promoting the unwanted, redheaded stepchild that is individual liberty

Posts Tagged ‘national sovereignty’

National Sovereignty vs. the Anglo-American Empire

In foreign policy, liberty and rights, sovereignty on May 16, 2010 at 1:59 am

“Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation.” –Thomas Jefferson

Conspiracy theorists are often berated for warning about the coming “New World Order.” But the global government is not some scheme cooked up by Ron Paul nut jobs. On the contrary, the concept of establishing a “new world order” has been referenced by the likes of George Bush Sr., Henry Kissinger and Barack Obama.

Really, we already have a partial “new world order” — better termed the “Anglo-American Empire.” Basically, the Anglo-American Empire describes the already existing global power structure seated in Western Europe and the United States.

Policy-making think tanks such as the Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission already exercise excessive global sway. And institutions such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, United Nations and International Criminals Court already function/govern at a global level.

Ultimately, the goal of these intuitions is to lessen national sovereignty and further global governance. CFR President Richard Haass has openly advocated to such goals:

State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era.

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker.

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.

But is trading national governance for global governance a wise idea? To be sure, most nations’ governments are corrupt and many oppress their people in one form or another. But would a more centralized, powerful form of government guarantee the “liberty and justice for all”?


National sovereignty and the “right” to go nuclear

In foreign policy, sovereignty, war and peace on March 8, 2010 at 3:33 am

Why is it that the United States so fears a nuclear Iran? Does a nuclear Iran pose a greater threat than that of a nuclear Russia or China?

Referring to the non-proliferation treaty, Egypt’s second president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, once said, “basically they did whatever they wanted to do before the introduction of NPT and then devised it to prevent others from doing what they had themselves been doing before.”

Nasser’s comment is insightful; especially his accusation that the nuclear weapon states designed the NPT to control other states from obtaining that which they already had.

Often, opponents of a nuclear Iran claim the nation to be “unstable” and “radical.” How can the international community trust a rogue nation with such powerful weapons? The answer is the same way in which it trusts the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel.

To be sure, an nuclear Iran is worrisome. Any increase in the destructive potential of nuclear weapons is worrisome. But Iran poses no more of a threat than of its nuclear neighbors. It definitely does not pose a threat equal to that of the dominant world powers of China, Russia and the U.S.

At the heart of the debate over who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons is the issue of national sovereignty. Powerful nations such as the U.S. and Russia should not have authority over smaller nations simply because of their status. 

Iran, like the U.S., is a sovereign nation. It has a “right” to make internal decisions as it sees fit — including the regretful decision to develop nuclear weapons.

Haitian sovereignty vs. U.S. relief effort

In foreign policy, sovereignty on February 2, 2010 at 3:04 am

“Many big powers, they want to use Haiti as an example of what not to do.”

At first glance, the United States’ and international community’s interests in Haiti appear unselfish, even noble. After all, what could global superpowers possibly want in such a poverty-stricken country as Haiti? But a closer examination of the relief effort has some Haitians questioning the intentions of their rescuers.

Patrick Elie, Haiti’s former secretary of state for national defense, shares their concerns.

In a recent interview, Elie commented on the deployment of the now 20,000-plus U.S. troops to the island and their take over of its airports.

“We don’t need soldiers as such. There’s no war here,” Elie said.

The United States has been criticized for turning away aircraft carrying foreign aid from countries such as Mexico. Elie believes the issue to be one of national sovereignty.

“The choice of what lands and what doesn’t land should, you know, the priorities of the flight, should be determined by the Haitians,” he said. “Otherwise it’s a take over.

What might happen is that the need of Haitians are not taken into account but only, either the way a foreign country defines the need of Haiti or try to push its own agenda.”

But what agenda could the United States possibly have for Haiti?

Ronald Charles is a Ph.D. student in Biblical Studies at the Department of Religion, University of Toronto and was a lecturer at Christianville University College in Haiti, where he translated parts of the Bible into Haitian Creole. In a recent interview with The Real News Network, Charles explained what he believes to be America’s interest in the Haiti crisis.

“The reason would be you have a country independent for 206 years now, and from the beginning that was a bad example in the eyes of the big powers of the time,” Charles said. “So when some people would say, ‘Well, look at them after 200 years — more than 200 years of independence, and look at their condition,’ so other people around the world, other people fighting for liberation, for freedom, they might — well, these colonial powers, these big powers, might point Haiti to them. Look, there is no way. Many big powers, they want to use Haiti as an example of what not to do.”

Given the United States’ long history of intervention and occupation of Haiti, Charles’ claim may not be too far off.

Even Haiti’s former president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, told CNN that the United States was responsible for his removal in the 2004 coup d‘etat.

“I was told that to avoid bloodshed I’d better leave,” he said.

And although the White House denied his allegations, the incident spurred eleven members of congress to introduce a bill calling for an investigation of the Bush Administration’s role in the 2004 coup d’etat.

For more info see ‘New Haiti,’ Same Corporate Interests