thorities in order to integrate political and economic development.rnAlso, it is clear from the context that this happy processrnof forming new multistate leviathans was not merely to be confinedrnto Europe, Canada, or Africa, but that this emerging “federalistrnworld” would include the United States, which (accordingrnto Clinton’s worldview) had just led the way in preventingrn”genocide” in Kosovo. Taking him at his word, he was speakingrnovertly of a United Nations reconfigured with the vast intrusivernregulatory powers of the present-day European Community,rnthat deeply unloved and unlovely octopus currently smotheringrnthe national currencies of the individual nations under its sway.rn(Is that where he sees NAFTA heading?) Thankfully, he didrnnot suggest that the United States might be drawn into a newrnglobal federation “to provide for the common defense, promoternthe general welfare,” and other evocative phrases which wouldrnhave ignited a firestorm in the United States.rnThe most interesting feature of Clinton’s speech was his visionrnof how nations would be induced to accept some kindrnof federalism, namely, through common opposition to “genocide”rnand, by extension, to the glaring misdeeds of other banditrnnations worldwide. The WFA likewise demands a world governmentrn”to adequately address global concerns such as genocide,rnterrorism, and environmental pollution.” hi the 1990’s,rnthe most powerful argument for integrating U.S. policy into arnglobal “federalist” whole was this notion of joint action againstrnthe perceived abuses of small states, action which all too oftenrnwas undertaken almost exclusively by American forces.rnIn this context, the concept of genocide is wonderfully useful,rnnot least because it is so flexible. The word itself is so potentrnthat it is all too likely to score an instant knockdown: Country X,rnwe are told, is committing genocide against its people; therefore,rnwe are intervening militarily. How can you oppose such arnproposition? Criticizing the venture leads to supplementaryrnquestions of the have-you-stopped-beating-your-wife variety:rn”So you support genocide?” Or even sleazier, “So you wouldrnnot have tried to save the Jews from Hitier in 1942?”rnThe problem is that the term “genocide” can be extended almostrnwithout limit. When, in 1994, the Rwandan Hutu triedrnsystematically to eradicate their Tutsi neighbors through largescalernmassacres, that fit the description of genocide by most accounts,rnbut Clinton is evidently not referring to that affair, becausernthe United Nations conspicuously did not intervene orrn”take a more active role” in that unhappy country. He must bernreferring to the Balkans, namely to Kosovo and to the 1995rnevents in Srebrenica, when several thousand Bosnians were allegedlyrnwiped out by Serbian militias. Though the event isrncommonly invoked to justify military intervention in other confrontationsrnworldwide, Srebrenica is best seen as one atrocityrnamong many committed by all sides in the convoluted events ofrnthe Balkan wars of the 90’s, and its use as a prime example ofrngenocide is stark testimony to the devaluation of that word in recentrnpolitical rhetoric.rn”Global federalism” therefore implies international militaryrnaction against sovereign states not in cases of true genocide, butrnin any confrontation in which civilians are being killed and therncorporate news media have decided to demonize one particularrnside. Once that decision has been made, there is literally nornlimit to the possible expansion of the genocide concept: Thinkrnback over the past 30 years or so, and recall how the UnitedrnStates was accused of committing “genocide” in Viehiam; thernIsraelis, in Lebanon; the British, in Northern Ireland; Americanrnpolice, in urban ghettos; and so on, ad nauseam. Remember,rnseveral years back, how the CIA was supposedly using crack cocainernand AIDS to commit genocide of black Americans?rnThere is real genocide—thankfully, very rare indeed in modernrnhistory—and there is the type of rhetorical “genocide” whichrnbasically implies that a given party is doing something to whichrnits enemies wish to give the worst possible stigma.rnClinton’s federalism therefore implies an aggressive and indiscriminaterninterventionism of a sort which is also exemplifiedrnby liberal commentators such as Michael Ignatieff. This pastrnFebruary, Ignatieff published an op-ed in the hlew York Timesrnentitled “The Next President’s Duty to Intervene.” His keyrnpoint was that, with increasing regularity, public attention wasrnbeing drawn to situations worldwide in which very bad thingsrnwere happening: genocide, ethnic cleansing, and human-rightsrnviolations, with Rwanda and Srebrenica offering the starkest recentrnexamples. Any consideration of presidential candidatesrnthus had to begin with the question of which of them would bernmost likely to send in the bombers and the Marines once therndistressing images had started appearing on CNN. Thernbombers would be under appropriately multinational control,rnof course: It’s so much more pleasant for the people of small nationsrnto be massacred by planes with pretty blue U.N. insigniarnthan the boring old red, white, and blue.rnMoreover, this order has to be truly global, not just confinedrnto regions of the world in which the United States has somernkind of historical interest, lest cynics charge that human rightsrnonly matter when the humans in question are rich and white.rnFor Ignatieff, the idea of intervening only to defend Americanrnstrategic or economic interests is a token of moral bankruptcy, arnsign that we would be willing to abandon the Jews or Rwandansrnor Bosnians to their fate: We should be all the more eager tornfight where there is no potential benefit or gain, in a kind ofrnneo-Crusader ethic that seems more appropriate for a Supermanrncomic book than for any practical foreign policy.rnFor “Rambo” Ignatieff, as for Clinton, the new world federalismrnmeans enforcing the whims of the United States and otherrnmajor powers not just by overwhelming militar)’ might but byrna steadily increasing apparatus of international law, manifestedrnin war-crimes trials, international courts, and extraditions ofrn”war criminals” —in other words, of anyone who has made himselfrnobnoxious to U.S. policymakers and media executives. Thernmore states fight side by side, the more they will seek to enforcerncommon standards and concepts of human rights, and thernmore they will realize their common share in a global civilization,rnwhich inevitably will be reflected in common political andrnlegal institutions. Though the memory of NATO military attacksrnon Yugoslavia and other small nations is appallingrnenough, the emerging system of international political crime is,rnif anything, still more frightening. As in the case of genocide,rnwhat are being combated in these settings are not just atrocities,rnbut violations of what American and European elites happen atrna particular moment to view as human rights.rnBut what exactly are those rights? If civilians are being massacredrnby the tens of thousands, most of us would agree that warrncrimes are being committed, that human rights are being violated;rnbut it behooves us to pay attention to developments at therncutting edge of liberal legal thought. Within the last decade,rnfeminist activists have succeeded in vastiy expanding the notionrnof “gender rights,” so that rape and denial of women’s equal statusrnare now presented as on a par wifli actual massacre. Already,rnthe United States has changed its immigration law to permit po-rn20/CHRONICLESrnrnrn