I don’t think international law is the answer. I don’t know what percentage of GDP the US spends on defence, but perhaps if all other countries spent just as much we might not have to go to the US so often for assistance and wouldn’t then have to compromise ourselves when the US does something we don’t like. The US’s power is relative to everyone else’s so don’t we have to accept a fair degree of blame for falling so far behind?

To me it seems people ask too much of the US and then complain when seeks a bit of leeway from the rest of us.

And I know I’m simplifying international diplomacy a fair bit here.

Which is fine if you agree with everything they do and they infallibly promote the interests of the world.

The problem with the “new” humanitarian intervention is it strays towards being pre-emptive self-defence with a cuddly face. (The recent “Blair doctrine” is a good example.)

Once you allow pre-emptive self-defence as an argument it can be claimed by Arab states against Israel, China against Taiwan, North Korea against South Korea, etc etc.

My issue with the new international order is that in a unipolar world there is no check on the US at all. If it undermines the “rules of the game” then it creates an incentive for others to opt out of international law as well.

Sure, international law is breached, but it is more often complied with because all players in the game recognise that it does promote stability and their long-term interests.

I worry that in “remaking” the rules the US risks making the world a much less safe and stable place and exacerbating the very problems it is claiming to address.

PS Glad you liked my comment Ken. It appears to have drawn no comment at all back home, so it’s nice to know someone got something out of it.