Like President Obama in his Atlantic
interview last month, former Defense Secretary Chuck Hegel believes the United
States cannot serve as the world’s policeman. “We can help [other countries and
peoples], he told a Georgetown audience in his Global Futures lecture on March
21, 2016, “but I don’t think we can help them by invading countries and
occupying countries.”
“Ultimately,” Mr. Hagel said, “they will have to sort it
out. They’re going to have to determine what they can’t tolerate and what they
will tolerate for themselves.”
Mr. Hagel is right. Much will depend on what other nations and their leaders will do—for themselves and for the global common good. But peace depends as well on changes the United States must promote not only abroad but at home as well.
The geopolitical environment is deteriorating. The “third
wave” of democratization has been reversed; autocracy is on the rise. From
Russia and Turkey to Egypt and China, governments have crushed popular
movements and shutdown civil society movements and the free media.
In an illiberal world, international NGOs like the Soros
Foundation, Human Rights Watch, and the overseas institutes of the two U.S.
political parties have come under tighter and tighter government control, even
in supposedly democratic countries like Israel.
The cooperative international spirit that led to the
approval of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in 2005, stumbled in the
aftermath of the half-intervention in Libya and has fallen flat, prey to a
selective manipulation by both Russia and the United States, in the Syrian
crisis.
At the same time, the European refugee crisis has shown the
profound inadequacy of the Cold-War era refugee and migration system at a time
of globalization.
Improving the prospects for peace requires three things.
First, we must advance the repair of unraveling international systems, like the
refugee regime and migration rules, so that people can enjoy the mobility that
capital enjoys under globalization.
Also, the renewal of the architecture of international
organizations, beginning with the UN Security Council, must be a target of
unrelenting attention until the UN becomes not a world government, but an
effective system of world governance.
Second, it requires expanding participation in the economies
of developed countries, where dwindling middle classes and the growing
underclass threaten democratic government and the liberal tradition of human
rights.
Thirdly, civil society movements and NGOs must devise new
ways to promote a culture of peace outside their home countries. This may
involve finding new allies in the business community and engaging with old
ones, like the faith community, that has been too often taken for granted or
shunned for holding traditional views on “social issues,” that is, reproductive
ethics.