litical asylum for someone whose gender rights are violated (forrninstance, when women are facing the prospect of genital mutilation).rnCurrently, both religious and feminist activists are tryingrnto extend the same definition to an)’ woman, anywhere,rnwho is involved in proshtution, on the principle that all prostitutesrnare pursuing their careers under duress and are thus arnspecies of sex slave. Just this year, the United Nahons has begunrnincluding full-time advocates of children’s rights in all of its internationalrnpeacekeeping missions, to ensure that proper (Western)rnstandards are imposed globally.rnHow long will it be before the United States and the WesternrnEuropean powers start imposing their standards on the nationsrnwhich trample these supposed “rights”? It takes only a slightrnstretch of the imagination to see traditionally minded countriesrnstigmatized as outlaws because they deny ga’ rights or women’srnlegal equalit)’; because their age of sexual consent is too low (orrntoo liigh); because they permit the corporal punishment of children,rnor fail to prevent teenagers from using tobacco or alcohol:rnAnd if any of those ideas sound preposterous, imagine the derisionrnwhich the notion of gender rights would have evoked 20 orrn30 years back. If the errant governments are not actually beingrnbombed into submission (and never rule that out), then their assetsrncould be seized, their officials arrested or harassed, andrntheir economies subjected to sanctions. The new global federalismrnwould, in effect, mark a revival of the most aggressivernmodels of Victorian imperialism, though widiout the moral orrnreligious ideals which justified that movement. “Global commvmits”rnand “global federalism” are euphemisms for a militarybackedrnpower cartel of the most aggressixe kind — and, ultimateh,rnof Pax Americana.rnAt tills point, we might recall what happened to the last effortrnat world imperialism, as the tencleney by individualrnpowers to enforce their will in every odd corner of the globe ledrnto ever-increasing rivalries and conflicts with other major nations,rnculminating in the apocalyptic breakdown of the OldrnWorld Order in 1914. Well-intentioned or not, military interventionsrnand “surgical” strikes have a bad habit of degeneratingrninto bloody local vars, which in turn can turn into much biggerrnaffairs. The more the United States becomes involved inrn”peacekeeping” ventures in defense of human rights and effortsrnto suppress “genocide,” the more likelv it is that Americanrnforces will run into real bloodshed. The next Rwanda, the nextrnKosoo, wi 11 not necessarily be bloodless walkovers.rnThe ultimate nightmare is that well-meaning interventionrnwill run up against a people who have not heard of global federalism,rnwho have not yet decided to abandon all claims tornsovereignty’, and who will fight like hell to preserve their nationhood.rnTo understand what this might look like, recall thernoccasion in 1993 when U.S. forces, in the service of the UnitedrnNations, attempted a “surgical” removal of a local warlord fromrnhis stronghold in the heart of Mogadishu. When the missionrnbegan to go wrong, the city’s people turned out in the tens ofrnthousands to defeat the invader, some w ith Kalashnikovs, somernw itii ancient shotguns, most with sticks and stones, and all preparedrnto la)’ their lives on the line to save their ruined nation. Inrnthe ensuing firefight, about a thousand Somalis and 18 Americansrnperished, along with U.S. policy in the hlorn of Africa.rn(Read the excellent account in Mark Bowden’s depressingrnbook. Black Hawk Down.) Now imagine the next time a “surgical”rnproject of this sort goes wrong, and we are dealing notrnwith poorly- armed and underfed Somalis, but with a betterrnarmed and more technologically advanced power which mightrndefend itself with biological, chemical, or nuclear weaponry.rnThere will be abundant opportunities for Al Gore to deliver onernof his famous funeral orations, informing yet more bemusedrnparents how their sons gave their lives in the service, not just ofrnnarrow nationalism, but of the United Nations.rnMEMO TO INCOMING PRESIDENT: In order to buildrnupon recent achievements in the field of himian rights, why notrnintervene forcefully to defend the human rights of the womenrnof Afghanistan, so cruelly oppressed by religious fanaticism? Itrnwould be a stirring assertion of gender solidarity if the first U.N.rnforces on the groimd were women Rangers or Special Forces,rnand ma’be we could place a woman general in overall command:rnThe news media would adore a Norma Schwarzkopf figure.rnThe intervention itself should be a walkover, since the CIArnassures us tiiat the Afghans are a primitive people, unlikely to offerrnany serious resistance. .. .rnTo use a realK’ unpopular analogy, does anyone remember arnc[uondam superpower called the Soviet Union? Remember,rntoo, the absolute height of its power and influence aroundrn1975-76, after the strategic policy of its American rival lay inrnruins following the fall of Saigon? At that point, the Soviets decidedrnto extend their military power to support communistrnregimes in Africa, Asia, and Central America; in other words, tornproject their moral and political vision across the globe. It wasrnonly a matter of time before one of these quixotic venturesrnturned very, ‘ery bad, and the ensuing Afghan war more or lessrndestroyed the Soviet state. One global empire down—and onernto go?rnI never thought I would say this, but Michael Ignatieff is absolutelyrnright. In the coming months, it is imperative to knowrnwhat presidential candidates think about their “duty to intervene,”rntheir readiness to support the global community, theirrnwillingness to send in the bombers anvwhere across the globe inrnpursuit of truth, justice, and CNN viewers. Wliere I differ fromrnIgnatieff, of course, is in the answer I want to hear. Any candidaternwho supports using the American Armed Forces to supportrnwoolly notions of “human rights” and international law enforcementrnis a public menace, and does not deserve to be takenrnseriouslv. crnA Definitionrnbv Robert BeumrnDemocracy: a mall and parking placernOnce green, where knights and poets had said grace.rnlULY 2000/21rnrnrn