Global policeman

Global policeman is an informal term for a state which seeks or claims global hegemony and the right to intervene in other nations. It has been used, firstly for the United Kingdom and, since 1945, of the United States.^[1]^[2] Nevertheless, the two terms hegemon and global policeman are not identical in meaning. The former term defines capacity for dominant control anywhere on earth, whereas the latter may also include small or large areas outside control, along with monitoring and attempted enforcements, but does not define any level of effectiveness.

In recent years there has been speculation that China seeks to take over the role^[3] as it reaches out to control shipping lanes and protect its overseas workers and interests.

In international law[]

No formal recognition of this position exists. Theoretically, in international law, all nations are equal; 'par in parem non habet imperium', no authority between equals, is the principle applied, although, in reality some states are relatively more powerful than others. States are 'immortal' and cannot be indicted.^[4]

Comparison with state policing[]

Within states, law restrains and limits power; between states, the opposite is true.^[5]

The Peelian principles of policing include: the duty to prevent crime, keep the peace and uphold the law, with the consent of the public, and with minimal use of force and restraint; to act impartially; and not to usurp the powers of the judiciary.^[6] The latter standard requires a presumption of innocence. Candidates for police recruitment and promotion are appointed on merit, whereas a 'global policeman' is self-appointed faute de mieux.

Within states, a monopoly on violence is the norm; the police may carry weapons, but few others do so (the US is an exception, prompting Charles Lane to ask if it is 'really a state'^[7]) Internationally, a 'global policeman' is but one heavily armed state among two hundred others.

To confer the role of 'global policeman' on any self-interested, expansionary state implies a conflict of interest. States wage war with maximum force; engage in arms sales; form alliances and thus lack impartiality.^[8]

History[]

The UK made efforts to end the Slave trade through the West Africa Squadron^[9] In 1827, Britain, jointly with France and Russia, intervened on the side of Greek independence, destroying the Turkish fleet at the Battle of Navarino. In 1854, Britain, jointly with France, prevented Russia from destroying the Ottoman Empire. Russia had to withdraw from Moldavia and Wallachia, and Sevastopol was besieged in the Crimean war.

From 1914–1945 no one state was hegemonic, with Britain's power decreasing, but still very much a leading, world role, and with rising powers such as the United States, the Empire of Japan, and later Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. In an era of multipolarity and diffused responsibility, fascist dictators arose and Europe sank into two world wars. The authoritarian German challenge to democratic Britain then, is comparable to the authoritarian Chinese challenge to democratic America now, according to Richard J Evans.^[10]

Between the years 1945 and 1990, the world trade was dominated by the Soviet Union and the United States in what was known to be the Cold War.

The Truman Doctrine of 1947 promised assistance to anti-communist allies. "The right of neutrality was abolished... it was an era of aggressive peacetime policy which marked the beginning of America's role as global policeman."^[11] Since the end of the Cold War "The enemy is terrorism not communism".^[11] But after a disastrous intervention in Somalia in 1993, the US was reluctant to engage in humanitarian intervention in Bosnia^[12] and Rwanda.^[13]

The US-led Invasion of Iraq, officially a policing mission to find Weapons of Mass Destruction, was, according to some, an illegal cover for ulterior, unethical motives: the need to secure US regional bases, oil supplies, and the loyalty of key allies.^[14]^[15]

Since then, serious doubts have been raised about the validity of US overseas intervention and destabilization in Iraq, Libya and Syria.^[16]^[17] As the 21st century progresses, the morality of global policing itself is increasingly in question, with the inevitable loss of self-determination by nations in which intervention occurs.^[18] Furthermore, with the advent of non-state threats to global security, prior legal justifications such as general 'laws of war' are of questionable jurisdiction.

References[]

^ Linda Colley, 'Britain and the US once ran the world. Now they're all at sea', The Guardian, 14 June 2017.
^ Gideon Rachman, 'The world would miss the American policeman', Financial Times, 2 September 2013.
^ and Parag Khanna, 'Stop fretting about Beijing as a global policeman', Financial Times, 28 December 2011.
^ Martin Wight, Power Politics (Wight book), 1978, p 98- 109
^ Martin Wight, Power Politics, 1978 , p 102
^ , A new study of police history, Oliver and Boyd, 1956, appendix.
^ 'In the US, who has the monopoly on force?', Washington Post, 13 July 2016
^ , 'What the 'world police' analogy gets wrong,' The National Interest, 2/10/2016
^ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk>pdf>britain-and-the-trade.pdf
^ 'Before the first world war: what can 1914 tell us about 2014?' New Statesman, 23/1/2014
^ ^a ^b Wendy McElroy, 'How America became the World's Policeman', Independent Institute, 20/3/2015
^ Connor Murphy, 'World Police Force?' psu.edu, 31/10/2013
^ , 'Why the US didn't intervene in the Rwandan massacre', Christian Science Monitor 7/4/2009.
^ Richard Norton-Taylor, 'Top judge: US and UK acted as vigilantes in Iraq invasion, Guardian, 17/11/2008
^ , 'WMD just an excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz', Independent, 29/5/2003
^ Tariq Ali, 'America's selective vigilantism will make as many enemies as friends', The Guardian, 6/9/2011
^ Nathan Gardels and Hans Blix, 'America is not the world's policeman - in Syria or Iraq', Christian Science Monitor, 27/8/2013
^ , 'What the World Police Analogy gets wrong', The National Interest, 2/10/2016

Global policeman

Contents

In international law[]

Comparison with state policing[]

History[]

See also[]

References[]

Further reading[]