Death to 'sovereignty' - 3 comments
Arab nations 'agree Sudan action', is BBC's upbeat message.
ICC chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo has asked the court for a warrant for [Sudan President] Mr Bashir on suspicion of masterminding crimes against humanity in the troubled Darfur region.But here's the Arab League's response:
Mr Moreno-Ocampo accused Mr Bashir of running a campaign of genocide that killed 35,000 people outright, at least another 100,000 through a "slow death" and forced 2.5 million to flee their homes in Darfur.
In a joint resolution issued at the end of the meeting, foreign ministers of the 22-nation Arab League said the ICC move was not acceptable and undermined Sudan's sovereignty.Screw solidarity, and screw sovereignty. What I look forward to is a world where the level of power one exerts over a population is proportionate to the level of punishment due to that person when the population suffers at their hand, or due to their neglect. A world where politicians (almost literally) live in fear of their people, not vice versa; and where sovereignty is invested in populations, not in greedy, corrupt, murderous, propaganda-wielding regimes.
"The council decides solidarity with the Republic of Sudan in confronting schemes that undermine its sovereignty, unity and stability and their non-acceptance of the unbalanced, not objective position of the prosecutor general of the Internal Criminal Court," the resolution said.
I'm not condemning patriotism, or suggesting that 'national identity' is on the wane, just that the price people pay for their state operating a distinct set of political values, for politicians who look and sound like them, and for restrictions on their moving from one state to another, varies from the merely expensive at one end to impoverishing and brutalising at the other. State sovereignty is simply too high a price for people to pay, even if they did have a choice.
So I propose powerful international institutions that have precedence and authority over all national governments, that adhere to universal values, offer universal human rights, and which are prepared to use all means at their disposal - those of their member (ex-?) states, and the international corporations present within them - to overwhelm and subsume those states that defend their own rights over their people (a bit 'Things to Come', I know).
Far-fetched, perhaps, but is it any less plausible than the establishment of the alternative economic system that socialists look forward to?
So who's with me? Clearly not the Eurosceptics - that is to say, the bulk of the Conservative Party; not the kind of people who think democratising, say, Cuba is dangerous lest it become 'westernised' / a friend of the USA; and we can probably also exclude those who cite the 'homogeneity' of global capitalism. What would that leave: perhaps a couple of people out of a hundred?
Labels: africa, corruption, justice, politics, sovereignty
![[Valid Atom]](http://www.bloggers4labour.org/images/valid-atom.png "Validate my Atom feed")
3 comments so far...
I can't agree with your premise. Well, not without feeling a bit hypocritical:
"Screw solidarity, and screw sovereignty. What I look forward to is a world where the level of power one exerts over a population is proportionate to the level of punishment due to that person when the population suffers at their hand, or due to their neglect. A world where politicians (almost literally) live in fear of their people, not vice versa; and where sovereignty is invested in populations, not in greedy, corrupt, murderous, propaganda-wielding regimes."
This could easily apply to one of our own governments. Seeing as this one in particular has launched wars which international bodies have found to be illegal, what stops them hauling off TB?
Aren't we being relativistic? When we have wars which the British polity are willing to accept, no court has the right to impede a will democratically expressed (despite the democracy denied to every person under US/UK bombs?)-yet when similar human rights are denied by (usually third world) governments with whom we are not chummy, we have a different attitude... and then there is the question of our convenient relationship with the Saudis etc.
It would be nice to see your idealist principles applied, but in the application, I guarantee that self preservation will be order of the day for all parties involved, insofar as the rules allow. Just like the UN, then.
It would be foolish to allow ourselves to believe that the bullets fired by our leaders are virtuous and true in origin, and will ever be so, while those fired by popularly elected mass murderers in former colonial states are clearly admitted to be often quite the opposite.
I do agree though that reform is key.
I think we need to come up with international institutions capable of internationalising the idea of 'continuing democratic rights', within which the narrower agendas of both economic and 'human' rights must fall within. I think that the democratic will of the majority in any given area must be the priority, as long as this remains within the constraints of legal and enabled public enfranchisement for all citizens.
Beyond that is where intervention and a responsibility to protect starts to play a part.
Particularly with regards to the economy, we need to make capital flight a non-excuse for failing to contribute. That too will require international and social-democratic responses.
I don't see why sovereignty is bad. Without sovereignty having been there, most of the world would continue to be raped by imperialist coercion and expropriation... without sovereignty, we would have no free South Africa. There would be no Israel.
However, we now have a situation where, for many states at least, sovereignty is no longer necessary for advancement. But then, I would say that this is more true of more economically advanced states.
In other words, people must be sovereign, but in some places, the best way they can do that is still by defending local control and identity; though I expect this to gradually shift.
To be honest, I'm not interested in any laws that don't enshrine the principles we (as internationalist liberal-types) really care about, like toppling dictators and rescuing populations. There's nothing 'British' or 'Western' about those principles - what really shook things up was that for a few years they were actually put into practice. The need to get rid of Saddam was clear enough to everyone, and this appeal to 'legality' is a really feeble fig-leaf for those who justify inaction.
Anyway, clearly mine is an idealistic proposal, but it's a fair and impartial one, and I think it ought to appeal to people who are serious about human rights.
I'm suggesting that governments and state actors (bureaucrats, the military, etc.) cannot be trusted to have free rein over populations. We have, above all, to stop national governments acting with impunity. The (if you like) World Government establishes the universal human rights that accrue to all, and it must either have the right - or, simply, the power - to overthrow any national institution that breaches them, whatever democratic mandate there may be for those breaches (yes, that's a controversial one).
I don't quite understand your defence of sovereignty. It wasn't statehood that ended minority rule in South Africa, it was the moral bankruptcy of apartheid, international pressure, plus far-sighted politicians and other figures. Apartheid would not be allowed under the institutions I'm talking about (easy to say, I know), likewise arbitrary invasions or occupations.
I think the foundation of a strong Israeli state has helped ensure the safety of Jews, but without strong international support it could still be annihilated. The proposed international institution could not allow the current Iranian regime (to name just one) to continue in power, and this in itself would do more for Israel than mere statehood.
In other words, people must be sovereign, but in some places, the best way they can do that is still by defending local control and identity...
Yes, perhaps, but the more local the better.
Post a Comment
<< Home