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.

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.

But here's the Arab League's response:

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.

"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.

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.

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?

Africa's time-wasters - no comments

Dan at Hii Dunia rates some of Africa's worst leaders...

China in Africa: neo-colonialism? - no comments

My friend Dan runs the blog, Hii Dunia (Kiswahili with Arabic roots meaning ‘this world’), which focusses on issues in International development, global politics and the environment.

In the second part of a series, we see the historic basis of China's relationship with the world, the conflict between their ideological and economic motives for support for African states, and finish with the following quote from Howard French:

"At one time many African countries, whether colonies locked in liberation struggles or fledgling, often non-aligned states viewed China as a progressive ally and counterweight to the west. But those days are gone, and increasingly, China’s involvement in Africa is pure big business."

Hii Dunia gratefully encourages anyone wishing to contribute to the site with original, relevant material.

Sacrilege on Sunday - no comments

Are Republicans good for the world's poor?:

The Republicans have in the past spent more on aid than the Democrats: Todd estimates that, based on past averages, the success of the Democrats in the mid-terms will cost Africa about $800 million.

I think we forget the importance of the evangelical movement in the Republican coalition; and that the churches have continued to press for more aid for the developing world. Furthermore, on trade policy, the Republicans are routinely less protectionist and less mercantilist than the Democrats.

All of which shows that we should not make simplistic assumptions about politics in other countries.

I had a discussion with Tyger, and others, about this on his blog yesterday, but I think it's worth bringing up here as part of a general mission to challenge political stereotypes. I'm interested in whether the above analysis is true or not, not who produced it. If it isn't, let it be refuted, and/or placed in an appropriate context. If it is, well, I think that matters in itself, also because who knows what other issues we might have to look at afresh if we lay down our stereotypes?

Update: Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear. I've now replaced a bit in the last paragraph.