War in Iraq and a world of free riders

The overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq will be good for the entire world. This is not to say that war is the only solution to our conflict with Iraq, but it is hard to argue that a post-Saddam Iraq will be worse off than it is now. If all goes well, the people of Iraq will be free of their dictator, the risk of weapons proliferation will be reduced and the Iraqi people will finally get the benefits of the huge proportion of resources now devoted to the regime. However, outside of the United States and Britain, most nations appear squarely against the conflict. The war is costing America standing in the court of world opinion, causing mass protests and culminating in the promise of a French veto of any Security Council resolution explicitly authorizing war. While the United States treated the blocking of any further resolution as a betrayal by its supposed "allies," it makes perfect sense. If a nation can gain all the benefits of U.S. military action while avoiding all the costs, there is no reason to support the United States on any risky issue. The problem of "free riders" is one of the most serious in international politics, simultaneously threatening to undermine the United States' position as a world leader and destroy the legitimacy of international institutions such as the United Nations.

The area of political theory relevant to this discussion is "hegemonic stability theory," which describes the world when there is only one superpower dictating the course of world events. At the current time, the United States fills the role of superpower and helps promote a stable world order founded on liberal Western ideals. This is accepted by most people as a very positive state of world affairs, and thusly American power is widely based on consent and not on coercion. However, the stability created by the superpower is shared by other nations whether they overtly support the superpower or not, creating our current problem. France, Germany, Russia, and China, our sometimes-allies, have openly and vigorously opposed the war, even though they will gain virtually all of the same benefits as the "coalition" from a successful war in Iraq. All the objecting nations will benefit from greater international stability, economic opportunities in Iraq and a strong show of force against dictators without having to pay a penny to the United States. At the same time, they can prop themselves up as the "moral voice" of the international community and try to set up themselves as an "alternate" choice to U.S. power. If the war goes poorly, they can simply say "we told you so" and further enhance their international standing. Even if these nations are not intentionally free-riding, that is definitely the effect. By not supporting United States on Iraq, these countries win either way.

However, these nations will probably end up losing after all. In the long run, if the United States becomes unwilling (or unable) to promote world stability, all these countries lose at once. Nations who play these types of political games need to ask themselves whether they would really be better off if the United States gave up the role of world leader. It is very easy to criticize, but none of these nations have the willingness or the ability to fill the role the United States plays currently. While the opponents of the war point to the United Nations as the only source of international legitimacy, the actions of France's free-rider "opposition" faction hurt organizations such as the United Nations far more than they hurt the United States. Since the United States has gone to war without U.N. support, the decision of what is supposed to be a "global mediating body" was largely ignored. If the United States is repeatedly embarrassed by free riders such as during the buildup to this conflict, it will simply stop participating in the United Nations altogether. The League of Nations was a complete failure due to a lack of United States participation, and the U.S. is far more prominent in world affairs now than it was after World War I. It is therefore crucial that the free-rider problem be eliminated, or the United Nations will become "obsolete" as many of the hawks in the Bush administration would like it to be.

However, it is not too late. After the war is won, the United Nations must be heavily involved in the rebuilding of Iraq, as well as shouldering the costs of liberating it. Hopefully, the reconstruction of Iraq after the war will make people realize how much better off the country is without Saddam Hussein, and the standing of the United States will be accordingly enhanced. However, these types of problems will likely persist if France, Germany, Russia, and China do not give up their positions as free riders in the international community. If these nations really want to establish a true alternative to American hegemony, they need to do more than just whine from the sidelines. By doing so they hurt America, international stability and ultimately all the people around the world.