Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism,

¶ … Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, it is clear that the United States has become the greatest obstacle to establishing the rule of law in international affairs. (Masud) American foreign policy and diplomacy support this intrepid claim has truly personified an international rogue and delinquent to global law and initiatives.

" While one would expect the world's only superpower to adhere to the rule of law in regards to international affairs (a principle which states that the law is essential in order to ensure order and prosperity and that nobody is above the law), quite the contrary holds true.

Rather than utilizing their position of power in order to act as leaders in the promotion of the rule of law in the international community, they have opted to base their foreign policy on the rule of power, finding it preferable in the furthering of American interests. In doing so, the United States has sent the message to the international community loud and clear: they will do whatever they want, whenever they want, and no one can stop them.

Time and time again, they have demonstrated an utter and blatant disregard for international treaties. This attitude becomes even more appalling when considering that these are treaties to which they belong. Furthermore, their ongoing track record of inexcusable military operations is nothing less than atrocious. Lastly, their opposing stance on certain global initiatives, in which they refuse to partake, further solidifies their advocacy of the rule of power" (American Foreign Policy: They Do it Because They Can 2007).

The United States is founding its foreign policy on the principle of the rule of power, which is overrated. Within this book, the author expresses that the U.S. ignored the U.N.'s viewpoint on the invasion of Iraq and chose to invade the nation in spite of it. From there, the U.N.'s Security Council had no significant influence on the United States.

Without the approval of the United Nations Security Council, it was the most notable and apparent manifestation of the rule of power in recent U.S. foreign policy.

According to American journalists Robert Jensen (professor of journalism at the University of Texas) and Rahul Mahajan: After months of open expressions of contempt for international law and disregard for the opinions of other nations...George Bush explained that he would be happy to go to war with the endorsement of the Security Council but that he does not consider such endorsement necessary.

The United Nations can have a role, the president conceded, but if it makes the wrong decision it will be irrelevant (Jensen and Mahajan and American Foreign Policy: They Do it Because They Can 2007) The United States believes in the rule of power, which causes them to disregard for international treaties, their inexcusable military activities, and their stance on certain global initiatives. America's indifference towards international treaties to which they belong and their willingness to ignore such treaties is very alarming.

Furthermore, their unjustifiable military operations are nothing short of horrendous. Lastly, their refusal to join certain global initiatives is indicative of the U.S. government's cynicism and lack of a sense of obligation to take part in international efforts. Ideally, the United States should be a nation which demonstrates the utmost respect for the rule of law in international affairs, and in so doing, acts as a nation which leads by example.

If this were a reality, the international community would be the beneficiary; however, the approach of current U.S. foreign policy is hardly an example to be followed. Moreover, in a series of commercials for the U.S. Army's National Guard, the advertising slogan proclaims that "you can." Interestingly, this slogan seems to represent the philosophy after which the U.S. government patterns its foreign policy.

This begs the question, why does the United States government demonstrate a complete disregard for the rule of law, operate based on the rule of power, and selfishly promote its own best interests regardless of the ramifications? Why do they ignore treaties to which they belong, enforce their will militarily whenever they see fit, and opt out of global initiatives when they find doing so to be beneficial? The answer to these questions is painfully simple: they do it because they can (American Foreign Policy: They Do it Because They Can 2007) On the other hand, in the book Paradise and Power, America is depicted as an ardent supporter of 'hard politics,' which means that they consider world power and politics to be defined in militaristic terms.

They resort to force to resolve International Disputes quickly. They also have a very 'black and white view of the world' in that they see elements as 'good or bad'; 'friend or enemy'. It is therefore said that America is living in a Hobbesian state of Anarchy, where freedom can only be protected using brute force and strength (Kagan 2003 p. 4). This has been clearly represented in America's war with Iraq and the 'Axis of Evil' that has been dominating American Foreign Policy discourse since 9/11.

This contrasts with a Europe, which is seemingly committed to 'soft politics, wanting to build a world where economic strength means more than military strength. A world where international institutions and laws- such as those demonstrated by the United Nations, reign supreme over unilateralism and a state-centric view of the world. Finally Europeans wish to spread the core ideals of Democracy, Rule of Law; respect for Human Rights; the ideals of liberty; and the centrality of peace, (Manners 2002) resort to diplomacy rather than force.

In short Europe is seemingly living in a Kantian world of 'perpetual peace', with no indication of wanting to extend their military capabilities, or return to the state they lived in before WWII (Politics and Power 2006). Kagan believes after so many years of discontent that Europe finally had the opportunity to settle down and exist beyond the realms of power politics (Kagan 2003; pg. 12-13). With that, Europe feels that it is unnecessary to rearm and expand their military prospects.

This coupled with the physiological theory that the more power America gains, the more they feel they need to police the world, dealing with every dispute.