If you have friends you don’t need enemies. In international affairs this translates to conflicting agendas among friendly states where the powerful deserts its friends when they are no longer useful. Promises of enduring friendship are made, treaties are signed, aid and trade promised, then a new dynamic is courted.
This is called the Realist paradigm, which sees the suspension of all ethical rules and norms, is just in the pursuit of maximum benefit to the state’s greater good. Of course the greater good is a subjective concept defined by the state’s bureaucracy with the maximum benefit falling to its own self-interest. Businesses, governments and individuals express this as, “What is good for me is good for everyone.”
The greater the power the greater the betrayal is a foreign policy norm. Modern history is full of examples. Start with Hitler at Munich again with the Soviet Union, the Soviets and Finland, Britain and the French Fleet. The latter could be termed kicking a friend while he is down, which was followed by the French abandonment of post war NATO. Twice the United States put self interest ahead of the NATO alliance it created, with the unilateral diversion of committed forces to support its war in Vietnam and again to support its interest in the Middle East. NATO allies were livid and now the U.S. is forced to beg NATO to pull its chestnuts from the fires of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States has a long history of treaty abrogation, just ask the American Indians or CENTO (aka METO) and SEATO states. (The U.S. is again trying to get the once abandoned southeast Asian states to sign on to new treaty promises.) Torn between two treaty obligation, the U.S. abandoned one friend to side with another in the Falkland war. Taiwan has strong views on the value of American friendship, as does Pakistan. Early in this century at the height of another Pakistan/India border dispute the U.S. deserted its traditional Pakistani friend for India. Then the events of post 911 forced America, hat in hand, to seek Pakistan’s help, who now demanded up front support over broken American promises.
That’s policy level, at the human level Americans are also distrusted. From the African proxy wars of the 50s and 60s people who sided with the U.S. were left to the mercies of their enemies. Philippine soldiers, who marched with Americans at Bataan, were ignored for decades. Fighters of Hungary, Central America, Vietnam and Afghanistan, who rallied to America’s call, silently watched American withdrawals. Tribesmen and villagers of Iraq and Afghanistan who welcomed American promises now watch more American withdraws. Tarred with the stigma of collaboration, they now wait alone for the mercy of the merciless.
It is little wonder that America has lost the trust and respect of the peoples as they come to realize they are only pawns for a great power Realist game.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Strategic energy 101809
Energy was a strategic resource long before there were states to fight over energy sources. Troglodytes (TROG-LO-DITES) had their fire keepers whose job it was to gather the fuel to keep the cave fire burning. Fire keepers were innovative energy managers when twigs around the cave became scarce they experimented with dinosaur chips. As men ahead of their time they saw the coming oil boom left by the dinosaur age.
Jumping a head a few thousand years America became center of energy supply, not yet the black gold but whale oil. New Englanders in the process of getting rich in whale oil almost extinguished the species, but whaling ships led to Yankee Clippers and American mercantilism. Control of energy sources leads to growth as demonstrated by American discovery of that black gold. Cheap oil fueled industrial growth, automobiles, planes and energy addiction. Over indulgence led to global warming, a dimming future and a search for another Trog ahead of his time who can see new sources of energy.
After 9-11 the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld (all Texas oilmen) administration quietly established an “energy security initiative.” Little was heard about this in America, but in essence the initiative stated that the U.S. had the right to seize oil production anywhere in the world to insure a steady flow of oil. This was a bombshell in oil producing regions most of which were friendly to America. The reaction was such that the administration backed away for the document but not the idea. (NOTE: energy security initiative has taken on new meanings today, not to be confused with the previous interpretation.)
The administration attempted to land a combat force to “secure” Nigerian oil field, only to meet with threats military resistance. To gain control of oil in the Gulf of Nigeria a coup/counter coup was supported in the Sao Tome Island group. A U.S. naval base was promised to Sao Tome for the protection of their claim to off shore oil. Morocco had illegally occupied its neighbor, Western Sahara. Morocco’s move was condemned by the entire international community, which refused to recognize the legitimacy of Morocco’s claim to the country. Under the initiative the Bush administration made a deal with Morocco to exploit Western Sahara’s oil resources. This in effect legitimized Morocco’s control of the country. Then there is Sudan with more proven oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. Unable to establish forces in that warring country American contingents are now established in surrounding countries.
Energy continues to be the center of national security strategy. However that focus is almost exclusively on oil, from the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan to the aborted attempts to control of Iran’s oil fields and those of the Central Asian States.
While the world waits for a new Trog with the perfect energy source, nations must coordinate advancements of existing technologies. At the same time seeking cleaner energy they must exercise a strategic vision that reverses global warming and prevent the excesses of the past. Is there hope for the individual, of course, just invest in the energy giants of today for they will corral the energy of tomorrow.
From a lecture
Jumping a head a few thousand years America became center of energy supply, not yet the black gold but whale oil. New Englanders in the process of getting rich in whale oil almost extinguished the species, but whaling ships led to Yankee Clippers and American mercantilism. Control of energy sources leads to growth as demonstrated by American discovery of that black gold. Cheap oil fueled industrial growth, automobiles, planes and energy addiction. Over indulgence led to global warming, a dimming future and a search for another Trog ahead of his time who can see new sources of energy.
After 9-11 the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld (all Texas oilmen) administration quietly established an “energy security initiative.” Little was heard about this in America, but in essence the initiative stated that the U.S. had the right to seize oil production anywhere in the world to insure a steady flow of oil. This was a bombshell in oil producing regions most of which were friendly to America. The reaction was such that the administration backed away for the document but not the idea. (NOTE: energy security initiative has taken on new meanings today, not to be confused with the previous interpretation.)
The administration attempted to land a combat force to “secure” Nigerian oil field, only to meet with threats military resistance. To gain control of oil in the Gulf of Nigeria a coup/counter coup was supported in the Sao Tome Island group. A U.S. naval base was promised to Sao Tome for the protection of their claim to off shore oil. Morocco had illegally occupied its neighbor, Western Sahara. Morocco’s move was condemned by the entire international community, which refused to recognize the legitimacy of Morocco’s claim to the country. Under the initiative the Bush administration made a deal with Morocco to exploit Western Sahara’s oil resources. This in effect legitimized Morocco’s control of the country. Then there is Sudan with more proven oil reserves than Saudi Arabia. Unable to establish forces in that warring country American contingents are now established in surrounding countries.
Energy continues to be the center of national security strategy. However that focus is almost exclusively on oil, from the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan to the aborted attempts to control of Iran’s oil fields and those of the Central Asian States.
While the world waits for a new Trog with the perfect energy source, nations must coordinate advancements of existing technologies. At the same time seeking cleaner energy they must exercise a strategic vision that reverses global warming and prevent the excesses of the past. Is there hope for the individual, of course, just invest in the energy giants of today for they will corral the energy of tomorrow.
From a lecture
Oil 101809
The study of International affairs should be a study of interactive confluent, dynamic causations effecting international relations. Oil is a single causation but it is dynamic, and does interact with other factors effecting both domestic and foreign policies.
Oil (energy) most immediately interacts with business and government. The business dynamic is easily understood, let nothing get in the way of the bottom line. Whether it is the local gas station that jumps the price a buck a gallon at the threat of foul weather or Big Oil jumping its price 50 dollar a barrel on questionable justifications, it’s all about greater profit. The government’s motives are a great deal more complex. Governments must publicly face the hysteria and demands of their polity while negotiating behind closed doors with Big Oil. Somewhere lost in the dark bowels of government there is a pale, forgotten bureaucrat trying to craft a strategic vision for national energy policies.
Government policy is expediency and compromises until some disaster strikes then it become, scream and shout, run about. When the price of gas hits five dollars a gallon then the government grabs a scribbled note from the bureaucrat’s desk and claims it has the plan for energy security, and cheaper gas.
To understand the government and business complexity in energy policy a little history is necessary. In the public acclaimed trust busting days of the early 20th century the government broke up Standard Oil of New Jersey (1911). Ultimately the resulting three American companies formed a cartel with international oil companies that became known as the seven sisters. The cartel set prices and divided up oil production around the world. The world went into an economic nosedive in the 1930s that lasted until a world war demand for production and energy pulled the nose up. The end of the war however brought a new confluence of dynamics. Much of the world industrial capacity was destroyed, energy demands were down, while returning soldiers were demanding their own new deal.
Government, industry, Big Oil and public expectations became a confluent of dynamics. There was no grand conspiracy as there was no grand plan but there was conspiracy. Automobile giants could no longer profit from planes and tanks, the military market for petroleum was down, the government needed to prevent a new depression and the public wanted a freedom it felt it had earned. It was a mutual interest of government, industry and energy producers to not only pander to public demand but also drove its expectations. Oil and industry lobbied government for favorable legislation; governments built roads and suburbia as mass transit systems declined in an environment of personal auto transportation that allowed families to go when and where it wanted.
Today America fights pollution and competes over finite energy resources while trying to revive its mass transit systems. Emerging states look to the American experience as an ideal where everyone has a car and the freedom of the road. America however is a poor model in a world of increasing demand, global warming and antiquated energy production and utilization processes.
From a lecture
Oil (energy) most immediately interacts with business and government. The business dynamic is easily understood, let nothing get in the way of the bottom line. Whether it is the local gas station that jumps the price a buck a gallon at the threat of foul weather or Big Oil jumping its price 50 dollar a barrel on questionable justifications, it’s all about greater profit. The government’s motives are a great deal more complex. Governments must publicly face the hysteria and demands of their polity while negotiating behind closed doors with Big Oil. Somewhere lost in the dark bowels of government there is a pale, forgotten bureaucrat trying to craft a strategic vision for national energy policies.
Government policy is expediency and compromises until some disaster strikes then it become, scream and shout, run about. When the price of gas hits five dollars a gallon then the government grabs a scribbled note from the bureaucrat’s desk and claims it has the plan for energy security, and cheaper gas.
To understand the government and business complexity in energy policy a little history is necessary. In the public acclaimed trust busting days of the early 20th century the government broke up Standard Oil of New Jersey (1911). Ultimately the resulting three American companies formed a cartel with international oil companies that became known as the seven sisters. The cartel set prices and divided up oil production around the world. The world went into an economic nosedive in the 1930s that lasted until a world war demand for production and energy pulled the nose up. The end of the war however brought a new confluence of dynamics. Much of the world industrial capacity was destroyed, energy demands were down, while returning soldiers were demanding their own new deal.
Government, industry, Big Oil and public expectations became a confluent of dynamics. There was no grand conspiracy as there was no grand plan but there was conspiracy. Automobile giants could no longer profit from planes and tanks, the military market for petroleum was down, the government needed to prevent a new depression and the public wanted a freedom it felt it had earned. It was a mutual interest of government, industry and energy producers to not only pander to public demand but also drove its expectations. Oil and industry lobbied government for favorable legislation; governments built roads and suburbia as mass transit systems declined in an environment of personal auto transportation that allowed families to go when and where it wanted.
Today America fights pollution and competes over finite energy resources while trying to revive its mass transit systems. Emerging states look to the American experience as an ideal where everyone has a car and the freedom of the road. America however is a poor model in a world of increasing demand, global warming and antiquated energy production and utilization processes.
From a lecture
Friday, October 9, 2009
Books 100809
According to media reports the White House and Pentagon are trying to learn how to fight the war in Afghanistan after eight years of frailling away. Two books are at the center of debate. Vietnam, an American military and political disaster over 30 years ago is the subject of both.
One book’s thesis is that the military viewed the conflict as a quick victory and dragged the White House into all out war. The other book concludes that by 1972, after 16 years of fighting, the military had finally figured out how to fight insurgents, but the White House politicians ended the fight before the military could be victorious. This is similar to the German Army claims at the end of WW1, “The politicians betrayed our army.” The latter book is a current favorite of the American polmil.
The Bush administration also had favorite books choose to read orientalist tomes of an imperialist perspective. There is also Mao’s thesis “On War” detailing how a people’s war should be fought. Mao’s book was translated by a U.S. Marine officer in 1939 and ignored by the polmil until faced with another defeat to peoples’ wars. There are also books on the Persian, Greek, Mongol, British, and Soviet experiences in Afghanistan. The polmil probably ignores these books because they lost and can teach nothing of value. After eight years of war has an arrogant government just begun to do its homework, all these works were available before the invasion.
The polmil’s basic problem is that it still does not know who it is fighting. There are a great number of similarities between Vietnam and the Afghan War, but there are more differences. The Afghans are not Viet Cong, Chinese, Arabs nor Iraqis. The military is now attempting to impose its failed Iraqi strategy in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not Iraq, Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia. The Taliban is not al Qaida nor are all Afghan insurgents Taliban.
America does not have one war in Afghanistan but many different conflicts requiring differing strategies. The coalition has over 100,000 troops in country and the Afghan Security force numbers over 200,000 against a U.S. military estimate of 20,000 insurgents. That is a 15 to one superiority and the military wants to double its force? The polmil may well need increased troop strength just to guard its supply routes through increasingly hostile countries to its landlocked battlefield.
The polmil’s arrogant behavior in the surrounding countries is turning potential friends into opponents. The military may not recognize it yet but it is the Br’er Rabbit to an Afghan Tar Baby.
It is the guys with pointed sticks the Doughboys, Dogfaces, Grunts, Joe-tent pegs, that always pay the price on an arrogant polmil intent on medals and glory. The government must consider these soldiers who do the fighting and dying for undefined objectives. They deserve better from their leadership.
One book’s thesis is that the military viewed the conflict as a quick victory and dragged the White House into all out war. The other book concludes that by 1972, after 16 years of fighting, the military had finally figured out how to fight insurgents, but the White House politicians ended the fight before the military could be victorious. This is similar to the German Army claims at the end of WW1, “The politicians betrayed our army.” The latter book is a current favorite of the American polmil.
The Bush administration also had favorite books choose to read orientalist tomes of an imperialist perspective. There is also Mao’s thesis “On War” detailing how a people’s war should be fought. Mao’s book was translated by a U.S. Marine officer in 1939 and ignored by the polmil until faced with another defeat to peoples’ wars. There are also books on the Persian, Greek, Mongol, British, and Soviet experiences in Afghanistan. The polmil probably ignores these books because they lost and can teach nothing of value. After eight years of war has an arrogant government just begun to do its homework, all these works were available before the invasion.
The polmil’s basic problem is that it still does not know who it is fighting. There are a great number of similarities between Vietnam and the Afghan War, but there are more differences. The Afghans are not Viet Cong, Chinese, Arabs nor Iraqis. The military is now attempting to impose its failed Iraqi strategy in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is not Iraq, Pakistan nor Saudi Arabia. The Taliban is not al Qaida nor are all Afghan insurgents Taliban.
America does not have one war in Afghanistan but many different conflicts requiring differing strategies. The coalition has over 100,000 troops in country and the Afghan Security force numbers over 200,000 against a U.S. military estimate of 20,000 insurgents. That is a 15 to one superiority and the military wants to double its force? The polmil may well need increased troop strength just to guard its supply routes through increasingly hostile countries to its landlocked battlefield.
The polmil’s arrogant behavior in the surrounding countries is turning potential friends into opponents. The military may not recognize it yet but it is the Br’er Rabbit to an Afghan Tar Baby.
It is the guys with pointed sticks the Doughboys, Dogfaces, Grunts, Joe-tent pegs, that always pay the price on an arrogant polmil intent on medals and glory. The government must consider these soldiers who do the fighting and dying for undefined objectives. They deserve better from their leadership.
Monday, October 5, 2009
"G" who? 100409
Trying to decode world economic relations is more than a little confusing. For much of the latter half of the 20th century the G7 has ruled economic policies for the world.
Now here is the scorecard:
G6, A meeting of finance ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States, when Canada was added in 1976 it became the G7. Not to be confused with the more recent G6 of the United States, European Union, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia).
G8, The annual meeting of the heads of government of the above nations, plus Russia.
G8 +5, The above plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa (known as the outreach five.
G20, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States of America. The European Union gets the 20th seat. The participating countries represent 85% of global GNP, 80% of world trade and two-thirds of the world’s people. The G20 was established in 1999 to discuss key issues of the global economy to “reduce the world economy’s susceptibility to crises.” The G20 has become increasingly important as the leader in the economic decision process.
G33, Industrialized nations of: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. The G33 preceded the G20 but followed the G22
N-11, How did an “N” get in there? These are countries that Goldman Sachs considers to have a high potential of becoming the world’s largest economies this century: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. Interestingly most are not included in the “G” negoiations.
D8, Eight developing Muslim nations: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey.
G11, Back to the “Gs”. Jordan, Croatia, Ecuador, Georgia, El Salvador, Honduras, Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay and Sri Lanka a forum for developing countries who are desperate to get out of debt and lift their millions out of poverty.
G20, (Another one) A group of developing countries which currently it has 23 members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Its core leadership (the G4 bloc) comprises Brazil, China, India and South Africa.
G33, (Also another one) Developing countries: of Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Laos, Mauritius, Madagascar, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Senegal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, that coordinate on trade and economic issues.
G4, (Starting over?) India, Germany, Japan and Brazil for the purpose of supporting each other's bid for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. Not economics just a plea for power sharing.
G4, (Another one not to be confused with the above or the G4 bloc of the G20.) An American proposal to replace the G7 with an organization of only the largest global economies: America, China, Eurozone and Japan. Long time American supporter the United Kingdom strongly opposes losing its seat at the foot of the table. Germany is also reluctant to give up its seat and proposed that the G7 serve to guide the G20. Canada would also lose its seat but strongly support G20 policy dominance.
G2, The latest American proposal that places the United States and China at the helm of world economic affairs. This proposal has been strongly rejected by China who also supports a larger policy body such as the G20.
Gee, it’s no wonder the world’s economic system had a nervous breakdown. The recent breakdown began with the United States excessive domestic debt, which brought down foreign debt holders. It is probable that American policy makers were so busy rushing around the meeting and arguing contradicting policies at each “G” they failed to watch the home front. The last two proposal appear to be an American effort to institutionalize its roll as world economic arbiter before it to is forced to the foot of the table by growing 21st century economies.
Now here is the scorecard:
G6, A meeting of finance ministers of France, Germany, Italy, Japan, United Kingdom, and the United States, when Canada was added in 1976 it became the G7. Not to be confused with the more recent G6 of the United States, European Union, Brazil, India, Japan, Australia).
G8, The annual meeting of the heads of government of the above nations, plus Russia.
G8 +5, The above plus Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa (known as the outreach five.
G20, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States of America. The European Union gets the 20th seat. The participating countries represent 85% of global GNP, 80% of world trade and two-thirds of the world’s people. The G20 was established in 1999 to discuss key issues of the global economy to “reduce the world economy’s susceptibility to crises.” The G20 has become increasingly important as the leader in the economic decision process.
G33, Industrialized nations of: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Egypt, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom and United States. The G33 preceded the G20 but followed the G22
N-11, How did an “N” get in there? These are countries that Goldman Sachs considers to have a high potential of becoming the world’s largest economies this century: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Turkey and Vietnam. Interestingly most are not included in the “G” negoiations.
D8, Eight developing Muslim nations: Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey.
G11, Back to the “Gs”. Jordan, Croatia, Ecuador, Georgia, El Salvador, Honduras, Indonesia, Morocco, Pakistan, Paraguay and Sri Lanka a forum for developing countries who are desperate to get out of debt and lift their millions out of poverty.
G20, (Another one) A group of developing countries which currently it has 23 members: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South Africa, Tanzania, Thailand, Uruguay, Venezuela and Zimbabwe. Its core leadership (the G4 bloc) comprises Brazil, China, India and South Africa.
G33, (Also another one) Developing countries: of Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Botswana, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada, Guyana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Laos, Mauritius, Madagascar, Mongolia, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, St Kitts & Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent & the Grenadines, Senegal, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Tanzania, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, that coordinate on trade and economic issues.
G4, (Starting over?) India, Germany, Japan and Brazil for the purpose of supporting each other's bid for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council. Not economics just a plea for power sharing.
G4, (Another one not to be confused with the above or the G4 bloc of the G20.) An American proposal to replace the G7 with an organization of only the largest global economies: America, China, Eurozone and Japan. Long time American supporter the United Kingdom strongly opposes losing its seat at the foot of the table. Germany is also reluctant to give up its seat and proposed that the G7 serve to guide the G20. Canada would also lose its seat but strongly support G20 policy dominance.
G2, The latest American proposal that places the United States and China at the helm of world economic affairs. This proposal has been strongly rejected by China who also supports a larger policy body such as the G20.
Gee, it’s no wonder the world’s economic system had a nervous breakdown. The recent breakdown began with the United States excessive domestic debt, which brought down foreign debt holders. It is probable that American policy makers were so busy rushing around the meeting and arguing contradicting policies at each “G” they failed to watch the home front. The last two proposal appear to be an American effort to institutionalize its roll as world economic arbiter before it to is forced to the foot of the table by growing 21st century economies.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
It's The Law 100309
In the last several years a great deal of American ink has been spilled over the virtue of the “Rule of Law” for emerging nations and the international order.
International law as we know it originated when the Old World powers began attempting to bring some order in the anarchical system of states. However there are traces of an international legal order even before there were nation states. The Code of Hammurabi from around 1790 BCE served as a model for many nations’ legal development. The Persians, Greeks and Romans contributed as did the Quran’s laws on warfare that were not matched for another 1200 years by the western world. In the west the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia is recognized as the foundation of today’s international law.
For the next 300 year there was a slow evolution of rules between states. In the last 60 years however, there have been more new laws propagated than in the previous four millennium. It is more than coincident that this period coincides with the rise of the American Century. As the last great power standing at the end of World War Two America returned to pushing its Wilsonian vision of world order. The basics of Wilsonianism are:
* Advocacy of self-determination by ethnic groups
* Advocacy of the spread of democracy
* Advocacy of the spread of Capitalism
* Anti-Imperialism, in favor of intervention to help create peace and spread freedom.
Through a great deal of economic and military arm twisting America churned out reams of international laws applying to everyone but America itself. Some of these laws were good and served to maintain peace and spread equality; many of these laws however served only American interest. America embraces an even more ancient law, “Might makes Right.” As the world recovered for WW2’s destruction states began to rebel against American unilateralism. When America passed laws that it could arrest foreign nationals anywhere in the world the Iranian government passed a similar law that it could arrest American citizens anywhere. Following another American lead once powerful Spain passed its own version of the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, which holds that heinous crimes such as torture or terrorism can be tried in Spain even if they have no link to Spain.
America quietly applauded Spain’s move as long the focus was on its own enemies. Recently Spain has used its law to pursue current or former officials in Israel over its bombings in the Gaza Strip, in the United States over treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and China over alleged abuses in Tibet. Spanish jurist ran into trouble when they began to look back at the abuses of their Civil war. Like Spain America cries foul when international laws are applied to itself.
Law is an interesting concept, if it is to be considered just it must apply equally to all. It is even more important that the originator of laws must subject itself to their provisions. The whole world is waiting its turn at enforcement and looks for America’s stumble.
International law as we know it originated when the Old World powers began attempting to bring some order in the anarchical system of states. However there are traces of an international legal order even before there were nation states. The Code of Hammurabi from around 1790 BCE served as a model for many nations’ legal development. The Persians, Greeks and Romans contributed as did the Quran’s laws on warfare that were not matched for another 1200 years by the western world. In the west the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia is recognized as the foundation of today’s international law.
For the next 300 year there was a slow evolution of rules between states. In the last 60 years however, there have been more new laws propagated than in the previous four millennium. It is more than coincident that this period coincides with the rise of the American Century. As the last great power standing at the end of World War Two America returned to pushing its Wilsonian vision of world order. The basics of Wilsonianism are:
* Advocacy of self-determination by ethnic groups
* Advocacy of the spread of democracy
* Advocacy of the spread of Capitalism
* Anti-Imperialism, in favor of intervention to help create peace and spread freedom.
Through a great deal of economic and military arm twisting America churned out reams of international laws applying to everyone but America itself. Some of these laws were good and served to maintain peace and spread equality; many of these laws however served only American interest. America embraces an even more ancient law, “Might makes Right.” As the world recovered for WW2’s destruction states began to rebel against American unilateralism. When America passed laws that it could arrest foreign nationals anywhere in the world the Iranian government passed a similar law that it could arrest American citizens anywhere. Following another American lead once powerful Spain passed its own version of the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, which holds that heinous crimes such as torture or terrorism can be tried in Spain even if they have no link to Spain.
America quietly applauded Spain’s move as long the focus was on its own enemies. Recently Spain has used its law to pursue current or former officials in Israel over its bombings in the Gaza Strip, in the United States over treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and China over alleged abuses in Tibet. Spanish jurist ran into trouble when they began to look back at the abuses of their Civil war. Like Spain America cries foul when international laws are applied to itself.
Law is an interesting concept, if it is to be considered just it must apply equally to all. It is even more important that the originator of laws must subject itself to their provisions. The whole world is waiting its turn at enforcement and looks for America’s stumble.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)