17 October 2003
Is the World Ready for Pre-emption?
Is the policy of Interventionism (aka pre-emption) ready for Prime Time? It may seem politically easier for an American administration to attack a despot, like Sadddam, by charging him with supporting terrorism. In reality, evidence of his support for terrorists (or his use of Weapons of Mass Destruction) is not needed for that policy to demand action. The policy asserts that despotism promotes terrorism. The time-honored doctrine of non-intervention in the affairs of other states, on which the U.N. was built, contravenes this new policy.
It is futile to rely on the U.N. for resolutions that endorse military intervention for any reason short of the vicious violation of human rights. It is not proven that despotism fosters terrorism. Even liberal democracies like the U.S. are convulsed by home-grown terrorist act. (Oklahoma City was the act of persons who turned out, for all practical purposes, to be suicidal.)
At most, it may be arguable that intervention is justified in the affairs of states that are unable to prevent their own residents from terrorizing the domestic peace of other states. If anything, domestic terrorism in liberal democracies demonstrates that even those, for the most part, technologically advanced societies have not found a way to control anomalies in civic behavior with any certainty.
But the world is clearly not a safer place because one despot has been removed. In some societies, it may take a despot to establish civic order. It is difficult to justify violence in the cause of eliminating despotism, when violence in opposition to the dominant ethic of a liberal democracy is labeled “terrorism.”
Systems of government differ in the way they foster civic rights. Their competition for dominance of world affairs is in the realm of ideas. Battles between them should be fought with weapons of information. America is the master of that realm. However, results from the assault of ideas are usually slow in coming, and less visually satisfying than smart bombing.
Human rights are rightfully in the domain of physical action. Their violation may require response by force. Even in self-defense, however, the use of force is not warranted by theories of unilateral pre-emption. Collective pre-emption could become a reasonable policy for creating world order, but the war in Iraq has shown that the world has not yet adopted it.
Is the policy of Interventionism (aka pre-emption) ready for Prime Time? It may seem politically easier for an American administration to attack a despot, like Sadddam, by charging him with supporting terrorism. In reality, evidence of his support for terrorists (or his use of Weapons of Mass Destruction) is not needed for that policy to demand action. The policy asserts that despotism promotes terrorism. The time-honored doctrine of non-intervention in the affairs of other states, on which the U.N. was built, contravenes this new policy.
It is futile to rely on the U.N. for resolutions that endorse military intervention for any reason short of the vicious violation of human rights. It is not proven that despotism fosters terrorism. Even liberal democracies like the U.S. are convulsed by home-grown terrorist act. (Oklahoma City was the act of persons who turned out, for all practical purposes, to be suicidal.)
At most, it may be arguable that intervention is justified in the affairs of states that are unable to prevent their own residents from terrorizing the domestic peace of other states. If anything, domestic terrorism in liberal democracies demonstrates that even those, for the most part, technologically advanced societies have not found a way to control anomalies in civic behavior with any certainty.
But the world is clearly not a safer place because one despot has been removed. In some societies, it may take a despot to establish civic order. It is difficult to justify violence in the cause of eliminating despotism, when violence in opposition to the dominant ethic of a liberal democracy is labeled “terrorism.”
Systems of government differ in the way they foster civic rights. Their competition for dominance of world affairs is in the realm of ideas. Battles between them should be fought with weapons of information. America is the master of that realm. However, results from the assault of ideas are usually slow in coming, and less visually satisfying than smart bombing.
Human rights are rightfully in the domain of physical action. Their violation may require response by force. Even in self-defense, however, the use of force is not warranted by theories of unilateral pre-emption. Collective pre-emption could become a reasonable policy for creating world order, but the war in Iraq has shown that the world has not yet adopted it.
Comments:
Post a Comment
