Ever since I was a student in the early 1950s, I have been toldthat world government is a dream of starry-eyed idealists. But aform of world government is coming into being, although not the onethat Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell or the United WorldFederalists envisioned. It is not the vast web of rules and normsembodied by the United Nations and the European Union. It is notbased on shared ideology, race or religion. And it is not abyproduct of the Wilsonian daydream of a world rapidly democratizedby the application of American power.
It is motivated, rather, by realism and specifically by therobust response to terrorism. What began in the 1970s as a largelyregional problem arising from a uniquely volatile set ofcircumstances-namely, Middle Eastern terrorism-has slowly become aglobal phenomenon. International terrorists and those who supportthem are being recognized by most of the world's governments as acollective threat to their national security. These threats-whatPresident Clinton called an "unholy axis of terrorists, drugtraffickers and organized international criminals"-are the impetusfor the formation of what I have termed a Global Safety Authority(GSA). The GSA is maintained by the United States (which providesthe lion's share of the funding and sets the agenda) and itsallies, but it is comprised of most nations of the world, includingother major powers such as China, India and Russia.
The Global Safety Authority is taking shape from the post-9/11ad hoc anti-terrorism coalition, as informal interstate cooperationtakes on a more permanent character. I use the term "authority" toindicate that this coalition is both legitimate and institutional,and therefore lasting rather than temporary or transitional. It canbe described as a global police agency, but unlike typicalintergovernmental organizations, the various individuals who staffthe GSA (though they may be of different nationalities) largelywork directly with one another. In carrying out their work,agencies such as the CIA, MI5 and the Mossad work closely with oneanother, and often do not first consult with their respectiveforeign ministries or more generally with their own governments.The same holds true for various members of special forces,surveillance entities, naval patrols and so on.
The GSA's main division, if you will, is the AntiterrorismDepartment, through which the intelligence and police services ofsome 170 nations now work together quite seamlessly. This is not a"coalition of the willing" defined by nominal participation:Fifty-five nations have changed their domestic laws to accommodatethe global pursuit of terrorists. Military and intelligence unitscooperate in untold corners of the globe. Phone calls and e-mailsaround the world are scanned by computers in the United States, theUnited Kingdom and Australia-and the information gleaned is sharedwith other countries. It pays little mind to national borders inthe fight against terrorism, and it is not subject to anytransnational authority to set boundaries and exerciseoversight.
The most important division of the GSA, however, deals withdeproliferation-the removal, forcibly if necessary, of nucleararms, material and components from those states deemed by theinternational community to be insufficiently stable or reliable;and the replacement of these items with safer technologies oreconomic assets. For as countless politicians, government officialsand analysts have noted, if even a crude nuclear bomb were to besuccessfully detonated in New York City, for example, the deathtoll would range in the hundreds of thousands and the economic costwould be more than one trillion dollars. It is not surprising thatPresident Bush identified stopping the spread of nuclear weapons asAmerica's number-one foreign policy priority.
Deproliferation's goal-to prevent terrorists or rogue statesfrom acquiring either the material from which nuclear arms could bemade or the arms themselves-meets what I term "the triple test" forassessing the soundness of policy. First, it addresses theinterests of the nations most threatened, as well as theirneighbors, and the global community at large. (I start with anappeal to national interests because the recent emphasis on softpower has not paid enough attention to the fact that theinternational "system" is much less normatively driven than aredomestic polities. Hence, having complimentary interests is ofspecial import.) Second, deproliferation has prima facielegitimacy-few anywhere around the globe doubt that the world wouldbe better off if the availability of nuclear bombs and the materialto make them was reduced. Finally, the level of cooperation neededto ensure deproliferation-including the development of newinstitutions and norms-is a major source of community building.
The Bush Administration has not left this vital matter merely inthe hands of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), becauseas an arm of the United Nations, it has many of that institution'slimitations. The IAEA also fully allows countries to acquire thematerials from which bombs are made, as long as they promise to usethem only for research, medical treatments or power generationpurposes and allow inspectors to verify that they live up to thesepromises. Deproliferation as defined above requires giving up suchmaterials completely. The United States has instead beenorchestrating a multilateral approach to what it considers the mostdangerous nations, Iran and North Korea. Iran is being pressured bythe European Union, Russia and the United States to live up to itsobligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).Similarly, in sharp contrast to America's largely unilateralapproach to deproliferation in Iraq (which turned out to havenothing to deproliferate), the United States has refused so far toconduct bilateral talks with North Korea. Instead, North Korea mustnegotiate with a five-country coalition including China, Japan,South Korea, Russia and the United States.Essay Types: Essay