<$BlogRSDUrl$>

31 October 2006

China’s Lessons for America

In his article in the October 15, 2006 New York Times Magazine, Pankaj Mishra shows how the New Left in China has sharpened the definition of freedom in the context of economic growth in a socialist system. Democracy is not essential to equity. Even Jefferson listed the rights of man to include life, liberty and happiness. Mishra points out that he did not include property rights. I also hasten to add that he did not include control.

In fact, American democracy is merely an elected oligarchy. Most people don’t want to be bothered with governing, as long as they are able to make a living in a way that satisfies their aspirations. You only have to observe their level of participation in our elections.

For many, that standard means a 9-5 job. For others, it means fabulous wealth. It’s up to benevolent oligarchs to keep the system running and to prevent any residents from exploiting the others. That is why the most important component of the American republic is the due process guarantee in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment. As far as China is concerned, democracy can be dispensed with as long as its rich and poor alike are guaranteed an equitable system if not by laws, then by benevolent dictators.

26 October 2006

Pakistan-Afghanistan Conflict Roots

Barnett Rubin’s OpEd in the October 26, 2006, Wall Street Journal makes clearer some of the complex historical sources of the rivalries and politics surrounding the Hindu Kush. Like the current bloodshed from the disintegration of Iraq, much of the ascendancy of the Taliban in Afghanistan owes its possibility to the policies of imperial Britain.

Another consequence of the U.K.’s colonial rule is the humanitarian crisis in Sudan. Let’s hope that a similar legacy, the increasingly contentious cobbled-together “nation” of Nigeria, doesn’t force the U.S. or other states to assume the burden of restoring order there.

12 October 2006

Visas and Justice

Awarding permission to enter the U.S., or any country, is not a matter of justice. George Packer seems to be of two minds on this issue. In his article in the October 16, 2006 New Yorker he at first characterizes cases of exclusion of asylum-seekers from immigration as “unjust.” Later, Packer admits that Tariq Ramadan, applying for admission to the U.S. under a work permit, has no inalienable right to an immigration visa--he should rather be granted one “in the interest of the national good.”

America is not obligated by any theory of justice to admit immigrants to its shores. Even in a Rawlsian system, it is only when the population at large deems it to its advantage that an immigrant be admitted that a visa is “justified.” Whether the reason for that judgment may be enlightened self-interest or short-term economic gain, the prospective immigrant really has no say in the debate. If he is lucky enough to present himself for admission when he satisfies the criteria established by decision-makers in the destination country, then he may even have a role in selecting the next set of criteria. Until then, he has little choice but to enter the country on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

There is no universal code of citizenship rights like that of “human rights.” We may all be able to agree on standards of respect for life and decency, but the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness is granted only to themselves by those in power. This exclusionary manifesto applies as much to liberal democracies as to repressive autocracies. Members of any society may or may not recognize the advantage they gain from opening their borders to newcomers with diverse views and backgrounds; but they make that decision with the caveat that they must defend it, if need be. In the end, a sovereign state is basically a mutual defense organization in which justice is defined as its own preservation.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?