StrategyTalk.org

SteveS · Joined: 21 Apr 2002 Posts: 669 Location: Northern VA, USA

The Westphalian system of the supremecy of "national sovereignty"is dead.

The Pope: We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

The President In this young century, our world needs a new definition of security. Our security is not merely found in spheres of influence, or some balance of power. The security of our world is found in the advancing rights of mankind... Defending our ideals is vital, but it is not enough. Our broader mission as U.N. members is to apply these ideals to the great issues of our time.

The Secretary General: 182. Yet the Commission’s capacity to perform its tasks has been increasingly undermined by its declining credibility and professionalism. In particular, States have sought membership of the Commission not to strengthen human rights but toprotect themselves against criticism or to criticize others. As a result, a credibility deficit has developed, which casts a shadow on the reputation of the United Nations system as a whole.

These three world leaders hold deeply divergent views on what the shape of the international system should be, but all three essentially recognize that the non-normative "sovereignty is supreme" basis of the world international system since the Peace of Westphalia is dead.

The Second Gulf War should be understood in terms the end of the Westphalian order. The Westphalian order ended during the period that began with September 11th 2001 and ended on May 1st 2003 with the Second Gulf War. This order most visibly began its demise with the 1999 humanitarian intervention in Kosovo where Seventeenth Century sovereignty clashed with the Twentieth Century popular rights based sovereignty and the emergent Twenty First Century new world civilisation. Currently we are experiencing the post Westphalian paradigm of world disorder. This era is an era of unpredictable flux and stable crises that are beyond the management of states and the current system of order. This era is at a point of instability furthest from its known equilibrium which poses the greatest danger while simultaneously providing a window of opportunity for the greatest change.

The reality is that the world has discarded the concept that all states have equal moral standing. From "outlaw states" like Iraq and Libya to "failed states" like Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, to genocides past and present in places like Rwanda and Darfur, it has become accepted international practice that sovereignty can be set aside for cause. Even Kofi Annan has come to acknowledge that states like Libya or Syria do not belong on the UN Commission on Human Rights..

The thread on the EU constitution features a similar debate - what are the attributes of a "legitimate" member of the EU, and what "fundamental rights" should be enshrined on the EU Constitution?

Whither our new world order? Whatever the outcome, it appears that state sovereignty in the traditional Westphalian sense is dead. How can we avoid the bloodbath of the religious wars that preceded Westphalia while still allowing for some normative basis that shifts legitimacy from nation-states to their citizenry?

Or are we doomed to a new round of religious/cultural wars?

johnwilkins · Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Posts: 4858 Location: West Coast

algreen · Joined: 18 Apr 2002 Posts: 1537

I think the visible transition period started much earlier than 1999. I would place the beginning between late 70-th with revolving door in Kremlin's Politbureau and early 80-th with Carter replacement. Particular personalities were just visible manifestations of a trend shift, of course, and the critical driver was accumulation (and dissimination) of new technological knowledge that many previous structures were unable to accomodate.
And this transition (most likely) will continue for another generation. So, fasten your seat belts.

Cheryl · Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 3932 Location: USA

SteveS -

Nice post. Thanks. You will notice that all three of your quoted sources come at the "death of sovereignty" from different viewpoints, with different outcomes likely, although there is some overlap.

I don't have much time just now, but I want to highlight the same quote that JW did:

Adam_Smith · Joined: 09 May 2005 Posts: 864 Location: New Jersey, USA

SteveS · Joined: 21 Apr 2002 Posts: 669 Location: Northern VA, USA

Good responses.

I used "moral" deliberately as the new focus seems to be upon questions of right and wrong that represent a significant departure from process based conflict resolution (i.e sovereignty). Adam Smith is on-point with his observations that sovereignty is essentially a presumption of innocence - a presumption which appears to be undergoing a stark reassessment.

I recently heard a commentator state that the west could not hope to challenge Islam unless it develops a moral approach to rival it. The Westphalian process-oriented sovereignty system is viewed as the international incarnation of moral relativism to Islamists and to other "values" focused individuals (like the Pope).

There are many different directions that this can go, and I believe that some sort of fairly major ideological re-alignment is coming. I also suspect that the debate over the EU constitution represents a good barometer of where some of the restrictions on the "presumption of innocence" for sovereign states will begin to start falling into place.

johnwilkins · Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Posts: 4858 Location: West Coast

johnwilkins · Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Posts: 4858 Location: West Coast

Cheryl · Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 3932 Location: USA

GeoStrategist · Joined: 29 Mar 2004 Posts: 1309

The concept, or principle of state sovereignty is indeed under attack, with the most vicious attacks coming from those states which treasure their own state sovereignty as inviolable, while seeking to undermine that of their rivals and targets.

I have to say that, recently, the concepts of morality and that of the legitimacy of a state's sovereignty have become ever more closely intertwined - so I don't think we can separate the two concepts - the world around us is not letting us do so. Serbia was a "moral" intervention, and Iraq II was against one member of the "axis of evil".

The idea seems to be that, rather than a presumption of legitimacy of state sovereignty, states are increasingly required to prove or establish the legitimacy of their sovereignty.

But who determines the standard? The most powerful, of course! And this is the track record throughout history, that might makes right. The UN isn't taking the lead in establishing a standard - the U.S. is. The UN is gasping for breath trying (not very successfully) to catch up with the U.S. on this.

Now, the U.S. traditionally has great moral grounds for boasting here and for compelling the rest of the world to align around it as a standard. Its form of democracy, though far from perfect, has done far more to bless the individual than any other, and derives legitimacy for its sovereignty from the highest possible source - from the people themselves, and aligned with the God-given (not state-given) freedoms and rights all persons are entitled to. Much, much moral dimension here.

But since 1999 especially, the U.S. has used less of its enormous moral power (properly, that is) and much more of its raw might to try to compel the rest of the world to align with its interests. This is not an aberration, but is becoming a set-in philosophy in Washington. This damages, in the eyes of the rest of the world at large (and even here at home), the moral power and legitimacy of the American State, undermining its sovereignty.

If by sovereignty we mean the right to rule, as opposed to the raw ability to continue to rule a state, then I think the argument takes on a distinctly anti-Westphalia tone, with states required to prove their legitimacy. And this view of sovereignty is being pushed very hard by the U.S. But prove it to whom?

To the U.S., as GloboCop, able to thrash out of existence any sovereign it deems illigitimate? That cannot work - it's unworkable on a global scale - Iraq proves that.

Then to the UN? Will we establish the UNSC as the agency for determining the legitimacy of state sovereignty?

I ask, how does the U.S. imagine it can work to set up such an agency and remain outside its jurisdiction? Unless it imagines it can dominate the Agency, excepting itself from the repercussions of any undesirable decisions the Agency might make - again, I don't see how it can do so.

But by attacking Westphalia, Washington is arming a gun that might shoot at it not too far down the road.

SteveS · Joined: 21 Apr 2002 Posts: 669 Location: Northern VA, USA

FC Mellon · Joined: 15 Apr 2002 Posts: 4477 Location: SoCal

SteveS asks:

GeoStrategist · Joined: 29 Mar 2004 Posts: 1309

Yes, as SteveS asks and as FC answers, what is the standard to be for legitimacy? I'm very dubious of the chances for getting the world to agree on one.

I'm also very distressed that the best basis for a standard, the U.S. one, has been severely tarnished since 1999. This has hurt the image of American-style democracy very greatly, as Saddam's torture is replaced by American torture, though certainly on a much lesser scale, and the U.S. is perceived as going into Iraq, not so much for the principles we are addressing here in this thread, but for desire of dominance of a crucial, strategic region.

Also, the authoritarian regimes can always point to Iraq II and say the harm and chaos after removal of an "illegitimate" sovereign was much worse than leaving him in place - Iraq is now a haven and springboard for terrorists and terrorism - much worse than before because Saddam liked to blow their heads off - he was afraid of such religiously-motivated wackos and rubbed them out.

So we'll get furious arguments from many sectors if we try to establish an American-like standard - this just hurts me very deeply because we're (globally) likely throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

As America's image has been progressively hurt on the world scene over the last 6 years, it's the basic principles of American-style democracy and legitimacy that have also taken a severe beating - not just the current American State itself. How can this be undone? I don't know.

I'm afraid it will take a global crisis - severe one - to get a standard accepted globally, and then I'm afraid it won't look too much like the American model. Not trying to be a downer here, but just trying to raise the tough issues and obstacles in our way.

SteveS · Joined: 21 Apr 2002 Posts: 669 Location: Northern VA, USA

There isn't likely to be "A Guideline for Nations for all time", and I certainly do not aspire to develop or even suggest one.

I do think that there appears to be a critical mass present to change the assumptions of legitimacy. The Iraq invasion broke open a trend that had been developing for some time. That the US model of legitimacy took a hit was in part due to the mere fact that it broke that cherished mold of legitimacy for all to see. The objection that the rationale was incorrectly developed due to bad intelligence, bad intent, or mind control beams from Michael Moore was an after-the-fact objection. Fact is that the countries opposed were opposed even if the WMD accusations were ultimately true. The most cogent objections of the anti-war block were (and are) rooted in Westphalian notions of the inviolability of sovereign nations and whether the outcome of the war could justify the breaking of the model.

I agree with GS that the US model is unlikely to be adopted - at least in the short run. However, I also doubt that an explicitly moral/religious model ala the Pope or Islam is likely to be adopted either. However, there seems to be an emergent recognition of the importance of individual liberty (defined how?), economic liberty (defined how?) and basic adherence to community standards (defined by who?) as an integral part of determination of legitimacy.

The ST community has been circling this issue for some time - albeit in more ideologically charged and histrionically pitched terms. Look at this sequence of events:

The UN and its peacekeepers failed to act to prevent the genocide of 800,000 Rwandans because of concerns about violating the sovereignty of Rwanda.

Many nations agreed to intervene in Kosovo based on the belief that Yugoslavia/Serbia had forfeited it's right to sovereignty in the midst of a civil war and ethnic cleansing.

The Coalition determined that Saddam's regime was stripped of legitimacy and thus lost its presumption of sovereignty. Many of the natiosn that supported teh Kosovo operation nations disagreed.

Many of the same nations are currently arguing over the legitimacy an subsequent right to sovereignty of the Sudanese government over "ethnic cleansing" in Darfur.

We have had heated dicsussions in the old YourView and here at ST on these topics.
1) There is agreement that there need to be some universal standards of conduct by governments.
2) There is agreement that failure to maintain those standards constitutes grounds for violation of sovereignty.

What is lacking right now is an agreement on what those standards are and what the threshhold for intervention is. Arguably it lies somewhere between genocide and threatening other nations with real or purported WMDs.

Seems to me that we can make some progress on at least identifying the possible standards and grounds into individual rights, political rights, economic rights, and international standards of conduct. Then we can (if we get that far) start to stratify these suggested standards into definite/arguable/definitely not degrees of likelihood.

GeoStrategist · Joined: 29 Mar 2004 Posts: 1309

My honest opinion is that the only way to do this is to follow the American model, at least in the mechanics of it. Here's what I mean:

We have in the U.S. a representative democracy where, in the deliberations in Congress for example, majority (either 2/3 or simple) prevails, and there is no veto in Congress itself. Congress gets to discuss and argue the entire range of matters, including the moral arguments and everything else. But when the vote takes place, it's all over, and the majority prevails.

This is the only conceivable model that has a chance of "working" as respects any global decision-making entity that will someday rule on the legitimacy of regimes.

Let's just say it's the UNSC for discussion purposes. You have to abolish the veto, enlarge the Council to properly represent today's world, and then give it independent funding (Tobin Tax).

Then when an issue comes before the Council, the majority, whether it's set up to be 2/3 or simple, prevails. It has to be a truly democratic UNSC. If that majority says we go into North Korea to take away its sovereignty as a state, then we all do it together, even those who voted "NO!".

But if that majority says "NO!", then we don't go in, and no one state takes it upon itself to go in. Of course, there are a range of options, like levels of sanctions, naval blockade and military invasion. But it has to be done as a global Council, or not at all.

People will object and say we'll get terrible injustices because not all the decisions will be the "right" ones. Yes, ok, but we've already got such injustices coming out our ears and we've got global disorder along with it.

Without international order we've got very little to hang onto, and the U.S. has undermined global order and introduced significant instability by its nearly unilateral attacks on Westphalia, seeking to replace it with a virtual Pax Americana, of sorts.

What about the molotov cocktail provision, where your enemy is about to throw one onto your roof to burn you out? You have the right to act in self-preservation. But the evidence has to be truly compelling, even though there may not be sufficient time to present it properly before you act. Ok, then permit this, but also there must be a post-action review by the UNSC to see if the military action was truly justified, and if not, the penalties must be severe - ranging from the paying of very high economic damages to the possible loss of one's own sovereignty - meaning concerted international punitive sanctions against the transgressor state. The penalty for misuse of the molotov provision has to be severe enough to deter its misuse.

Of course, the world's states are not going to willingly forfeit enough of their national sovereignties to empower such a system - no, not willingly. That's why I think it will take a horrendous crisis to bring about any such development.