One of those debates I was talking about

Joseph Britt just finished guest blogging at The Belgravia Dispatch and asked the question What Is World Order For? This is the kind of question that the American public should have been asking before the last Presidential election. How should the US be involved in other's countries affairs when we do not have an obvious short-term interest.

Fifteen years ago Zimbabwe could feed itself, and even export food; it was an example other small African countries seeking to develop could hope to emulate. Now it is a basket case, its government dependent on international handouts to keep part of its population from starving to death and willing to use its food aid as a political weapon. Sudan is expelling refugees by the tens of thousands while killing many of those left behind; it has done this, in different parts of its territory, for about two decades now. And of course North Korea is seeking a nuclear arsenal even as its government's policies drive its people toward starvation and itself toward collapse.

These situations ought to concern us. They ought to concern other countries even more, though, and we do not use that fact to our advantage nearly as often as we could. It is too glib to say that the solution to the Zimbabwe problem has to go through South Africa; to Sudan, through Egypt; to North Korea, through China. Each of the larger countries in these instances have reasons for the actions they have taken, or rather and for the most part have not taken. But in each case those reasons have led them to follow a course fraught with indignity, dishonor or great physical risk. Other governments are no less likely to do foolish things than ours is, and as we are able to correct our mistakes, so are they.

...In all these cases, but especially the last two, an honest assessment of American national interests would have to conclude that a policy of benign neglect has much to recommend it.

Britt recommendation is a "deliberate American encouragement of regional powers to lead the way in quelling or preventing upheavals in smaller neighboring states." He acknowledges risks in this path, but there are huge risks in our current approach. Since we can only invade a few countries at once (and Republicans have ruled out even talk of a draft), our options in dealing with North Korea, Sudan, and Zimbabwe (not to mention Iran) are limited. With the nomination of Bolton to the UN, the administration is showing that it does not think the UN should have much of a role in these problems. So what is the Bush plan? Six party talk with North Korea (which Bolton undermined) Let the Europeans negotiate with Iran (which Bolton tried to undermine) Hmm. Britt's plan does not seem so bad to me.

If there is to be a stable, multipolar world order some of the poles in it will have to play a larger role than they do now, or than they are now inclined to do. I am skeptical of the value of pressing countries around the world to become democracies whether their people and cultures are advanced enough to adapt to this very demanding form of government or not. There are cases in which pressing nations to alter their foreign policies to serve the interests of civilization seems a more promising means of making this world a less brutal, a less morally degraded and perhaps a less dangerous place.