19 January 2011
Covert Action’s Comeback
Max Boot is wrong to celebrate what he characterizes as the comeback of Covert Action in his OpEd article in the January 5, 2011 Wall Street Journal. Support for a revolutionary movement in Iran should come from non-governmental sources in order to be legitimate. The rules of international relations (sometimes referred to as international law) forbid the overthrow of a non-aggressive regime by another state, even if that regime’s actions are repressive and disregard the human rights of its own subjects.
No government can legitimately undermine the government of another nation covertly. It exists in part to protect its citizens from the depredations of another state through defensive actions, which may include supporting the overthrow of that government by its own citizens. If a group of citizens of the first government wishes to act on its own to support the overthrow of the second government, they may wish to act covertly in order to avoid retaliation or punishment under civil law. In order to achieve that objective, those citizens may solicit the support of foreign individuals, organizations or governments. In the last case, those citizens are in effect offering themselves as the foreign government’s fifth column in their own country.
However, when that foreign government takes direct action against the stability of another country’s government openly or covertly, it is committing an act of war. The practice of international relations awards certain immunities to well-behaved governments that are not honored when those governments are at war. Mr. Boot is advocating the abandonment of those immunities (such as the exemption of diplomats from civil regulations, sovereign exemption from taxes and police oversight, etc.) in order to undertake covert action in pursuit of our government’s unilateral interests abroad. He is free, of course, covertly to foment non-governmental support for civil libertarians in other countries at the risk of being punished by his own government for violating its exclusive prerogatives abroad; but following his prescription for a reinvigoration of undercover sedition in other countries would make his government an international outlaw deserving of official sanction by the world community, including retaliation against its citizens and businesses. It’s best to leave that covert action in private hands.
Max Boot is wrong to celebrate what he characterizes as the comeback of Covert Action in his OpEd article in the January 5, 2011 Wall Street Journal. Support for a revolutionary movement in Iran should come from non-governmental sources in order to be legitimate. The rules of international relations (sometimes referred to as international law) forbid the overthrow of a non-aggressive regime by another state, even if that regime’s actions are repressive and disregard the human rights of its own subjects.
No government can legitimately undermine the government of another nation covertly. It exists in part to protect its citizens from the depredations of another state through defensive actions, which may include supporting the overthrow of that government by its own citizens. If a group of citizens of the first government wishes to act on its own to support the overthrow of the second government, they may wish to act covertly in order to avoid retaliation or punishment under civil law. In order to achieve that objective, those citizens may solicit the support of foreign individuals, organizations or governments. In the last case, those citizens are in effect offering themselves as the foreign government’s fifth column in their own country.
However, when that foreign government takes direct action against the stability of another country’s government openly or covertly, it is committing an act of war. The practice of international relations awards certain immunities to well-behaved governments that are not honored when those governments are at war. Mr. Boot is advocating the abandonment of those immunities (such as the exemption of diplomats from civil regulations, sovereign exemption from taxes and police oversight, etc.) in order to undertake covert action in pursuit of our government’s unilateral interests abroad. He is free, of course, covertly to foment non-governmental support for civil libertarians in other countries at the risk of being punished by his own government for violating its exclusive prerogatives abroad; but following his prescription for a reinvigoration of undercover sedition in other countries would make his government an international outlaw deserving of official sanction by the world community, including retaliation against its citizens and businesses. It’s best to leave that covert action in private hands.
Comments:
Post a Comment
