The opening years of the 21st century have seen numerous attempts by globalists and enemies of American power to use international organizations to rein in American sovereignty. In order to protect our national security and ensure our continued hegemony, the United States must resist attempts at global governance that are not in our interests. Before describing this issue, it is necessary to define what sovereignty is and how global governance violates it. Sovereignty is the “supreme power of a body politic” and also as “freedom from external control.”

Any time that a country voluntarily agrees to give up authority in a specific instance is not a violation of sovereignty. For example, if the U.S. decided to agree to a voluntary climate control accord, that would not qualify as a violation of its sovereignty. The U.S. submission of many of its trade policies to the World Trade Organization is not a violation of sovereignty; the U.S. gave the WTO authority over many of its trade policies voluntarily, and American policymakers could terminate the U.S.’s membership in the WTO at any time.

Nevertheless, many seemingly innocuous international organizations’ aim is limiting American power. Whether this is intentional or not is a separate matter; many international organizations and multilateral treaties of which America is currently a member or has considered joining actively seek ways to rein in the U.S.’s power. The most outstanding example of an organization seeking to dilute American power is the United Nations.

Many globalists have sought to establish the U.N. as the sole wielder of force in the international arena, transferring what was previously a right bestowed only on the state. In fact, under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, self-defense is the only circumstance in which member states have the right to use force against another state without a resolution by the U.N. Security Council. Granted, this article has been violated many times since the founding of the U.N., but nevertheless the restraint on American power exists and thus represents a threat to U.S. security.

A new precedent, however, was set after the war in Iraq, when the Bush administration essentially declared America did not need the U.N. and did not need to subscribe to international law when it comes to the use of force. Tufts international law scholar Michael J. Glennon makes this point clearer: “The structure and rules of the U.N. Security Council really reflected the hopes of its founders rather than the realities of the way states work. And these hopes were no match for American hyperpower.”

Regardless of whether the war inIraq is a good idea or not, it is clear there is a new precedent protecting America’s right to use force against other states. Quite simply, the use of force by the powerful is legal and just, while the use of force by the less powerful is questionable and subject to the laws the powerful nations are free to ignore.

Noam Chomsky argues against the expansion of U.S. power and the use of force but he accurately describes the significance of this new principle: “The doctrine is for (America), not for anyone else. We will use force whenever we like against anyone we regard as a potential threat, and maybe we will delegate that right to client states, but it’s not for others.” While Chomsky and others look negatively upon this policy, it is a strategy of near perfection from a national security perspective. Since the U.S. has entrenched its authority of having the power to use force whenever it wants against whomever it wants, we will find it much easier to extend regional hegemony further into the 21st century and maintain the status quo of a unipolar world.

This policy effectively allows the U.S. to use unilateral force when it serves the interests of the country, but it also curbs the use of force by lesser powers that might create regional instability or attempt to conquer territory and become great powers through conquest. The ability to limit the use of force by others is made easier because the U.S. can do so through the U.N. Security Council as well as through “passing the buck” to its allies. This strategy frees the U.S. from a substantial percentage of the resource burden by channeling the power of the international community against threats to national security when it is politically feasible.

Early examples of the U.S. acting in accordance with this principle would be Security Council Resolution 85, which called for member states to assist of Korea in defending itself from attack, and Resolutions 660 and 678, which respectively called on Iraq to withdraw unconditionally from Kuwait and authorized member states to use any and all means to achieve the goal stated in Resolution 660. These examples show there is a use for the U.N. within the interests of American national security.

Returning to the concept of sovereignty, it is clear this new monopoly on the legitimate use of American force could violate the principles of sovereignty. For example, the U.S.’s invasion of Iraq, regardless of U.N. resolutions, was a blatant violation of Iraq’s sovereignty. The argument remains that supranational imposition should be resisted because it violates sovereignty. I reconcile this seeming contradiction with my allegiance to one idea: the national interest. Protecting American sovereignty is essential to the national interest and security. Sometimes using force and violating the sovereignty of other countries is also essential to national interest. Thus, the U.S. must oppose violations of its own sovereignty so it may retain the right to violate the sovereignty of other countries when American national interest demands it. It is impossible to imagine what opportunities for conflict may exist in the future: The world is complex, and everything from environmental disaster, terrorism and disease has the potential to cause massive security disruptions.

The U.S.’s ability to act with force must not be limited by any authority other than a government elected by the American people. It is up to the public to ensure the government they elect is one that is just, fair and saves the option of war for when the national security of our nation is truly at stake.

Chart Westcott is a senior in the College of Arts and Science.