Wednesday, December 07, 2005

Sovereignty

America, as some well know, is obsessed with the preservation of its sovereignty. The greatest threat imaginable to most Americans (apparently) is that the independent ability of the United States to act in any way it chooses would be curtailed by international commitments. How politics evolved to this position is mostly irrelevant to the likes of me. I'm not a historian, hell, I'm not anything really.

What is of interest, however, is that the national obsession with sovereignty manifests itself in unusual ways. For example, after a decade of negotiation, debate, and consideration, the US finally decided it would have no part in the final version of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The great paranoia about the ICC is that it would allow a foreign court to prosecute American citizens, potentially even the President of the United States. Even the staunchest opponent of the Court, assuming that a polemic could have an "off the record" moment of honesty, would concede that the ICC would never prosecute the US unless the US suddenly became Nazi Germany. The best example of how the ICC would have operated is found in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse story. Lyddie England could have been charged in the ICC of committing war crimes, charges that would have been dismissed when the US initiated it's own domestic proceedings. Which is the whole point of the Court. When nations don't prosecute their own for committing international crimes, the ICC can step in and do the job.

Anyway, this isn't really about the ICC. This is about America's obsession with all things sovereignty. Just the hint that the ICC could erode some element of American independence was enough to trigger a fatalistic backlash against liberal internationalism which, of course, led us to the Neo-Con movement, a movement with political aspirations since the 1970s. Jesse Helms made a living off of selling the fear of declining American sovereignty to the uneducated masses for much of the 90's and the current elite have carried the torch admirably. All of this might be an excellent example of a particular American ethos for respecting sovereignty and independence except for two obvious factors.

First, America, as much as it likes to think and act this way, does not have complete and total independence. There are a myriad of treaties that constrain American action abroad as well as things we just won't do because at some level, allies are important. In this way, the US is constrained by a system of clearly defined rules and regulations spanning every issue in international affairs as well as inhibited from acting freely by the desire to stay friendly with certain countries. A great example of this is the World Trade Organization (WTO). The body of international rules issued forth from the GATT (predecessor to the WTO) and the WTO is vast and requires frequent adjustments to national trade policy to comply. In fact, it could easily be argued that the WTO is the most invasive international commitment that the US is a party to. In sum, the myth that the US is a free and independent actor and the myth that sovereignty is a zero-sum game should be dispelled. The US isn't totally independent and minor inroads of sovereignty don't lead to a slippery slope of world government or any such nonsense that the Helmsites like to rant about.

The other very interesting point, and the reason for this long diatribe, is that while the US apparently covets its sovereignty, it has no such concern for others sovereignty, be they friend or foe. Obviously, Iraq proves the foe part, but until late, it was not starkly apparent that the Neo-Cons have little concern for the sovereignty of our allies. Now, the covers off.

For those of you who missed it, it was reported yesterday that in 2003 the CIA abducted Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, an Egyptian national, off the streets of Milan, whisked him away to Eygpt, and "interrogated" (re: tortured) him. At the same time, the CIA informed the Italian authorities, who already had dude under surveillance, that he had fled to the Balkans. So, apparently, the US doesn't give a damn about fundamental laws of human rights, not to mention procedural laws on extradition or even cooperation with our allies in fighting terrorism. Not only that, we have secret prisons set up in Eastern Europe where we can take "suspects" for indeterminate lengths of time, interrogate them indefinitely, never charge them, and at the end of the day, turn them back out to the public when we decide they're innocent.

Think about it like this: Let's say France rented a warehouse in Des Moines, converted it into a prison, grabbed people off the streets of Miami or Houston, flew them to the secret facility, and interrogated them relentlessly for months without ever informing the US authorities. What's the over/under on how long it would take the US to turn Paris into a parking lot? Six hours? Seven? Seriously, it's times like these when I'm proud to be an American. In fact, I can't help but break out into song:

And I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free.
And I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I'd gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
'Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A.

As Billy said, "America can do better."

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home

Political Favorites
Guilty Pleasures
Sports
Friends
My Global Position