April 08, 2004

HAIL SOVEREIGNTY

To John Pilger, sovereignty is all. Human rights? Evil dictators? Mass murder? All of these, writes Robert Horvath, are mere trifles for Pilger compared to the vital issue of sovereignty -- wonderful, wonderful, sovereignty!

Pilger is right that the leaders of the "coalition of the willing" are guilty of undermining a venerable pillar of the international order. By their disregard for the prerogatives of a genocidal regime, by their support for the proponents of democratic change, they are implying that democratic governance and respect for human rights should be the basic criteria for membership of the international community.

Perhaps the worst offender is British Prime Minister Tony Blair ... Unlike Pilger, Blair understands that state sovereignty, "the principle that has guided more than half a century of international law", has also shielded the perpetrators of more than half a century of state-sponsored mass murder.

John Pilger, great liberator of the oppressed, is on the side of oppressive states. Because of SOVEREIGNTY!, the magical cure-all status that absolves all sins.

Posted by Tim Blair at April 8, 2004 02:51 AM
Comments

So Mr. Pilger agrees with Me that the UN and other transnational institutions have no, and should have no, authority over the US government?

Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds at April 8, 2004 at 03:16 AM

Sure, Gary, stands to reason. Certainly Pilger must also support the US's decision to reject the Kyoto accord as well.

Posted by: Matt in Denver at April 8, 2004 at 03:54 AM

Let's all go hug communists!

Posted by: Dave-26x at April 8, 2004 at 04:26 AM

The sovereignty argument has at least the virtue that it's intellectually consistent, if boneheaded. But it doesn't apply at all to the case of Iraq, which waived its sovereignty when it violated that of Kuwait.

This is one issue the sovereignty advocates shouldn't be allowed to get around: if sovereignty trumps everything else, the worst thing a country can do is violate that of another country. Iraq had unsuccessfully invaded Iran, successfully invaded Kuwait, and was eyeing Saudi Arabia. The UN took action to restore Kuwaiti sovereignty, and imposed conditions upon Iraq to ensure that it could not repeat its violations. Iraq failed to meet those conditions, and therefore waived its sovereignty. It effectively invited the actions of last year. Boo hoo.

Posted by: reg at April 8, 2004 at 05:10 AM

So I guess Pilger was absolutely against any interference in Rwanda when the 800,000 or so Rwandans were being slaughtered by their own countrymen, right? After all, getting invloved in Rwanda would've violated Rwanda's sovereignty.

Posted by: David Crawford at April 8, 2004 at 05:12 AM

I'm sure Pilger opposed violating Indonesia's sovereignty by helping East Timor split off, right?

Posted by: Robert Crawford at April 8, 2004 at 05:52 AM

Iraq did make a foray into Saudi Arabia.

Posted by: Sandy P. at April 8, 2004 at 06:40 AM

No, no, you guys, Iraq invaded Kuwait because Ambassador April Gillespie didn't say Iraq couldn't invade Kuwait. Likewise, Iraq invaded Iran because Don Rumsfeld shook Saddam's hand, or something like that. So, you see, all of the world's sovreignty violations are actually the fault of the US.

Posted by: Dave T. at April 8, 2004 at 06:44 AM

Dave T, well done. I see tenure in your future.

Posted by: Matt in Denver at April 8, 2004 at 07:05 AM

Let's all go hug communists!

Only if I get to exercise my sovereign right to use the industrial press of my choosing.

Posted by: R C Dean at April 8, 2004 at 07:23 AM

The sovereignty argument has at least the virtue that it's intellectually consistent, if boneheaded.

If only Pilger was both intellectually consistent and boneheaded. Instead he applies this bogus argument when it suits him (Iraq), and ignores it when it doesn't (immigration policy, trade policy, Kyoto, East Timor, the list goes on and on).

Posted by: Matt Moore at April 8, 2004 at 07:39 AM

You're right, Matt. What I meant was, if you consistently hold to the position that sovereignty is paramount (and few do), you don't have to bother with arguments about imminent threats, terrorism, African uranium and WMDs. You can just say that a nation's sovereignty should never be violated, and that'd be that. Easy, consistent and boneheaded. Of course, that's not what Pilger's arguing, because then he'd be forced to support the liberation of Kuwait and to oppose that of East Timor.

Why do the idiots make it so easy for us?

Posted by: reg at April 8, 2004 at 08:06 AM

Why do the idiots make it so easy for us?

Ummmmm......because they are idiots?

:-)

Posted by: JeffS at April 8, 2004 at 08:31 AM

You've got to be more careful with this one Tim. It's true that sovereignty isn't so inviolable that it trumps all else - I expect everyone would agree with intervention in Rwanda or Cambodia to prevent the killing fields. But mostly nations should be left to sort out their own destinies, even if what results doesn't fit in with modern liberal notions. Personally, I wouldn't choose to inflict the Western version of "democracy and human rights" on other nations, knowing firsthand from Australia what a disintegrative effect these can have. What we need to aim for in Iraq is a government that can withstand Wahhabi radicalism and achieve political stability and the conditions for a healthy economy. That's all.

Posted by: Mark Richardson at April 8, 2004 at 09:41 AM

Mark - I totally disagree. Democracy ain't perfect, but 'the Western version of "democracy and human rights"' is the best thing we've got.

I don't think that the "disintegrative" effects of democracy (I assume you're referring to Australia's Aborigine issue, I'm not Australian) have any bearing here. No one is colonizing Iraq, no matter how many times Tariq Ali says we are.

Posted by: Matt Moore at April 8, 2004 at 10:49 AM

Mark:

You said "What we need to aim for in Iraq is a government that can withstand Wahhabi radicalism and achieve political stability and the conditions for a healthy economy. That's all."

Unfortunately, any government in Iraq without checks and balances will be unstable, by simple demographics. The three major ethnic groups are the Sunnis, Shi'ite, and Kurds. All hate each other, and that goes back a long way. But they can't stand alone, either, they don't have the numbers.

A Sunni dominated government just got tossed out -- Saddam was Sunni. The Shi'ite hotheads want power because they think it's their turn, something that the Sunni's fear (for good reason I suspect). The Kurds have a problem with both.

The only form of government we know of with checks and balances is a democracy. Like it or not, the people in Iraq need a democracy, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks.

Anything else is a reciepe for disaster. A democracy gives Iraq the chance for a stable future....if they make it work. Ain't nothing certain in this world, except that if you don't try, you will fail.

Posted by: JeffS at April 8, 2004 at 11:36 AM

Go back a bit further. Pilger's initial claim to fame was that he was one of the early identifiers of the Cambodian genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. He deserves applause for that, even if for nothing else he's done since. Pilger was of course supportive of the invasion by Vietnam of the sovereign nation of Cambodia.

Posted by: Stephen Dawson at April 8, 2004 at 12:31 PM

Was Pilger against Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968? Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?

Just curios.

Posted by: Katherine at April 8, 2004 at 01:01 PM

*ah-hem* Katherine, I may be wrong here, but I seem to recall that Pilger has expressed sympathy for the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the past. I should get off my butt and google it, but that would mean I might have to actualy read some more stuff by Pilger, and it's too early in the day for that...

Posted by: Wilbur at April 8, 2004 at 01:08 PM

Matt Moore, we could easily do a lot better than the Western version of democracy and human rights.

Our political tradition has an inbuilt fault that doesn't have to be there. We assume that our very humanity rests on a freedom to choose what we do, and who we are, according to our individual reason and will. Which sounds nice. But it makes illegitimate everything which we don't get to choose individually. This includes anything based on our sex (masculinity or femininity), inherited forms of nationalism (such as ethnic nationalism), objective codes of morality, and stable commitments to family life.

As a result, democracy and human rights are understood to mean a liberation from things which are not only needed to maintain the existence of a society, but which are important for our own sense of self-identity.

Haven't you ever wondered why no European population feels able to protect its own existence through immigration controls, but rather celebrates its own gradual displacement? Or why there is not more concern about the obvious breakdown in family life, with high divorce rates, a casual acceptance of fatherless families, and an ever decreasing commitment to marriage and to parenthood.

I don't say this to attack the West like a leftist, but because our task is not only to stand strongly against our external enemies, but also to realistically assess what the proven weaknesses are of our own political tradition.

Posted by: Mark Richardson at April 8, 2004 at 02:46 PM

Mark Richardson:

You assail the basic assumption of individual liberties because:

As a result, democracy and human rights are understood to mean a liberation from things which are not only needed to maintain the existence of a society, but which are important for our own sense of self-identity.

You say you aren't attacking the "West like a lefty". However, if one subsitutes "the state" for "a society" in the above paragraph, it reads thus:

As a result, democracy and human rights are understood to mean a liberation from things which are not only needed to maintain the existence of the state, but which are important for our own sense of self-identity.

That Marxism. Or Communisim, if you prefer. Sugar coated and approached from another direction, but organic fertilizer wrapped in plastic and sold by the hundredweight is still shit.

You are attacking the west like a lefty.

Posted by: JeffS at April 8, 2004 at 03:03 PM

As a result, democracy and human rights are understood to mean a liberation from things which are not only needed to maintain the existence of a society, but which are important for our own sense of self-identity.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. Society can't exist unless everyone is exactly like everyone else? I can't even be me unless I fail to liberate myself from some sort of groupthink? Ethnic nationalism is a good thing? I can't have a stable family because I'm an individual?

Individual rights do not and will not lead to societal breakdown. What you see as an "inbuilt fault" is the greatest strength of Western civilization.

Posted by: Matt Moore at April 8, 2004 at 03:30 PM

Jeffs, I was not arguing in favour of state power. In fact, I believe that the modern state is too intrusive, and distorts the way a society should operate. So I am no communist.

Nor am I against individual freedom. It's just that you have to be careful how you understand what individual freedom means. We in the West have got it wrong to our own cost.

We think, for instance, that masculinity and femininity are things unchosen by our individual will and reason, and therefore things we have to be liberated from. This despite the fact our sex is an important part of our identity, and an important influence on how we choose to act. Freedom should mean a freedom to live as a man or a woman, not a freedom to overthrow such categories.

And is our national tradition something we should be freed from, something oppressive because we didn't choose it for ourselves, or, as I believe, something we should be free to live within?

There is a particular facet of the Western political tradition which we have got wrong and which we shouldn't proudly export.

Posted by: Mark Richardson at April 8, 2004 at 03:30 PM

"Freedom should mean a freedom to live as a man or a woman, not a freedom to overthrow such categories."

Now that's my brand of freedom, the kind where someone else is free to choose my boundaries.

"And is our national tradition something we should be freed from, something oppressive because we didn't choose it for ourselves, or, as I believe, something we should be free to live within?"

If your national tradition is oppressive, then, yes, you should be able to be free from it.

Posted by: Matt Moore at April 8, 2004 at 03:54 PM

Matt Moore, there's a difference between individuality and individualism.

You can express as much individuality as you like without harming society. But individualism, because of what it's understood to mean, is not so harmless.

For instance, take the issue of the family. If it's believed that individual autonomy is the highest good to aim for, and autonomy is understood to mean an absence of impediments to individual will, then how can there exist stable commitments to family life?

If you believe in this kind of individualism, you will seek to maintain your autonomy either by staying single, or by emphasising "independence" within a marriage, or by insisting on an easy escape when you want to choose another partner.

And Matt, if you don't believe this is true, then how do you explain the loss of family stability in the West? It's not just some future possibility that things might go this way, it's been happening for at least the past 40 years. Rising divorce rates, rising rates of single motherhood, falling marriage rates, falling fertility rates, delayed ages of marriage and parenthood and so on.

How can a society which is unable to even reproduce itself claim to be a faultless model for other countries to adopt? I'm very proudly a Westerner, but I refuse to ignore the reality of what has gone wrong in my own society.

Posted by: Mark Richardson at April 8, 2004 at 04:00 PM

I really don't want argue about divorce rates. Like I said, democracy isn't perfect. But it's going to be a lot better than what Iraq had before.

Posted by: Matt Moore at April 8, 2004 at 04:22 PM

Mark Richardson:

Maybe you aren't a lefty, but you sure talk like one. Defining "individuality" and "individualism", when they have the same root word, to mean different things is splitting hairs, and is most certainly equivocation. I saw you palm that card.

But let's jump to the end of your post:

How can a society which is unable to even reproduce itself claim to be a faultless model for other countries to adopt? I'm very proudly a Westerner, but I refuse to ignore the reality of what has gone wrong in my own society.

First of all, who said this is a faultless model? I once read that democracy is a half-assed approach to government, but it's eighty times better than the closest alternative. I agree with that, and I've not heard anyone here say otherwise. Stick to facts, please.

Second, if you are proud of being a Westerner, why are you blaming it's "downfall" on it's core values? It's one thing to accept and try to fix problems. It's another to change basic values to suit something that sounds less "individualism" and more "individualistic".

And finally....Mark, do you realize how much rationalizing you are indulging in here? You sound like you don't believe this crap yourself, but you sure do enjoy leading us on.

Stop the crap, and talk straight. Or go and dock with Moonbat One for your daily dose of thorzine.

Posted by: JeffS at April 8, 2004 at 04:26 PM

JeffS, whether you like it or not, individuality and individualism are different things. If I choose to wear a panama hat in the main road I might be praised for showing individuality. If I dump my loyal wife in favour of my young secretary I am not showing individuality, but a kind of self-serving individualism.

Secondly, it's no use raising the argument that democracy isn't perfect but it's better than anything else. I've said straight out that I don't think the problem is with democracy.

Thirdly, I don't associate the West with a political principle as such. If the West exists simply as a modern liberal principle, then we'd have to reject most of Western history (and it's not hard to find people who do reject the West prior to the 1960s - see Robert Bosler).

The West for me is a whole interconnected tradition of people, culture, religion, environment, language and history. I can most certainly identify with and defend the West, whilst rejecting a faulty political principle.

And finally, I'm not sure how you figure I'm talking like a lefty, when I am pointing out why we have failed in the West to defend our distinctive national traditions, our family life, our moral codes and our sense of manhood and womanhood.

It is conservative, rather than leftist, to defend such things.

Posted by: Mark Richardson at April 8, 2004 at 07:06 PM

Can I agree with both Matt Moore, JeffS and Mark Richardson? I'll give it a go...

As far as I can see, Mark is right:

We assume that our very humanity rests on a freedom to choose what we do, and who we are, according to our individual reason and will. Which sounds nice. But it makes illegitimate everything which we don't get to choose individually. This includes anything based on our sex (masculinity or femininity), inherited forms of nationalism (such as ethnic nationalism), objective codes of morality, and stable commitments to family life.

A few years ago, when my views were becoming more right-wing, this was on my mind a lot. Our way of life in the West guarantees freedom of choice - but freedom of choice, if uninformed by values, means nothing. Hence the American mantras 'freedom is never free' and 'freedom also brings responsibilities'. It follows that the blanket rejection of our value-system is not really liberating - it is self-destructive.

But Matt and JeffS are also right...

If your national tradition is oppressive, then, yes, you should be able to be free from it.

As far as I can see, things will always get problematic when institutions like the state or the church start trying to tell us what our values should be, and institute measures to defend those values - whether that is through military enforcement, legal strictures, economic controls, or other means. Leave this up to individuals to decide for themselves. (It's for this reason that I've never felt comfortable identifying myself as a 'conservative', because for me, 'conservative' means imposing values on others).

This is all straying very far from the original topic (something about Iraq and sovereignty and Pilger), so I'll finish. Fascinating argument though, guys!

Posted by: TimT at April 8, 2004 at 09:46 PM

Mark sounds like a cross between a doctrinaire (or 'dorm room') libertarian and a straight socialist.

"Matt Moore, we could easily do a lot better than the Western version of democracy and human rights."

Okay, I'm calling you.

First question: Name a NON-western NON-democracy that actually gives a rat's ass about human rights or freedom. Name one that does a better job of protecting either one.

Second question: If western democracy is so inadequate for humans to live under, why is it that all of the coercive socialist states (which is what you are propounding, no matter how you sugar-coat it) are such cruel and inhuman places to live?

Second question followup: If western democracy fails because it doesn't accept your thesis, "Freedom should mean a freedom to live as a man or a woman, not a freedom to overthrow such categories"; why aren't women (or men for that matter) flocking to Saudi Arabia or Iran, where their freedom to live as women is in fact enforced by law and under pain of death?

Dude, western democracy is all about the ability to make choices. Some of those choices WILL be objectively bad (both for the society and for the individual), others WILL be choices that YOU personally disagree with. But, and here's the important thing, any attempt to eliminate the possibility of bad choices will eliminate CHOICE, and therefore freedom.

Posted by: DaveP. at April 9, 2004 at 01:45 AM

Wilbur, thanks.
Why am I not surprised? Pilger's motto seems to be "freedom for me but not for the".

Posted by: Katherine at April 9, 2004 at 08:24 AM

DaveP, I'm not sure how I could be a socialist (use of state power to achieve political ends)and a libertarian (use of state power illegitimate in most circumstances) at the same time. If you click on my name you'll find that I'm neither of these things, but rather a traditionalist conservative.

As to your challenges. The reason people aren't flocking to Saudi Arabia is because there is too harsh and fundamentalist an understanding of gender there. That doesn't mean the only alternative is to celebrate an overturning of gender, as we do in the West. These are two unwelcome extremes. We used to do things better in Western societies when we upheld some ideals of what it meant to be a man or a woman, without imposing excessively rigid rules about covering women with burkas, or keeping women hidden inside the home.

Can't you see the point? It's possible to allow men and women freedom to choose, and to make mistakes, whilst at the same time upholding a kind of cultural ideal of what we admire in masculine behaviour and feminine behaviour.

We no longer do this in the West. We think the very idea of masculinity and femininity is oppressive because it stems from our inherited sex, rather than from something we've created by our own will. We think that we're liberated when we act against manhood and womanhood, when we transcend it.

This leaves us frustrated, not free. Firstly, because we are denying an important part of our own nature, and our own self-identity. And secondly because as heterosexuals we want the opposite sex to be attractively masculine or feminine.(And this is where many Westerners do flee to non-Western countries or cultures, to try to find a suitable spouse).

This is just one example of where a false understanding of freedom is damaging or disintegrative. And no, this doesn't mean rejecting freedom or rejecting the West. It means thinking things through and achieving a better understanding of what true freedom really means.

Posted by: Mark Richardson at April 9, 2004 at 09:25 AM

You know, Richardson, I'd take Western democracy's "unstable families" over the female-oppressing, male-degrading (into female oppressors and in the case of "honor killings," murderers), cousin-marrying, tribal "traditional" family setups they have in much of the Middle East. As for the rest of what you have to say -- you know, I don't think any of us here care about your sex life.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 9, 2004 at 12:46 PM

I don't know where you get any of this from Andrea. I didn't say a word about my sex life and I made clear my opposition to the fundamentalist attitude to women.

And why put unstable family life in inverted commas? What does the divorce rate have to reach before you would accept instability? 60%? 70%? 80%?

And why do you accept only two alternatives, that of Islamic fundamentalism or modern Western radical individualism? There have existed alternatives to these two things, including in the West.

Posted by: Mark Richardson at April 9, 2004 at 06:40 PM

Someone who wanks endlessly about "masculinity and femininity" isn't talking about sex? Well exqueeze me, I guess you were talking about Russian literature instead. Go away Richardson, and take your "third way" with you. Go preach on someone else's blog. You've hijacked this comment thread long enough, whose subject was, if anyone else still remembers, John Pilger and his hypocritical attitudes re: sovereignty.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 10, 2004 at 01:18 AM

Andrea, come on, let Richardson mope and mewl about the fact no babes are waving him in.

I do have to wonder where he is, though: all the women I work with can figure out 6.25% on 13,500,733 dollars in their heads, change their own tires, and build additions on to their own homes--all the while impeccably made-up and wearing stilletto black heels.

Posted by: ushie at April 10, 2004 at 01:39 AM

He can mope and mewl someplace else.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 10, 2004 at 08:48 AM

Operation Provide Bullshit.

Posted by: Miranda Divide at April 10, 2004 at 09:41 AM

RAWK!! Trolls are boring! RAWK!

Posted by: JeffS at April 10, 2004 at 10:13 AM

"Operation Provide Bullshit."

We'll have that made into a little sign and hung over Miranda's cage. Though I think we should change "bullshit" to "birdshit" in the interests of veracity.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at April 11, 2004 at 10:18 AM