition.

The English School approach has been selected here for two reasons. First, the English School has the scope to help conduct a normative evaluation. This theory has the potential to both help conduct positivist analyses¹⁵ as well as to undertake normative studies.¹⁶ The second reason for employing the English School is that it is the only theoretical perspective that emphasises that the great powers in international society have some additional responsibilities.

Here it is also important to address the question of why other theories – like Realism – are not being employed in this book to assess the recent United States foreign policy actions from the perspective of great power responsibilities. Some have argued that, compared with the English School, Realism provides a much better explanation of American foreign policy since September 2001.¹⁷ That may be so, but if Realism can explain what the US did do, it cannot necessarily explain what the country should do and, regarding these case studies, it should have done, from the perspective of an international society and an international common good.¹⁸ It may help get some answers on one or all of the issues from a national perspective but it is not equipped to address the issues from the standpoint of those who believe in an international society, international interest, international common good and international responsibilities of states. An alternative perspective is needed more so because such ideas are frequently referred to by Washington officials when justifying their actions in the global campaign against terrorism. Realism does not provide the scope to conduct this kind of normative discussion because the supreme moral responsibility for Realism is national responsibility.¹⁹ Hence a study that is conducted only with the help of Realism would result in a partial evaluation.

The English School approach, on the other hand, provides one with a set of ethics regarding what ‘ought to be’, from the unique perspective of international society and international interest – and not just national interest. The normative dimension of this theory has more scope to help with conducting a normative evaluation of the kind required here because of its focus on how a state should act in a way that its actions benefit the inter national society. A normative theory is ‘a body of work which addresses the moral dimension of international relations and the wider question of meaning and interpretation generated by that discipline. At its most basic it addresses the ethical nature of the relations between communities/states’.²⁰ The positivist and empirical theories talk about the phenomenon that is taking place. But normative theories do not stop there. They go one step further, discussing not only what actions are taking place but also employing a moral lens to scrutinise those actions from a normative standpoint and saying what ought or ought not be done.²¹

The English School of IR addresses values, rights and responsibilities in its conception of ‘international society’. This is a theory that involves moral issues in its content. The major proponents of this school believe that foreign policies sometimes present difficult moral choices to the statesmen involved.²² The theory holds that international relations involve the actions and ideas of statesmen which, like all other actions, have a normative context. Since international politics is a social and human phenomenon, the English School approach is ‘attuned to the normative aspects and value dilemmas of international relations’.²³ As will be discussed below in greater length, the English School believes in the idea that states form an international society in which every member-state has rights as well as responsibilities. These rights and responsibilities are defined by international law and they ensue from a state’s membership of international society. The very concept of an international society refers to a place where countries have shared rules and norms.²⁴ Hence, seen from this viewpoint, the English School approach follows a normative agenda from the very beginning.

The second reason for employing the theoretical and normative framework of the English School in order to analyse and assess the issue of great power responsibility is that this is the only theoretical perspective that focuses on the special and additional rights and responsibilities of great powers in international society by virtue of their status in that international society. Other major IR theories – including approaches like Neo-liberalism, Realism and Critical Theory – do not specifically concern themselves with the additional responsibilities of great powers in international society in this unique way.²⁵

Realist writers such as Hans Morgenthau, for example, might point to the maintenance of the balance of power as being in the international common interest, and in this way they might talk in terms of states bearing international responsibilities. However, Hedley Bull, a leading thinker of the English School approach, has acknowledged and built upon such ideas. Furthermore, the idea that power brings with it some responsibilities does not carry much weight for Neo-realists.²⁶ Brown says that to Neo-realists ‘the idea that Great Powers have special responsibilities to international society as a whole makes little sense, because the notion of international society itself (as opposed to an international system) makes little sense’ to them.²⁷ The theoretical ideas of the English School, on the other hand, state that great powers have a responsibility to ensure an efficient working of the international society.²⁸ That is why this approach can be used to build a framework to enquire whether some of the most controversial episodes in t...