I am disgusted.

The idea was that the US would, at its prime, establish institutions that could outlast US hegemony. That is to say, while the United States remained one of the most powerful (economically and militarily) nations on the planet, it would help to build international institutions (such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, et al) that would seek the betterment of populations throughout the world and help to foster the democratization of the world's nations. Because these institutions would be built with the cooperation of many other peoples, the result was to be that long after the United States' relative power waned, it's legacy of a balancing and democratizing world system would endure -- *without* requiring perpetual unilateral support by the American government.

A grand idea. Little did the architects of this dream realize -- at least, at the time -- that the biggest threat to America's legacy would be America itself.

Now, intelligent people may argue amongst each other whether the global system that was built by the US and like-minded world leaders in the 20th century has proven to be such a good idea. The UN has had its share of successes in defusing some pretty bad situations, but it has also had its share of embarrassing blunders and even costly non-action. The World Bank and the IMF may have helped to save a few nation-states from collapsing, but they have also, arguably, managed to destroy a number of economies along the way, and they've created more than a few economically dependent "client states" (for lack of a better term).

Intelligent people may even disagree on the absolute merits of democracy or capitalism versus various of other governmental and economic systems.

But for good or ill, the hope had been to create an enduring, stabilizing force that would help to preserve the peace and foster a cooperative, democratic world.

The first time this was attempted (Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations), the whole scheme was undermined by the isolationist US Congress which felt, at the time, that the United States needed to mind its own business and the the rest of the world take care of itself. Soon thereafter, Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito provided excellent arguments for why this was a bad way of looking at things.

The second attempt (FDR, Churchill, and the United Nations, et al) has enjoyed a little bit of a longer run. And once again, it is the United States that is pulling out and going it alone.

It's not so much that the US has stopped providing economic support (we haven't paid our UN dues since Reagan was President -- or was it Bush the elder?). And acting against the general will of the UN is not terribly new behavior, either... for the US or any other nation, for that matter.

No, the troublesome new trend is the overt, blatant, stand-offish, and unilateral withdrawal of the United States from its treaty obligations. The flagrant disavowal of any kind of rule of law (international law, in this case). It's bad enough that our bureaucracies routinely violate NAFTA and similar international agreements. It continues to be a disgrace that our government circumvents its treaties with the native American tribes. It gets much worse when the US unilaterally decides to freshly violate long-standing trade agreements by imposing stiff steel import tariffs that are tantamount to embargoes. But for the President of the United States to tell the world, essentially, "We just don't feel like honoring the ABM Treaty anymore, so go piss up a rope," is so obnoxious and dangerous as to be genuinely disgusting.

What good is the word of the American government when it tells the nuclear nations of the world that it just doesn't *feel* like continuing to honor it's promises regarding nuclear weapons? How can any nation take the US seriously when it comes time to negotiate new treaties regarding nuclear weapons? What is to keep any other nation from ignoring what it perceives to be its national interests when deciding whether to honor its own commitments regarding nuclear weapons?

Or the Geneva Convention?

The United States, because of its current power, cannot help but lead by example. Our government is now establishing a most terrifying precedent. Instead of leading by example toward cooperation, the US is showing that promises mean nothing and expediency is everything. (I will also note that the moves of the US government to violate these treaties began *before* having September 11 as an excuse.)

Now, some of you who have read this far may be saying, "Yeah, so? Machiavelli told us this is the way of the world. When has it ever been different?"

But it *has* been different. In times of cooperation, peace and prosperity were allowed to flourish. In times of stand-offishness and cavalier unilateralism, the results have always been destructive.

Speaking as an historian, I am particularly worried about the direction the political climate is heading. If the inactions of our nation's previous administration invited the tragedy of September 11th (perhaps an essay for another time), the actions of the current administration may well be taking us into darker territory, still.