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.
13 October 2003
Intervention Referendums
Michael Ignatieff boldly outlined five cases for international intervention in the affairs of sovereign states in his article that was published in the September 7, 2003 New York Times Magazine. However, the United Nations may be at a dead end created by the doctrine of state sovereignty. The true sovereign in the modern world is the individual, and democratic rule is the principle that the U.S. and other like-minded nations have adopted as their ultimate goal. As the Wall Street Journal phrased it on 13 October, the UN Secretary General still leads a “collection of despots.”
Democratic states, led by the U.S. and its NATO allies, should replace the worn-out U.N. structure with a new international security organization that would be authorized to intervene on humanitarian grounds in the affairs of any state, member or not. It would allow each member state to veto collective intervention in its affairs on condition that a majority of its residents objected in a national referendum. This device might answer the fears of American unilateralists. And it will put even the most benevolent of autocrats on notice that the international system has changed.
Michael Ignatieff boldly outlined five cases for international intervention in the affairs of sovereign states in his article that was published in the September 7, 2003 New York Times Magazine. However, the United Nations may be at a dead end created by the doctrine of state sovereignty. The true sovereign in the modern world is the individual, and democratic rule is the principle that the U.S. and other like-minded nations have adopted as their ultimate goal. As the Wall Street Journal phrased it on 13 October, the UN Secretary General still leads a “collection of despots.”
Democratic states, led by the U.S. and its NATO allies, should replace the worn-out U.N. structure with a new international security organization that would be authorized to intervene on humanitarian grounds in the affairs of any state, member or not. It would allow each member state to veto collective intervention in its affairs on condition that a majority of its residents objected in a national referendum. This device might answer the fears of American unilateralists. And it will put even the most benevolent of autocrats on notice that the international system has changed.
09 October 2003
IT and Africa
The intervention of France in the civil affairs of Cote d'Ivoire consists really of an attempt to settle a family dispute. French nationals and businesses have been living and working there for decades, if not a century and more. They could not tolerate a disorderly rebellion causing personal danger, and not only political upheaval.
Advances in information technology have made even the remotest regions of Africa (e.g., Rwanda) part of America's community, too. Distance and barbed wire no longer isolate us from violations of human rights in other societies. The allure of information from the West creates aspirations and expectations in more traditional societies, even without our pro-actively spreading our values. Moreover, IT makes it impossible for us to ignore affronts to those values. And our values seem to compel us to combat those affronts, even when we are unable to assure success.
One of the costs of our enjoying the benefits of advanced technology is responsibility for dealing with violations of our communal values, despite our having lost control on the extent of our community's borders. This may limit our ability to achieve communal goals at home (health care, education, etc.). Unfortunately, walls cannot be high or thickly barbed enough to isolate us in the indivisible world of ideas.
The intervention of France in the civil affairs of Cote d'Ivoire consists really of an attempt to settle a family dispute. French nationals and businesses have been living and working there for decades, if not a century and more. They could not tolerate a disorderly rebellion causing personal danger, and not only political upheaval.
Advances in information technology have made even the remotest regions of Africa (e.g., Rwanda) part of America's community, too. Distance and barbed wire no longer isolate us from violations of human rights in other societies. The allure of information from the West creates aspirations and expectations in more traditional societies, even without our pro-actively spreading our values. Moreover, IT makes it impossible for us to ignore affronts to those values. And our values seem to compel us to combat those affronts, even when we are unable to assure success.
One of the costs of our enjoying the benefits of advanced technology is responsibility for dealing with violations of our communal values, despite our having lost control on the extent of our community's borders. This may limit our ability to achieve communal goals at home (health care, education, etc.). Unfortunately, walls cannot be high or thickly barbed enough to isolate us in the indivisible world of ideas.
02 October 2003
NYSE and Corporate Governance
The real failure of regulation at the New York Stock Exchange was the lack of enforcement of standards to protect the interests of investors whose securities are traded there. The exchange is run by the houses that use it to buy and sell to each other. They set standards for corporations whose stocks and bonds they trade. It is to insure their own reliance on those issuers for the value of their securities that they set standards. They create belief in the credibility of those standards so that their customers, the public and the funds who manage its money, bring them their business.
The NYSE is, in fact, in competition with other exchanges for that business. However, it no more respects the interests of investors than GM respects the interests of the driving public. In the long run, of course, both are foolish to ignore the safety of their customers; but in the short run, pecuniary gain often trumps their good sense.
The real failure of regulation at the New York Stock Exchange was the lack of enforcement of standards to protect the interests of investors whose securities are traded there. The exchange is run by the houses that use it to buy and sell to each other. They set standards for corporations whose stocks and bonds they trade. It is to insure their own reliance on those issuers for the value of their securities that they set standards. They create belief in the credibility of those standards so that their customers, the public and the funds who manage its money, bring them their business.
The NYSE is, in fact, in competition with other exchanges for that business. However, it no more respects the interests of investors than GM respects the interests of the driving public. In the long run, of course, both are foolish to ignore the safety of their customers; but in the short run, pecuniary gain often trumps their good sense.
