History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Eric Posner, law professor at the University of Chicago, has
a fascinating piece in today's Times about just why the World Court is so ineffectual. The essay is definitely worth a read in its entirety, but for my money the most significant excerpt comes when he talks of the realities of political bias on the court:
Why have countries abandoned the court? The most plausible answer is that they do not trust the judges to rule impartially, but expect them to vote the interests of the states of which they are citizens. Statistics bear out this conjecture. When their home countries are parties to litigation, judges vote in favor of them about 90 percent of the time. When their states are not parties, judges tend
to vote for states that are more like their home states. Judges from wealthy states tend to vote in favor of wealthy states, and judges from poor states tend to vote in favor of poor states. In addition, judges from democracies appear to favor democracies; judges from authoritarian states appear to favor authoritarian states. This is not to say that the judges pay no attention to the law. But there is
no question that politics matter.
And of course the fact that politics matter brings me back to a point that I have often emphasized: the United Nations, in its laudable goal of being inclusive, has erred in attempting to give all nations equal voice, save for those on the Security Council. And yet why should Syria get an equal voice in the United Nations? Syria is a rogue nation that oppresses its own people while sponsoring terrorists who murder others. Why should Canada and Sudan have equal footing in a body of nations? Why does anyone ever have to listen to what the gentleman from Zimbabwe has to say about anything given the nature of Robert Mugabe's wretched regime?
The idea of the United Nations, of a League of Nations, is a fine one. I would not want there to be no international body where states can get together to find commonality, to work toward peace, to reconcile differences, and to coerce those who have strayed from the flock. But I am certain that a body that includes nations that have no business having a say in the conduct of liberal and democratic countries is not the way to go. Being part of an international body ought to be a priviledge nations earn and from which they benefit, and not a right that they use to obstruct and push their own dastardly agendas.
Chris --
You've written a great deal here, and I cannot respond to all of it since a new semester is here and I am teaching again, not to mention catching up on my writing.
Nonetheless, I am unclear why you would talk about any system of law that did not have or would not need a coercive power. every legal system everywhere has relied upon and needed coercive power. This holds for international law as well as for any domestic system oflaw. Coercion does not have to be a bad thing, and indeed coercion can be right. But it needs to rely upon some sort of acknowledgment of the validity of the law, some sens eof, dare I say it, the social contract. I cannot think of any system of law that did not need the state to uphold it, and this is especially the case in democracies in which the state itself keeps the judiciary separate. One need look no further than US civil rights law to see this -- brown v. Board of education did not desegregate any schools. Boynton v. Virginia desegregated very few bus stations. And this lack of enforcement lasted for years in many places. The only way enforcement ever happened was through direct action protest followed by some form of state action, all of which falls under the definition of coercion.
dc
On the "enforcement" of ICJ decisions...once again bears out the problems in the substance...not the law. Also shows that the prejudicial justices are from the P5 states and Security Council...not those states that one would want to claim
...who support the whole "liberal (or democratic) states behave better" philosophy. please note that i do not agree with everything the author states, indeed I disagree with much of it...but the general questions raised are quite intriguing. The link is to the abstract...you have to have Acrobat (who doesnt?) to read the full text
your assessment is spot on about South Africa, and I owuld agree with your last statement about the SYSTEM that international law exists in...but not the assertion that it applies to international law in itself. I think your statement that international law is craven, etc. is fatally flawed since it is the systems that apply the law that are the problems. International law as you seem to be considering it...meaning simply treaty law...I share a huge deal of the complaints you have with it, because it will never be a system that works. Judge W has written a great chapter on the importance of customary law in his recent text on the universalisation of international law. Customary law includes the Martens Clause, the principles of humanity, all human rights law, and most of the humanitarian law principles. The idea that states must ratify or accede to customary law is an absolutely incorrect position, although one very prevalent in US thought today. It has been universally rejected by almost every international and regional court...so again the problem becomes the nation-state and the system, and not the law in and of itself.
Your statement on coercion is a bit disconcerting if only because the only way international law can truly function is if there is a recognition of an authority of the law slimply based on 9its own authority and not the threat of "enforcement" by some higher power...meaning a state or group of states. Now...if the UN was widened to include NGOs and citizens groups as well as corporations and other non-state actors so that it could dictate the ideas of humanity instead of an outdated and almost worthless nation-state sovereign system, then the positivists could be appeased by creating true "humanitarian" intervention policies that would have to be approved as a global body. THe states would be required to donate a certain number of troops to serve under this international peacekeeping force. I am not uncomfortable with this idea. The Art. 51 self defense exception would still be there, so if states suffered a direct attack, they could still defend themselves, and the illegality of the pre-emptive idea would be reaffirmed, as it has been with the illegality of the Iraq War.
In terms of the ICJ, we might be able to have an interesting discussion on the nomination of the justices. The US, for example, blocked Judge W from returning to the Court and being its President solely on its opposition to his dissenting opinion in the Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion (frankly because neither they nor the majority could argue against it). This should not be allowed to happen...the US literally vetoed the nomination! I have a huge problem with the US, UK, Russia, and other P5 members being able to automatically have a seat...and therefore being able to put their lackeys such as Schwebel on the Court. I feel as though a system much like they have here in South Africa would work much better with an international legal commission (it can be regional) that nominates the best of the legal scholars available. We could still ensure that every region is recognized...and there have been many articles written in developing countries about the unfair weight of Anglophone countries on the COurt, as Europe and the US are guaranteed 4-6 of the judges on the COurt automatically because of the automatic seats of the UK, France, US, Russia, and the 2 regional seats. This is a travesty...although I must admit that the UK and France especially have had some very good justices over the years. We are still dealing very much with a colonial system of choosing judges. but again...this will go against the pro-US version of the court that you have been suggesting. I do not suggest that you are unbalanced on purpose...just that your training on the issue has been unfairly influenced by the materials and viewpoints available to you.
By the way...apologies on the crassness...I feel foolish as both an academic and a scholar when i get my pride in my profession and field mixed into these discussions...I am only trying to help educate you guys as you have educated me in so many areas, and sometimes it really does feel as though I am bouncing a rubber ball off a wall.
I do not disagree that there are countries with no business on the Human Rights Commissions, ICJ, etc. i do support the idea of each party to a case at the ICJ having its own ad hoc judge should it desire, however. in addition, the US, Israel, and Russia are three states that I would include in your list of Syria, the PLO, Jordan, Iran, etc, who have no business being on the HRC or ICJ. As I said above, we would be left with the nordic states and some of the island nations were we to take this approach. Australia would be out because of its immigration policies, support of an illegal war in Iraq, treatment of the aboriginies, etc. It becomes once again an ideological exercise without dealing with the core problem...the nation state dominance of the system. What needs to happen is that the system needs to be expanded to include humanity and the nation state sovereign way of thinking...along with the positivistic ideology that accompanies it, needs to be discarded as the outdated and ineffective system that it is. This alone will bring solutions...
Chris --
Welcome back.
You leave a lot to deal with, and I am on the way out now, but wanted to posit something.
The issue here really is not one of international law per se, but rather how it manifests now and what it means. In any discussion of the finer points of international law -- procedure, statutes, precedent, whatever, I would bow to you. But at the end of the day this is really a discussion about the nature of international relations, and many of my arguments are about the way in which nations fit into the larger world. Thus my assertions about Syria are about Syrtia, its history, its behavior, its tendencies, and not about the World Court or UN at all.
My proposals are not there because I loathe the idea of an international body. They are there because I like the idea; I like it vetry much. I think an unchecked lone superpower is not a wholly good thing. But a governingh body that has less and less credibility, and whose member nations take it with a ghrain of thought, ignoring it when convenient, using it when desired, is worse than no international body at all. And of course you and I will likely never agree on the question of authority v. autonomy, of just how much national sovereignty should prevail, and what, ultimately, national sovereignty even means.
I have no idea what the ultimate answer is. But I believe that whatever body emerges ought to be one that represents not all nations but rather that represents all nations that cherish certain values, even if they do not always adhere to those valkues. And it ought to be open to all nations who are willing to change. Thus South Africa in 1985 would be a pariah; South Africa in 1995 would not. This would be because South Africa changed, and in large part because of coercion, because of that partiah status. Some countries might nevber change. If not, then we push, coerce, if need be force them to recognize at least a modicum of civil rights, fundamental freedoms, and such. And we also stop them from certain behaviors. This may be an imperfect conception, but it is a whole lot closer to my idea of international law than what we currently have, which is a feckless, preening, ineffectual, and craven deliberative body.
dc
chris l pettit -
1/5/2005
Was having a bad day...and to see the attacks on a system that is the best available (along with the ICC and the ILC) and is ironically being denigrated by US scholars for problems that the US caused is just disheartening. A good comparison would be like the Nazis deciding that the laws outlawing wars of aggression were useless and should be disregarded simply because the Nazis invaded Poland. And no, I am not kidding, the arguments offered by DC and the others are as absurd.
Oscar...nationalism is existent, as is religiosity, and culturalism. I do not deny that. however, last I checked, our goal as humans was to progress...and nationalistic, cultural and religious biases and fervor are illogical, irrational, and unreasonable positions from which to debate universal hu,man rights and the governing of the international community that necessarily MUST include all nations cultures and creeds. The imposition of certain viewpoints on others is just unacceptable.
I apologise for my frustration. Unfortunately, trying to reason with DC, Mr. Simon, Tootle, and others on this issue is like bouncing a rubber ball against a brick wall...they are so convinced in their ignorances and ideological biases that they just can;t see the light of day. i have stated before that sometimes the only option is to destroy their arguments with a sledgehammer and make them look foolish. It does drive them away and makes them more convinced of their idiocies, but can serve as an example of their fundamentally flawed ideological positions. I can, and did admit to the problems of the ICJ and the ICC...namely the problem of outdated nation-state ideology and self interest, and the domination of a positivistic attitude in the forums of many of the major states (US and UK foremost). Unfortunately, DC and the others cannot submit themselves and their precious sovereignty arguments to UNIVERSAL laws, rights and duties that are inherent in all human cultures and religions...they insist on positivism, Machiavellianism, statism, and might makes right ideology that eliminates all law and simply returns us to he who has the power to oppress makes the rules. This is no future for humanity as a species, and these views simply keep us in the cycle of violence and ignorance in which we currently wallow.
I hope that someday these scholars can wake up out of their doldrums and dare to actually look ahead an make progress in this area. Having been to over 70 countries in the world, and having spent a good deal of time in many of them, I have seen the universalisms, have studied the cultures, religions, and customary legal systems. I have studied and worked under maybe the greatest of all ICJ judges and have intimate knowledge of the workings of the court, as well as both its strengths and weaknesses. What DC and the others do when they make the arguments they have is damage our ability to ever rise out of the idiocy that we find ourselves currently stuck in.
I apologise for the anger in the post, but hope that those who make their arguments without seeing the paucity of them, the miseducation and ignorance inloved, and the damage the arguments do to the hope of ever convincing the world that the time has come to drop the ridiculous habit of putting religion, culture, or nation about the species as a whole. Richard Dawkins, the Dalai Lama, countless evolutionary biologists and philosophers from countless areas have definitively shown the silliness of trying to identify oneself as "black", "white", American, Jewish, etc. i can recommend several books...starting with Dawkins' latest that show that, in the end, there is no such thing as a "self" and that identifying oneself with a social group ultimately creates the "evil" that we feel we need to overcome in the world. William Waldron has a wonderful essay on the topic. The conclusions are impossible to argue against and in no way take away from the individuality of a person.
A relevant part of a holiday message I sent out...
In all the readings that one does in Buddhism or any faith, there is an underlying idea that everyone can be saved or that you can reach people with enough effort or common sense. I think I have realized that this is simply not the case and that it is possible to be happy knowing that one is on the right path and is doing their best to help humanity and promote peace and human rights. I mean, what good is finding the right path if one knows that their will always be vacuous human beings out there who insist on intolerance and the promotion of their self interested hierarchical ideology? If you are constantly trying to help all humans, and someone is constantly trying to help only those who believe in what he/she believes, won’t you always be disappointed? My answer is no. This might be very jaded and I might be getting cynical as I get older, but I think that I can be happy knowing that I have done everything in my power to help people, but know that there will be bigots and pieces of human excrement intent on promoting their individualistic and greedy viewpoints, be they religious, political, or otherwise. I still feel forceful compassion towards the plights of those trampled underfoot by empty religious, political, and ideological excursions, but realize that I have helped to the best of my abilities and that there will always be people who simply don’t understand that they are not the main characters…indeed they are not characters at all, but simply exist because of the fact that other humans and the environment interact with them. I know that I am a wonderful human being who truly cares about the entirety of the human race and not just humans who subscribe to the ideology I believe. I also know that there is no one ideology that is “right” or “better” and that we have to take the good from all ideologies and religions and find those universal values that we all share. I laugh when someone tries to argue that this position is itself an ideology…what, the ideology that includes all others? That works for me I suppose…it is only their reality after all and is dictated by their perception and ideology. To get back to the relationships point…there is no such thing as a soul…such an idea is logically and rationally impossible. “We” are simply products of our relationships with others and our environments. Simple common sense dictates that an independent original entity must exist without relation to any others…if not, it ceases to be an independent entity as it is then dependent on interaction with others to support its existence and shape it. Something cannot be created out of nothing, and even our conceptions are dependent upon relationships and interactions (and no, not just physical ones). Basically, this is the basic doctrine of causality in a nutshell. Therefore, one cannot do something negative in the world without that negativity coming back to them in some way, shape or form. This is the essence of karma. It is not the fact that you did something bad, so something bad will happen to you as a result of your bad deed. This idea is silly. What it means is that your negative action is a relationship not only with the person that you affect directly, but also with the environment and everyone who deals with that person or knows about the situation. Think the interaction of ripples on a pond. Each ripple affects every other one, and necessarily changes that ripple. The only way to stop the negative ripples is to act in a positive manner. This is why the actions of the US, Russia, al Qaeda, and other violent self interested entities will only result in more violence and negativity. These people just don’t get it. They are part of the problem, not the solution…as are any of us who support such idiotic positions. Opposition to gay marriage, approval of the restricting of rights of Muslims, restrictive ID cards, opposition to the idea of global warming and climate control, the denial of HIV/AIDS and the effectiveness of anti-retrovirals (here in South Africa)…any such silly and morally offensive positions are also part of the same problem. To quote a Buddhist verse: “When ‘self’ occurs, so too the thought of ‘other.’ From ‘self and other’ both, attachment and aversion come. These two combined are the source of every ill.”
This is not to say that I am absolutely right and that the ideas that I convey are infallible…they most certainly are not, and I constantly reassess my life, ideas and actions to try and correct or improve flaws in my own life and philosophy. I do know that many if not most of you…or at least most of the people I deal with do not undergo such exercises because they are so confident of the “rightness” of their positions. They have a set view and accumulate knowledge to either fit into that view or support that view and try their darndest to either refute opposing viewpoints or spin them to fit their position. You see this every day from the US government…any government for that matter…and most individuals. Rationalization is a large part of many lives. It should be the other way around…the accumulation of knowledge should result in a constant questioning and re-examining of ones reality and stream of consciousness. As I have become more world aware, it has actually resulted in a greater ability to recognize some of the flaws and erroneous assumptions that belie the positions of others. Many times they are views that I once held and have found to be ridiculously flawed. This is not limited to those views I oppose, but also views that I support and am in concert with. There is always room for improvement and progress in every idea. I read a brilliant essay recently that compares the path to enlightenment to a series of waterways…when one starts, each thought forms part of a huge cascade of a waterfall, effecting every part of our lives and interactions. Slowly, as we realize that we are not main characters and can become enlightened, and that waterfall turns into a river of rapids…slightly less violent but still “busy.” We then become like a babbling brook until finally we reach the point that we are a pond. The pond is a great metaphor because you can imagine the ripples across the surface…these are thoughts and relationships that affect us on the surface (like feeling forceful compassion for the plight of others and humanity due to the intolerance of religion, politics, etc) but do not affect our deep natured sense of peace and happiness that lets us know that we are on the right path. I guess the goal is for that pond to become an ocean…then the Marianas Trench. I am thinking I have maybe reached the point of a puddle…mostly ripples, but every once in a while something happens that is like someone stamping in a puddle and dispersing it all over the place…something negative that I have to work on. I think it is a good thing when you can be confident that the path you follow towards peace and human rights is a right one (note that I did not say “the” right one since every path is different), and know that the intolerances and ignorance of others will not affect your sense of peace and happiness, even as you are seeking to rid the world of, or at least combat these mistaken (the religious of us would call them “evil”) ideologies and actions. I need to note that this is very different from the blind faith affliction that causes religious individuals to be confident of their “paths” and that theirs is the right faith and ideology. This confidence is based in constant self re-examination and submission to the same sort of empirical tests that are utilized by the sciences. Logic and rationality play a huge role, and evidence or proof is required to be certain of a point or position. Blind faith in what is a logical and rational impossibility (such as the existence of a god or a soul) is not the same and is not acknowledged as any great thing in Buddhist philosophy, although it is tolerated as long as it is used to further peace and human rights. Blind faith is different for everyone because of the fact that we are all different beings dealing with different relationships, environments and interactions. This necessarily dictates that blind faith in ones god is just that…ones god…no one else has the same god because no one has the same existence or reality that you do. Ones personal perception plays very heavily when things cannot be empirically demonstrated through logic or rationality. Buddhist philosophy actually recognizes this, which is why it is so tolerant and flexible (if utilized properly…not like those individualistic and selfish morons over in Sri Lanka are utilizing it…for hatred and personal advancement at the expense of others). So my statement about confidence in a “right path” is entirely different that any one based in blind faith…I can actually demonstrate mine without having to call upon an invisible man or woman talking to people on mountains. I do not seek to denigrate any faith…just pointing out a major difference (and what I see as a flaw in religions). To quote another text: “You must respect the means of personal transformation that suit best other people’s natures or dispositions. There are many different ways of thinking about god. There seems to be a way of looking at god not so much in terms of a personal deity but rather a ground of being. [Chris: very few Americans I know think this way] But neither should we make an amalgam of all forms of religion, spirituality, science, humanism or agnosticism. That isn’t the aim of tolerance. Metaphysical positions must be clearly expressed. There is no reason to be ambiguous about them. If they are wrong, then let’s prove it. [Chris: positions based on blind faith are not provable, nor are they in any way truly universal or shared even by two people identically…this can be proven…so don’t advocate positions based in blind faith is the lesson here] Buddhism is quite prepared to admit its own mistakes, if they can be proven to be so. Intolerance consists in being so sure of the truth that you want to impose it on everyone else by persuasion or even by force.” Gee, this sounds familiar doesn’t it? How about the US crusades all over the world, imposition by force its economic ideology, the imposition by force and persuasion inhuman ideas such as the banning of gay marriage among others? Greed and selfish individualism fall into the same category when we are constantly bombarded and fall victim to the ideas of the value of money, looking into the future constantly, and caring only about ones immediate surroundings and individual lives.
Anyway...nationalism, culturalism and religiosity do exist and most definitely have their place in the world on a micro level. but they are INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS...not to be imposed on others as the "best way" of doing things. THey are not to be used on an international level to promote self interest. They are not to be used to dictate one sidedly the universal interests of all of humanity. One must identify oneself as a human before subdividing into categories based on enviroment (both social and physical) and cultural upbringing. DC and others still have not grasped that concept and, at the moment, are still babes wandering aimlessly through a darkened forest grasping at poisonous snakes or landmines that will only worsen the situation. The sooner they wake up and educate themselves, the better.
I have considerable respect for your goal, which is a system of international justice to which all nations, including the United States, are subject. It is a desire of mine, too. But your comment has three problems.
1. Nationalism. In your dislike of the nation-state and its impact, you sometimes seem to suggest that nationalism is this imaginary thing. Yet it is as real as any social construct, and, given its basis in local and regional practices and traditions, it is probably more solid than most. An international judciary needs to incorporate it effectively and not repudiate it.
Perhaps the inclusion of judges from the countries involved in the case is an attempt to do so. However, this mechanism underscores another problem that Derek mentions, which is the lack of common judicial values.
2. Common judicial values. The United States' opposition to an order to which it is subservient is a real impediment to a better order. (Hell, we can't even lower our flag at the Olympics.) The world would be a better place if we elected governments that wanted to build such a thing. However, part of that opposition is based upon the serious concern that Derek bring up, that there is not much of a common sense of justice uniting, say, Syria and Canada. Judges who come from dictatorships, even if they aspire to something better, can be placed under considerable pressure by their government, it if wants a certain outcome.
Here again, I think constructive involvement would be a lot better. In fact, an international judiciary might strengthen independent tendencies in those dictatorships that give their judges some wiggle room. But to get the United States to change course, the supporters of a stronger international order need to address reasonable concerns. That leads me to . . .
3. Supporters of a stronger international order have to win over a lot of people to change the course of the United States. When you give in to your anger and sarcasm, you don't win anything.
Now, that's easy for me to say. I have not walked 1.6 kilometers in your mocassins, and from what little I know of you life, you've given up a lot and worked very hard for you beliefs. Maybe if I had done the same, I would need to blow off steam, too. In fact, when I have given into my own anger and ranted on occasion, it didn't work for me either.
You don't know where and when your serious arguments will bear fruit. So stick to them; you make good ones when you treat your correspondents with good will--no matter how angry you might feel.
Derek Charles Catsam -
1/4/2005
Chris --
Cut the patronizing crap. I am tired of it. You have not earned the right to talk about "my ignorance" because, frankly, you are wrong. And you'll notice that my piece stems from the work of a respected international law expert at the University of Chicago. And if I am certain you have not earned the right to call me ignorant about these things I say that are true, I am damned well certain that you have not earned the right to do that to him. No matter your blathering about positivism.
If you really think that Syria and Zimbabwe are not despotic, and if you think that my analisis is that far off, how about explaining why instead of trying to play a sunstanceless credentials game? I stand by my assertions, largely because they are right, but partly because for all of your tsk tsking, you have not actually said anything to change my opinion -- nor, I would surmise, the opinion of a number of people who have commented on my post who seem largely to have agreed with me and who do not need to back down from the mighty and all-knowing Chris Petit.
So to answer your question of whether you should even "bother" -- most of us do not care. But several very smart people have contributed here, and I would dare say that I am not the only one who finds your self-important posturing and condescending claptrap more than a bit bothersome. I say it again -- you have not earned the right to slough me off; You have not earned the right to slough off my readers; and while I do not share your omniscience, I daresay that you have not earned the right to slough of Posner. Engage if you want. But have the courtesy of being coherent and respectful of people many whom I'd say are your scholarly superiors.
dc
chris l pettit -
1/4/2005
For the most part, I will leave you wallowing in your ignorance except to suggest one small point...
Maybe you ought to consider the paucity of the nation-state system in all of this instead of applying your own prejudiced ideology as to what states are or are not despotic. For if we followed your standards, the Nordic states and maybe a couple of others would be the only members of the UN. Surely you would not include the US in any group of human rights commissions?
By the way...Posner is one of those positivists seeking to denigrate the international system in deference to a legal positivistic idea of state power. if you read his text on international law, you can see that his foundations in the subject are disgracefully inadequate and that he makes up for them using Austinian and Hartian philosophy...both ill suited to any sort of international legal analysis. I would not take him very seriously if I were you. I would be happy to suggest some much better legal scholarship...Anthony D'Amato at Northwestern for example, if you want some true insight. Try Theodor Meron at NYU for true genius...as well as Michael Byers...formerly of Duke and now at the University of British Columbia.
If you actually care to look at ICJ decisions, you will also find that Posner;s analysis holds no water unless it is applied to a) pro-P5 judges, particularly those of the US, UK and former Soviet Union and b) ad hoc judges, of which every nation party to a dispute is allowed to have. Posner's analysis is an insult to the ICJ and belies his lack of scholarly knowlege in the area. his faulty conclusions are equally as disgraceful. The disregarding of the ICJ and its decisions are no less than a disrespecting of the authority of international law and the UN system for nationalistic, self interested reason. It has little or nothing to do with the impartiality of the justices, as most are the foremost legal scholars and impartial professionals from their assorted nations and regions, and Posner;s argument applies mostly for the wastes of judicial air such as former judge Schwebel who truly was nothing more than the mouthpiece of US imperialism and prejudice on the Court. The same can be said for Higgens and several others.
Sorry to say this DC, but you are totally unqualified and miseducated to have any sort of credible opinion on the issue, and I will leave you to your little fantasies and silliness without trying to educate you too much futher except to say that you are way out in left field on this one.
Maybe I'm just in a rotten and cynical mood, but does anyone here really think that any American administration over the past fifty years would have willingly worked to create such an organization? One that is worldwide and truly composed of democracies?
Outside of Europe, there has been no administration that has not found the power of some set of dictatorships to be either too convenient, or too great, to deny it recognition at the highest levels.
Let me put it this way, if such a new organization arises, isn't China going to be a member no matter how many brave strikers they slaughter or magnificent dissidents they imprison? Our corporate interest in them is too great, and we need them more than any democratic nation to deal with the nuclear threat of North Korea.
Besides we have an American populace now that tolerates torture--unless it's on the evening news, and values low prices over the rights of any oppressed people. That's the cost of adding fear to self-centeredness. So long as the War on Terror continues, I fear there will be no groundswell for democracy unless it's clearly subservient to us.
Lawrence Brooks Hughes -
1/2/2005
Fortunately, a national consensus is forming about this very rapidly, and I suspect majority support in Congress will not be far behind. (Right now they're paying lip service to the old cliches, and watching the polls closely, but they know the natives here are restless). The bust-up of the liberal media has helped enormously, and the truth about the current kleptocracy on the East River is spreading fast... I think a new organization should be called something like "United Willing Nations," (UWN?), and voting members should be required to contribute troops to peacekeeping forces and to practice some type of government by plebisite. They could use the present Rockefeller/UN building, but throw out all the dictatorships, which would include most of the present members, stopping all subsidies to them for any purpose. The latter could have a sort of non-member, non-voting status, with earphones and cubbyholes, but only if they paid for their own travel, hotels and meals. After all, if you represent a billion or two people in China, say, even though they are in bondage, you should be allowed to talk.
Ralph E. Luker -
1/1/2005
Well said, Derek. I suppose that the difference in our positions is that I sat too long at the feet of Reinhold Niebuhr who convinced me that the very moment of our conviction of both our superiority (that is, our capacity to enforce our authority) and our righteousness (our moral authority) is the very moment that we are most dangerous to other people and to ourselves.
E. Simon -
12/31/2004
You too, and thanks for the compliments (I find this very flattering) as well as for the great year I've had thinking about all the ideas you've brought up, as well as for the articulate perspectives and arguments you've provided. Your style especially - but not alone - I find very impressive.
Myself, I just made reservations for me and my girlfriend at a nearby Thai restaurant and we've got plenty more planned until the wee hours of the "night" (or morning?), so I hope you'll forgive me if I wait until the 1st to look over the nuts and bolts of what you've stated about the possible relationships between military structures with perhaps stronger political mechanisms. Enjoy the departure of 2004 and here's to an even better 2005!
-ES
Derek Charles Catsam -
12/31/2004
ASs usual, Mr. Simon, you bring much to the discussion. In all honesty, I almsot wonder if I am not thinking of something that already exists, albeit more political and less military -- that would be something veery much along the lines of NATO, but without the sense of geography. NATO (newly named) might be the military component with a political "house" that deals with some of what the UN is supposed to deal with now.
Jeez, between you and Ralph I'm actually having to think about this in some detail -- and on New Year's Eve!
On that note -- have a happy and healthy, and tonight especially, a safe one.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
12/31/2004
Ralph --
I do think you hit the nail on the head with an obvious shortcoming in my (brief) analysis, which is that even if one does not saupport relativism it is likely that the number of "acceptable" nations would dwindle pretty quickly, I guess I;d support an Occum's razor approach -- if it is pretty obvious that a country is a tyrranny, it probably is. And of course I know I'll get grief for this from all sides, but of course the presupposition is that we would lead this new world order (ahem) and thus would have a pretty solid say in what it means to be acceptable. I know the problems wityh this, but I also am more than willing to say that among the world's nations, we certainly are at the forefront on issues of human rights and democracy whatever our shortcomings (which I also acknowledge). Obvioiusly I'm spitballing here a little bit, but I have no problem saying that the United States, on issues of justice, human rights, liberalism, freedom, liberty, democracy, what have you, is simply better than China, Sudan, Syria, and the list goes on. But yes, obviously the issue of exclusion would prove ultimately problematic, though not irreconcilable.
dc
Ralph E. Luker -
12/31/2004
I find this discussion very interesting in historical perspective. For many years, the United States blocked the admission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations -- and for many of the same reasons that are outlined here about why oppressive regimes should not have any influence over or, even, a voice on a par with the voices of liberal democracies. As a young man, I was tossed out of more than one establishment for disagreeing with the United States's position, only to have that noted radical, Richard Nixon, reverse the United States's position. I might add that no one on the Right seemed to see any reason why white supremacist South Africa ought not have a voice on equal footing with the liberal democracies of the world. Unfortunately, once you start drawing distinctions among the regimes of the world about who is qualified and who is not qualified to sit at the table, it is very likely that someone will see a mote in your own eye that you hadn't quite noticed. Shall nations that embrace the death penalty be barred from the table for that reason? Many liberal democracies believe that any nation that embraces it so enthusiastically as the United States does is surely ruled by a barbaric regime.
E. Simon -
12/31/2004
I wish these sentiments were more commonly explored among other such influential circles. Needless to say (hopefully) I'm in agreement with both. As far as pragmatism and progress go, I don't see military alliance-building as the primary driving force. Too many divergent interests and philosophies among the greater military powers of today and tomorrow. Too little a likelihood of major conflict on the scale of that seen during the great wars that prompted such grandiose alliances. More likely that robust legal structures will seem less necessary as regions (such as Africa, S. America, Europe, etc?) integrate into their own legally viable political unions and federations. Look to economic liberalization to drive more cohesive international legal structures, even if just around that narrow definition. Westerners are less likely to bitch about economic prosperity abroad as being a culturally-specific "privilege" than they are, quite strangely, about authoritarianism - [snarky sarcasm here not entirely unintentional]. Some of these same types will continue to ineffectually complain about the WTO until its importance and ubiquity globally are too strong to shrug off. Whether or not the widespread political liberalization that I would assume each of us hope for comes about as a result, is a bit harder to say, as evidenced by the economic progress we continue to witness - despite its obstinate authoritarian conservatism - in a regime such as the PRC. But the effect on smaller nations should be more likely, and more commonly realized due to their number. This is important to us, seeing as how the regimes we find not only the least stable but the most hostile to human rights and the global order as we would define it, are generally much smaller than China.
Derek Charles Catsam -
12/30/2004
Steve --
I think you are right, and that is one of the things missing from the current idological state of things -- good old fashioned pragmatism. Sometimes unilateralism is good, necessary, and the only right thing to do. Sometimes it is bad, will exacerbate things, and is the very worst thing to do. And most people would recognize this. But because here and now Bush pursues "unilateralism" (yes, scare quotes intended, all of the normally right-thinking liberals are up in arms about the idea of unilateralism even though most would have argued for unilateral action against Rwanda. Conservatives are appalled by the idea of coalition building even though conservatives have traditionally worked with trusted allies. It's all so very shortsighted. I am not sure there is really such thing as liberal or conservative foreign policy, at least in the American context. Or put it this way, the more ideologically driven the foreign policy, the more I'll lay odds that it will fail.
dc
Stephen Tootle -
12/30/2004
Not much to disagree with here. I think most Americans would concur. I would like to see some kind of major reform of the UN, or an alternate organization of democratic countries and major powers. I also like the idea of sometimes working unilaterally, other times with friends, for certain goals.
