Last week, newspapers across the country disclosed that in 2004, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld secretly authorized a policy that allowed the United States to pursue and attack al Qaeda and other terrorists in any sovereign state, even if they were not at war with the US. So far, it appears the recent cross-border operations conducted in Syria and Pakistan may have quite the precedent, and the New York Times reported that these types of actions may have extended to “other” countries, including Somalia.
After reading about this policy, what interested me more than the Bush administration’s justifications for breeching the sovereignty of other nations were the public’s comments. Responses ranged from exuberant support to outright abhorrence. A number of people were furious at the administration, drawing parallels with the Patriot Act’s violations of civil liberties, and calling these attacks the illegal operations of war criminals. On the other side of the debate, many people commented that this is what any president would have done, as it is just part of being at war and protecting America. Many other comments criticized the media’s choice to print these articles, noting that it undermines our war strategy and Obama’s future diplomatic capabilities.
While scrolling through what people had written, I tried to figure out where I stood on this issue. At first, I assumed I would side with those calling these acts illegal—all states have the same claim to sovereignty under international law! But then I realized my own hypocrisy: I have frequently argued that Sudan has little right to tout its sovereignty as a means of continuing the genocide (by claiming it is an internal matter), and I have no qualms about breeching that sovereignty in order to stop the violence. In my mind, some states just commit such egregious acts that they no longer deserve recognition as a legitimate state. But where did this leave me? Sometimes states are sovereign and sometimes they are not, with the difference depending on whether I think they are committing war crimes? That didn’t seem like a very good conclusion.
And then I wondered, is sovereignty really a moot concept in the contemporary world? The United States clearly seems to interpret it in ways that best serve our interests: it is irrelevant in the War on Terror, but it keeps us from doing anything meaningful in Darfur and from abiding by some international environmental treaties. What I began wondering was not whether state sovereignty really means anything more than the interpretation by the most powerful states, but how this international norm would serve the global community in the decades to come. As we destroy the environment and warm the globe, many other regions are likely to degenerate into Darfur-like conflicts over resources. Should states have the right to pollute as much as they want? And if the answer is no, how would it be enforced? If asymmetrical conflict between state and non-state actors proliferates, how does state A’s sovereignty factor into State B’s need to declare war on a group of people harbored within state A’s boundaries? Are multinational corporations beholden to states, or might it increasingly be the other way around? Do states have a right to bar journalists from entering into their country on the grounds of national security? What about humanitarian aid organizations? Will sovereignty continue to be a de jure reality, while its de facto status rests on interpretation?
We cannot forget that the concept of state sovereignty really only dates back to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, and is not a given in all political thought. And we should also remember that most national borders were carved on a map by distant colonial powers, and truly reflect arbitrary divisions.
If not sovereign states anymore, then what? How sovereignty is defined will either facilitate or hinder attempts to solve the spectrum of global, regional, or inter-state conflicts now and in the future. And it will impact the ability of a country to pursue foreign policies that concomitantly serve the national interest while not being hypocritical. These are really tricky questions without clear-cut answers, but I think they raise pressing issues we should all consider, especially as the new Obama administration takes office.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Even Cynics Get Goose Bumps
The United States is characteristically a forward-looking country, and we are notorious for our sanguinity and our pursuit of the American dream. But the past eight years have really challenged that sense of eternal optimism for many Americans, and I would argue that it has been especially challenging for us youth. In reality, most of our political consciousness took place during the presidency of George W. Bush, and perhaps for some, in the last years of the Clinton administration. Most of what we know is a reality of being embroiled in wars and international hostility toward our country. In addition, while witnessing our country’s growing economic challenges and the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth, it is really hard to feel positive and it becomes difficult to imagine that there could really be an alternative.
The “youth” are always thought of as being idealists, though at times it seems we have more momentum in that direction, as in the 1960s and early ‘70s. We are reminded by older generations that our dreams for a better future are “wonderful;” though we are hardly told they are “inspiring,” as if to say that we will soon grow out of it, or that the real world will sharpen our sense of reality. We usually do not have the strongest voices, nor do we have the means to demand our voices be heard.
The constant erosion of environmental laws, rhetoric about human rights, diplomatic efforts, and pushes for greater social equality have taken a toll on many of us in this country. And it becomes a tricky situation, because our cynicism leads us to believe that political participation will not change anything, and so we abstain from politics, which only contributes to the infeasibility of political change. My own sense of optimism was truly on the line during this election, and I think in general, American optimism was set to triumph or dissipate into a deep despair depending on Tuesday’s election results. Throughout the election season, I worked hard not to get my hopes up; I tried to come to terms with the reality of the Bush administration, convinced that McCain would have a proclivity toward the status quo. The tendentious opinion pieces citing political polls did little to shake my decided views of the future, and I woke up Tuesday morning prepared for what I knew would transpire. I am glad that I was wrong.
Tuesday morning, in my American Political Thought class, we talked about how a president does not really make societal changes, nor convinces the American people to change their paradigms. Rather, the elected president represents the willingness (or lack thereof) within the people for change. What this means is that Barack Obama's win is less about what alterations he might make in Washington, and far more about the population's desires for the future. I see this as good news. It means that at the least, a substantial portion of the country is so enraged by the current political environment that they are willing to vote for change. And change does not come easily in this country, as our government is structured to prevent swift or radical transformations, and tradition or provincialism bars many from demanding it.
So what is most exciting for me about Tuesday's election has very little to do with Obama himself; what is exciting is the obvious change in the people, whose demand for a different type of politics was reflected in the polls. He is the new symbol of a shifting worldview. Obama didn't win because he altered people's goals and priorities; I think he won because people were fed up and finally ready for a political figure who could reignite their optimism and reflect their new priorities and desires. The pent up discontent with the current administration, and what has happened in our country over the past decade, was ready to explode. (Even John McCain adopted the slogan of “change” when he realized it was what people across America wanted.) Obama’s words of inspiration became a place to channel a growing momentum for change, and the spontaneous midnight parties and rallies all across the country reflected our decision as citizens to do something about it.
I think it is great that Obama has politicized and inspired so many people in our generation, and I hope that despite all of the problems and barriers he will face in his term, the majority of people can maintain hope and passion, and not become discouraged or feel let down—I promise to work on my inner cynic if you promise to work on yours…. Something shifted within the American people because we voted in an agent of change. People all over the country worked together to get him elected, and people all over the country celebrated together in the streets, hugging strangers and bridging divides. But this is not some happy ending; this is not a "hooray we got him into the White House, now I can go back to my regular life" type of moment. No, the change people apparently want will only be as strong as the sustained political movement for it. What we need to remember is that Obama is one man, and he represents one administration with limited capabilities and intense outside pressures. If we care about community and society, if we care about the welfare of everyone, if we care about the world and the environment, then Obama's victory alone is not enough. It is not just revamped policies that we need; it is a concomitant unrelenting desire and applied pressure for them, especially in all of the uphill battles this country now faces.
In the speech he gave Tuesday night, Obama said “it's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America…. It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.” Listening to those words, I battled my inner cynic who wanted to shout, “Good luck standing up to bureaucracies and big lobbyists.” I couldn’t help but think about the obstacles he, and this country, are about to face. But glancing down at my arms, I realized that I had goose bumps—I was moved by the crowd of people I saw standing before Obama. So I told myself to stop thinking cynically, to take a night off from it, and enjoy the triumph of optimism with the millions of other Americans celebrating across the country, and the millions of people celebrating across the world.
The “youth” are always thought of as being idealists, though at times it seems we have more momentum in that direction, as in the 1960s and early ‘70s. We are reminded by older generations that our dreams for a better future are “wonderful;” though we are hardly told they are “inspiring,” as if to say that we will soon grow out of it, or that the real world will sharpen our sense of reality. We usually do not have the strongest voices, nor do we have the means to demand our voices be heard.
The constant erosion of environmental laws, rhetoric about human rights, diplomatic efforts, and pushes for greater social equality have taken a toll on many of us in this country. And it becomes a tricky situation, because our cynicism leads us to believe that political participation will not change anything, and so we abstain from politics, which only contributes to the infeasibility of political change. My own sense of optimism was truly on the line during this election, and I think in general, American optimism was set to triumph or dissipate into a deep despair depending on Tuesday’s election results. Throughout the election season, I worked hard not to get my hopes up; I tried to come to terms with the reality of the Bush administration, convinced that McCain would have a proclivity toward the status quo. The tendentious opinion pieces citing political polls did little to shake my decided views of the future, and I woke up Tuesday morning prepared for what I knew would transpire. I am glad that I was wrong.
Tuesday morning, in my American Political Thought class, we talked about how a president does not really make societal changes, nor convinces the American people to change their paradigms. Rather, the elected president represents the willingness (or lack thereof) within the people for change. What this means is that Barack Obama's win is less about what alterations he might make in Washington, and far more about the population's desires for the future. I see this as good news. It means that at the least, a substantial portion of the country is so enraged by the current political environment that they are willing to vote for change. And change does not come easily in this country, as our government is structured to prevent swift or radical transformations, and tradition or provincialism bars many from demanding it.
So what is most exciting for me about Tuesday's election has very little to do with Obama himself; what is exciting is the obvious change in the people, whose demand for a different type of politics was reflected in the polls. He is the new symbol of a shifting worldview. Obama didn't win because he altered people's goals and priorities; I think he won because people were fed up and finally ready for a political figure who could reignite their optimism and reflect their new priorities and desires. The pent up discontent with the current administration, and what has happened in our country over the past decade, was ready to explode. (Even John McCain adopted the slogan of “change” when he realized it was what people across America wanted.) Obama’s words of inspiration became a place to channel a growing momentum for change, and the spontaneous midnight parties and rallies all across the country reflected our decision as citizens to do something about it.
I think it is great that Obama has politicized and inspired so many people in our generation, and I hope that despite all of the problems and barriers he will face in his term, the majority of people can maintain hope and passion, and not become discouraged or feel let down—I promise to work on my inner cynic if you promise to work on yours…. Something shifted within the American people because we voted in an agent of change. People all over the country worked together to get him elected, and people all over the country celebrated together in the streets, hugging strangers and bridging divides. But this is not some happy ending; this is not a "hooray we got him into the White House, now I can go back to my regular life" type of moment. No, the change people apparently want will only be as strong as the sustained political movement for it. What we need to remember is that Obama is one man, and he represents one administration with limited capabilities and intense outside pressures. If we care about community and society, if we care about the welfare of everyone, if we care about the world and the environment, then Obama's victory alone is not enough. It is not just revamped policies that we need; it is a concomitant unrelenting desire and applied pressure for them, especially in all of the uphill battles this country now faces.
In the speech he gave Tuesday night, Obama said “it's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America…. It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.” Listening to those words, I battled my inner cynic who wanted to shout, “Good luck standing up to bureaucracies and big lobbyists.” I couldn’t help but think about the obstacles he, and this country, are about to face. But glancing down at my arms, I realized that I had goose bumps—I was moved by the crowd of people I saw standing before Obama. So I told myself to stop thinking cynically, to take a night off from it, and enjoy the triumph of optimism with the millions of other Americans celebrating across the country, and the millions of people celebrating across the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
