New Thinking on Sovereignty

I recently reported on a talk by Allan Gottlieb, which he said the U.S. under Bush is proceeding as though the very assumptions of the UN, including the unbreachable sovereignty of member states, are questioned or set aside.

The sovereignty of each nation-state has been considered the keystone of the international system. What happens inside a country is basically that country's business. The international convention on genocide probably doesn't even speak of another country's or group of countries right to stop genocide. At most there is a mechanism to appeal to the Security Council (subject to veto), and then if everything goes well, intervene, but only if the genocide in one country somehow threatens the peace of other countries. Genocide in itself isn't a problem that "needs" to be solved, as Darfur is demonstrating.

Bush has obviously proceeded in Iraq as though this no longer applies, and there may be more or less secret activities in other countries that demonstrate a new approach. Probably no country believed more fervently in the UN in 1945 than the United States--at least, no country has paid more to support the organization. Many Americans including Eisenhower were eager to embrace lasting treaties and diplomacy rather than war. Obviously they couldn't retreat all the way to pre-war isolationism, but they could "do business" with terrible regimes.

Bush wants as many terrible regimes as possible to give way to liberty--although the main reason he gives for this is that it will make the world safer for the United States.

Gottlieb seems to have said that while the U.S. is not necessarily going to respect the sovereignty of others--that is, if the regime is sufficiently tyrannical, terroristic, and/or simply not supporting U.S. interests--it has reverted to a kind of 19th century view of its own near-absolute sovereignty as a nation state. The more fully a country has achieved liberty and/or consistent defence of U.S. interests, the more it is seen to have and deserve sovereignty.

There is a kind of mixture of anger, fear, concern for justice and a Spartan ability to put it all together, but it might actually make a huge difference to the world. I told my class a few weeks ago that people forget major changes in the world are possible. The fall of the Iron Curtain meant the end of the Cold War. Maybe Bush will bring about similar changes, and on a similar scale. If so, there will be changes not only in the situation of this or that country, but in "our" thinking.

Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:51 am MST by robertll | Email Article |

Return to Main Page

New Thinking on Sovereignty