Author
Ahmad Reza Taheri
Global Sovereignty: Who deserves it?
Global Sovereignty: Who deserves it?
Ahmad Reza Taheri
Research (PhD) student in Political Science
B.Com., M.Com., M.A.
A review of Noam Chomsky’s “rogue states” actually inspired and motivated me to write this article on global sovereignty. Thus this is not a review of Professor Chomsky’s paper on rogue states, rather it is “based” on that paper. In better words: “the rogue states”, facilitated and paved a way for me to claim who or which state deserves to be the global sovereign, and why? Therefore aim is not to criticize Professor Noam Chomsky, nor to focus on the concept of rogue states, rather to move on a different direction, however a related one.
In order to begin it is however advisable to have a glimpse at the paper: “rogue states by Professor Noam Chomsky.” Professor Noam Chomsky has conducted a valuable work on “rogue states,” holding a critical perspective of the United States and UK by arguing that: “the current Iraq crisis is only the latest example where Washington and London declared Iraq a rogue state, a threat. There are legitimate ways to react to the many threats to world peace. It is for the Security Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and make recommendations on what measures shall be taken. The U.S. and UK would have no such authority even if their own hands were clean, hardly the case.”
He continuous: “referring to the Iraq’s violation of UN resolutions, these two states (U.S. and UK) taking the role of “world police men” --- an insult to the police, who in principle are supposed to enforce the law, not tear it to shreds. Suppose that the Security Council were to authorize the use of force to punish Iraq for violating the cease-fire UN Resolution 687, that authorization would apply to all states and not only to U.S. and UK. Contempt for the rule of law is deeply rooted in U.S. practice and intellectual culture e.g. U.S. unlawful use of force against Nicaragua. The U.S. bombed Libyan cities (1986), the official justification was self-defense against future attack. It invaded Panama to defend its interest and its people. In 1993, Clinton ordered a missile attack on Iraq, killing civilians. It was an act of self-defense against armed attack. All such attacks happened on their own interpretation of Art. 51 of the charter. The basic conception is that although the cold war is over, the U.S. still has the responsibility to protect the world --- but from what? It cannot be from the threat of “radical nationalism.” A secret 1995 study of the Strategic Command released through the freedom of Information act, the study, Essential of Post-Cold War Deterrence, shows how the U.S. shifted its deterrent strategy from the defunct Soviet Union to so-called rogue states such as: Iraq, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea. The study advocates that the U.S. exploit its nuclear arsenal to portray itself as “irrational and vindictive if its vital interests are attacked.” That “should be a part of the national persona we project to all adversaries”, particularly the “rogue states.” The report resurrects Nixon’s “madman theory”; our enemies should recognize that we are crazed and unpredictable, with extra ordinary destructive force at our command, so they will bend to our will in fear. The concept was apparently devised in Israel (1950 s) by the governing labor party.”
Immediately after the Berlin wall fell, Professor Chomsky continues: “the Bush administration submitted its annual call to congress for a huge pentagon budget. It explained: the primary threat is the growing technological sophistication of the third world, and intervention must be maintained particularly those targeting the Middle East. Saddam was once a favored friend and trading partner. His status changed when he misinterpreted U.S. willingness to allow him to modify the border with Kuwait by force as authorization to take the country over.
Indonesia shifted from enemy to friend when General Suharto took power in 1965, presiding over an enormous slaughter that elicited great satisfaction in the West. The U.S. sponsored atrocities in East Timor were vastly beyond any thing attributed to Saddam in Kuwait, and many other examples. There were no passionate calls for a military strike after Saddam’s gassing of Kurds at Halabja in March 1988. The British used chemical weapons in their 1919 intervention in north Russia against the Bolsheviks. The kennedy administration pioneered the massive use of chemical weapons against civilians as it launched its attack against South Vietnam 1961-1962. It was reported that thousands of Vietnamese still die from the effects of American chemical warfare. There is also substantial evidence of U.S. use of biological weapons against Cuba, reported in 1977.”
Professor Chomsky further discusses and analyses Washington’s support for Saddam. He goes to shooting down of an Iranian civilian airliner by guided-missile cruiser, and then the Iranian retaliation. And, then goes to Libya’s case, that U.S. should follow the clear requirements of international law and accept Libya’s proposal for world court adjudication, condemning the U.S. and UK for having “flatly refused” to submit the issue to the world court.
He believes that the concept “rogue state” is highly nuanced. Cuba qualifies as a leading rogue state because of its alleged involvement in international terrorism, but the U.S. does not fall into the category despite its terrorist attacks against Cuba for close to 40 years. The criteria are fairly clear: a rogue state is not simply a criminal state, but one that defies the orders of the powerful --- who are, of course, exempt… He does not defend the rogue states rather criticizing the U.S policies --- for instance: military strike is not the only solution for removing Saddam. There could be other ways e.g. “popular insurgency.”
It is U.S. insistence, since world war two motivates her to control the world’s major energy reserves… The U.S. energy corporations will not be happy to see foreign rivals in the region. (zmag.org/Chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html).
The Roguish tendencies in the nature of the States
Here by rogue label I agree with what Professor Noam Chomsky has defined in his “rogue states.” A rogue state is not simply a criminal state, but one that defies the orders of the powerful, while the powerful itself may commit what other rogue states have committed. Also, I will refer to the simplest and most ordinary political definition of rogue, as: “A states which behaves badly and is immoral and dishonest.” Having backed by this definition we can go on: Roguish tendency is inherited in any state, for the roguish characteristics are more or less visible in the nature of mankind, and thus, in the nature of the states.
Mooris Meterling, a famous philosopher in his book: “The Little Thoughts and The big World”, how well penned down that “as long as the characteristics such as: roguish, brutish, jealousy, meanness, arrogance, and so forth are in the nature of human being, communism in its true sense of the term cannot be applied within a society practically”, a comment which has a direct relation to the question. Therefore, men with different natures ultimately would shape and form different institutions (states) with their respective diverse natures and interests, and thus such circumstances would lead to a world where there would be a clash of interest, and competition --- an intense global competition for power among various states. Consequently, those states with rich political, economic and military capabilities and abilities would dominate and exploit other weakling states of the world --- it is an established reality. It is in this process of domination and exploitation that states such as developed states of the West work for their own national interest, and ignore the interest of other states such as those of the Third world. In this scenario, thus the most powerful states obviously would have much more say than others, and weaker states would have to abide by the international rules prescribed by the global powers.
Although it is claimed that there must be equality among the states, nevertheless both our past and contemporary world lacks and will lack equality at the global level, for its true application is almost a myth, simply because of those natural characteristics and differences in material interest among the states of the world.
Here, it may be fit to make an analogy between the “national sovereign” and “global sovereign” by referring to the English political philosopher Thomas Hobbes whom argued in his major work “Leviathan” (1651) that “the sovereign’s power should be unlimited, because the state originated in a so-called social contract, whereby individuals accept a common superior power to protect themselves from their own brutish instincts and to make possible the satisfaction of certain human desires.” In a similar style, today the United States of America plays the role of that “absolute sovereign of Thomas Hobbes”, but at the global level.
However, a realistic look at the international political scene may change what Professor Noam Chomsky holds.
Imagine that today instead of the United States, it is Taliban or any other like-minded institution as a super power!
Taliban had nurtured AlQaeda, a terrorist organization that killed around three thousands innocent people on 9/11 in New York City. Their ideology is to export and expand a fundamentalist form of Islam all over the world even by force. Their intention is to invite non-Muslims to the world of Islam and any rejection deserves death penalty. Any conversion from Islam into any other religion requires punishment i.e. execution. Abdul Rahman’s case in Afghanistan is the latest example that was close to death if the U.S. had not interfered in his case. His only committed crime was conversion into Christianity.
Under the Taliban minority groups, especially Hazaras were brutally massacred throughout Afghanistan and their women were enslaved and later sold to tribal leaders in Pakistan. In March 2001, the Taliban ordered the demolition of two statues of Buddha carved into cliff sides at Bamiyan, one 38 meters tall and about 1800 years old, the other 53 meters tall and about 1500 years old. The act was condemned by UNESCO and many countries around the world. For them people’s freedom has been defined in the divine constitution i.e. Koran. This constitution is absolute and final and any kind of interpretation by other Muslim clerics other than Taliban or related Islamic schools is a great sin and will be regarded as a form of interference in Allah’s Law. Today their rotten and outdated ideology cannot be accepted by moderate Muslims let alone non-Muslims. This is a glimpse of their evil thoughts and practices at home.
Of course that the purpose is not to cover and overlook what Americans and other western powers have done or to claim that their hands are clean. Rather, here the question is that to turn our attention to “intention” --- the “intention” is important. If Americans attacked Iraq and killed many innocent people, their intention was to remove Saddam Hussain from power so that reach to their pre-planned goals under any pretext, and not to target the innocent people, and let’s not forget that it was in the process of invasion which innocent people were targeted unintentionally. But, the target of AlQaeda in New York at World Trade Centers was a deliberate action, and so their intention was to kill the innocent people.
Now let’s suppose that an organization like AlQaeda, or any other like-minded institution, with an ideology like that, possessed of powerful destructive weapons and plays the role of the world police! What would happen to the peoples of the world then? A power like America does possess such weapons, but did it use those against Iraq or any other state? At least not in the contemporary world. Though such weapons were used against Japan and some other countries in the past, now they have learned from their evil lessons and may not repeat such mistakes, whereas smaller rogue states such as Iraq or Afghanistan may sacrifice their own subjects as well as that of others for the sake of their own ideologies.
Today, rationality and logic plays a better role in the developed states of the West, whereas in AlQaeda type organizations or institutions, logic and rationality has been replaced by negative emotions, baseless and dangerous thoughts. Such organizations / institutions have to travel a very long path to reach that stage where developed states have reached today.
Coming to Iraq of Saddam Hussain, another rogue state “who used its chemical warfare capabilities against Iranian forces (her Muslim neighbor) in 1984, 1985, and 1986, and on its own rebellious Kurdish population.” (BW.Watson&BW.Watson,Jr.p:16). It is against Islamic code --- Islam does not permit fight and bloodshed among the Muslims, nevertheless they ignored their own divine constitution at which their political systems were based on, and fought with each other.
Iraq also invaded Kuwait, her another Muslim neighbor, for various reasons such as: “Kuwait had been a part of the Ottoman Empire, that it was an artificial British creation, Iraq could not repay about $ 80 billion that had been borrowed to finance the Iran-Iraq war, Kuwait’s decision to not forgive Iraq’s $ 65 billion debt, and so on. Saddam concealed military preparations by lying to the United States and by agreeing to allow the Egyptians and Saudis to mediate an end to the quarrel. President Bush, the senior, sent the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, to meet with Saddam, who told her to convey to Bush that he had peaceful intentions and was not seeking a U.S. – Iraq confrontation. Meanwhile, on July 31, 1990, Iraqi and Kuwaiti spokesmen met in Jidda, Saudi Arabia for negotiations concerning oil and territorial disputes, but the Iraqis walked out of the meetings on August 1st.” (Watsons.p:17,18).
Iraq could also go further i.e. invasion of Saudi Arabia, but it was stopped by the more powerful states: United States and United Kingdom, and not by other less powerful states…! “Bush met Thatcher in Aspen, Colorado. At the time, he did not believe that Iraq would invade Saudi Arabia and was leaning against a military response. However, Thatcher argued that Iraq would invade and that the only option was to send troops to the region. This established an Anglo-American cooperation that would be the core of the Coalition. Given their reticence concerning the presence of foreign troops in Saudi Arabia, the Saudis were approached cautiously. Cheney and Powell discussed a Coalition force with the Saudi Ambassador, and when Bush learned that the Saudis were not going to permit the deployments, he let them see satellite photographs of Iraqi forces amassing for an invasion along their border. The King reversed his stand and accepted the troop deployments.
Support was solicited from other Arab nations, and the Soviets agreed to honor the sanctions against Iraq and to halt further arms sales. Japan and China agreed to boycott Iraqi and Kuwaiti oil, and finally Turkey also joined the Coalition and closed the oil pipeline to Iraq on August 7th.” (Watsons,p:21, 22).
Indeed, Iraq failed to get the support of other states against the coalition, and this was due to lack of a strong faculty of diplomatic thought and vision, nor other Islamic states could solve the Gulf war on their own abilities. However, this is not to say that the U.S. or UK whatsoever have committed is for the benefit of the region, rather is for their own national interest, and not for the interest of the region. But let’s point it out that in fact it is in such process of pursuing and fulfilling their own global policies that some degree of advantages directly or indirectly and willy-nilly would be shared with the other states of the region, for instance: the Iraqi’s invasion of Kuwait could not be accepted by Iraq’s own neighbors and there could not be any legitimate grounds for the invasion, and most of the countries around the world had opposed Saddam’s aggression and duplicity. Saddam was forced to withdraw from Kuwait and that was for the interest of the neighbors. “Saddam led Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak to believe that he would not invade Kuwait. Mubarak was furious at being deceived by Saddam. In fact, the Saudis asked for U.S. aid, because they felt that the Iraqis tried to deceive them during discussions after the Kuwaiti invasion, leading them to conclude that, if Iraq invaded Saudi Arabia, then an invasion of the United Arab Emirates would soon follow, if these moves were successful, then Saddam would have a major influence over the world’s oil.” (Watsons&Stears&Vitiello,,p:32).
Or, look at Iran after 1979. If the external forces would not have stopped Iran from her own foreign policies such as exporting their Islamic revolution, then how international scene would look like today! “Exporting the Iranian Islamic revolution”, “this idea was clearly stressed in the speech drafted by Ayatollah Khomeni, the founder of Islamic Republic in Iran. The Ayatollah stated (on March 31, 1980, read for him by his son): We are doing every thing possible to export our revolution to other countries in the world.” Obviously, as they claimed in theory, might be turned into practice --- An Islamized world. No need to say how an Islamized world would look like, because the practice and statesmanship of almost all fifty seven Islamic states has shown well that they are lagging much behind both politically and economically compare with the states of the West.
Islamic Republic began its campaign in Iraq. “On April 19, 1980, the Iranian newspaper “Jomhori Islami” published an appeal of the Ayatollah Khomeni: The Iraqi people must not fall into the hands of its aggressors. Its duty as well as that of the army is to overthrow the Ba’ath, that non-Islamic party. April 18, 1980, at a meeting with the National Reserve Committee, Ayatollah Khomeni declared: The Iraqi government is not a real one, it does not even have a parliament; it is a military clique which really holds power and does whatever it pleases… With regard to the Iranian Chief of Staff, he claimed that his army was capable of occupying Iraq and that the population would welcome it with open arms…” (N. Firzli, p:31,32.).
The Iran – Iraq war (1980 – 1988) was one of most destructive of the 20th century, with likely more than one million casualties. Despite the conflict's length and cost, neither Iran nor Iraq made significant territorial and political gains. The total cost, including military supplies and civilian damages, probably exceeded $500 billion for each side. The Iranian government could have ended the war in 1982 on only marginally different terms from those obtained six years later.
If both Iran and Iraq had that much opportunity and capability to overthrow each other, they could have done it before, because their theories clearly were indicative of their goals, as that happened to Taliban in Afghanistan by Pakistan, one of the main players that had brought up the Taliban and supported them till the 9/11 incident which then turned her back fully for the sake of his own self-interest and then her national interest.
Coming to the rogue of the rogues i.e. the United States of America. Throughout her young history, the United States has faced struggles, both within the country between various ethnic, religious, political, and economic groups, and with other nations. The efforts to deal with and resolve these struggles have shaped the United States of America into the 21st century. Progressive presidents sought to impose order on the world, and especially to find markets for American products. For example, Roosevelt believed that a world power such as the United States was obliged to maintain global peace. To the same extent, Ayatollah Khomeni declared an Islamic revolution is necessary, through which we would be able to create and maintain a peaceful world. But, the former rogue stronger and the latter weaker in her diplomatic ability.
The United States underwent a painstaking process till reached to its present stage, that is to say, such clumsy policies of the smaller rogue states had been practiced by the western powers during their political immaturity and so have received their repercussions and learned from the past. “For example, the U.S. became involved in a civil war in Nicaragua, where in 1909 supported the overthrow of the country’s leader and sustained a reactionary regime, or it occupied Haiti in 1915 and the Dominican Republic in 1916. On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. In minutes, half of the city vanished and again on August 9, dropped an even more powerful bomb on Nagasaki.” (The U.S. history.Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe 2004). And, many other examples as were cited by Professor Noam Chomsky in his “rogue states”.
The United States’ evil theories and doctrines have sacrificed and damaged many people of the world. However, looking at the other side of the coin may place us in a better position for a final judgment, i.e. her other plans and projects that has been warmly received, and benefited almost all states and nations of the world. Take a clear example of “Computer” and “Internet”, a worldwide network that links computers and provides instant communication, enabled investors to move capital anywhere in the world instantaneously, and other endless number of tasks that states and peoples can do.
Today, it is the very America and its close allies that have reached to the space and are involved with untold projects and discoveries so that we (the third world) may come to know many years later.
Today, they are controlling at least a bit of natural phenomenon and disasters so that we may avoid their confrontations, etc, whereas in countries like Saudi Arabia or others in the same 21st century both people and rulers are still busy with their own out dated thoughts and ideologies and constantly cry: “Down with the USA,” while on the other hand, eagerly prefer to use American products rather than their own home made products. It’s indeed interesting…! If we have a look at the list of the historical inventions, we will come across those great scientists who almost all belong to the West and are mainly Jews, such as: Bell Alexander Graham, inventor of the telephone. Edison Thomas Alva who invented the electric light, the phonograph, and the motion-picture camera. These three inventions gave rise to giant industries — electric utilities, phonograph and record companies, and the film industry — thus changing the work and leisure habits of people throughout the world. Approximately more that 267 only Westerns possessed of notable inventions and discoveries from 1250 up to 1992. It is because of their inventions that today we have a virtual access to the world. If undeveloped and developing nations suffered from the U.S. policies, yet they also were benefited. No need to cite the examples because there are many around us. But what nations of the world gained from states such as: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba…?
There is a huge gap of “technological innovation and development” between the Western nations and the Islamic nations. The Western states like America are the inventors and the Islamic states like Iran are only the consumers. This gap is clearly visible. But, that huge gap of “political maturity” between them is invisible, i.e. as the U.S. is very advanced and sophisticated in technological field, to the much greater extent they are logically and politically much mature than the rest of the world, that is why, they are the rulers of the world.
“Today’s great powers — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China all have large military forces and substantial nuclear weapons capabilities. Japan and Germany — with huge economies and relatively large military forces but no nuclear weapons — also qualify as great powers. These seven states control roughly half of the world’s economy, 70 percent of world military spending, 35 percent of its soldiers, 95 percent of arms exports, and 99 percent of nuclear weapons.
The United States dominates great-power relations as the world’s only superpower. It has the largest and most technologically powerful economy in the world, with a per capita GDP of $42,000. Its economy equals that of the next three largest states combined — Japan, China, and Germany. Its military spending equals that of the other six great powers combined. The influence of the United States in the international political system is effective and commensurate with its dominant status in the world. For instance, international involvement in post-Cold War conflicts, such as the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the civil war in Bosnia, largely depended on U.S. leadership. It works more closely with other great powers in efforts to resolve international conflicts, however today is more reluctant to carry the full financial burden of regional security efforts in Europe and Asia.” (Goldstein, Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe 2004).
Taking all that into consideration, we may recall that famous proverb: “No Pain, No gain.” Obviously, if any of the states of the world today were in lieu of the USA could have dominated the world and dictated terms and conditions.
However, domination on other states of the world is not an easy task, rather needs a lengthy and painstaking process. It requires efficient political and diplomatic thought and theory, a very high economic and technological might, and powerful military ability. How to achieve such factors is not the job of any one except the U.S., as history and experience has proved.
Unaware of the above mentioned facts, many of the Islamic states and other states hostile towards the U.S., claim for global equality, whereas global equality is only a political myth and indeed is absurd. Because, states of the world are not equal, because they do not make equal contributions, and so that is why the biggest contributors play the biggest roles. Indeed one cannot overlook or escape this bitter reality.
And, ultimately there must be an experienced global sovereign to look after and monitor other states so that would not allow other rogue states to commit whatsoever against her will and repeat the mistakes in which she herself had committed in the past. However, agree, that may not follow truly good for the entire global society, but at least this may go better than that of other inexperienced states which are based on their own stereotype doctrines and have to go the way in which the global sovereign had once gone.
An experienced global sovereign of the contemporary period certainly does not only possess of a mere military power to use always force and violence, rather possessed of a power in the field of logic, with a better degree of rationality who knows better than others, what is what.
When a state or political society cannot have a disciplined and ordered home, how then that can be expected to deal with the outside home. If the United States does not have that right to play the role of the police, then who is eligible for that right? Iran! Whose new president lacks diplomatic behavior and moving backwards, or Iraq of Saddam Hussain who could have simply left the power so that avoid war and that heavy civil destruction for the sake of Iraqis. Or Saudi Arabia whose constitution is an out dated one and its women are still considered as second class citizens, or others such as: Cuba and Syria who themselves are already in the hot waters…! Al though the United Nations is there to play that role but does it play the role in its actual practice? It is at the behest of the U.S., why? Because, the United States is the largest contributor to the UN, for instance: “it provided roughly 22 percent of the UN’s administrative budget and about 28 percent of its peacekeeping budget in 2001.” (Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe 2004).
“It was under the instruction of the U.S. that the United Nations had quickly approved five resolutions condemning Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait (1991), and demanding unconditional withdrawal from Kuwait” (Miller & Mylroie, p: 4), and also it was the U.S. will to bypass Security Council and get on act on Iraq of Saddam Hussain in its recent war against terror. Even her close allies such as France and Germany opposed her; nonetheless she along with Britain went against will of the opposition.
Thus, considering the above mentioned realities, the United States has every right to order and govern this anarchical and dangerous world, why? Because it has proved that it is capable of doing that --- how --- it has crossed and passed all the necessary filters and channels through which today has placed itself at this stage. It has disciplined its own house, established its civic and democratic culture (however relative), as well as organized human and economic security at home. Its history and political experience turned it from a clumsy state to an experienced global state that learned how to deal better both at home and outside.
Where almost each and every citizen is honored and respected well. Where a president is forced to modify his words and apologize to and before his nation and tell the truth. And, where an academician or scholar can criticize the policies of his/her own country and again rest in safe and secure, such a political society then certainly is rooted, founded and structured deeply and correctly. In turn, such a state with such qualities would be in a better position to look and monitor the international political system.
Bibliography
• Noam Chomsky.rogue states: www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html
• Bruce W. Watson - Bruce George,MP - Peter Tsouras - B.L. Cyr. Military Lessons of the Gulf War. Izharsons Printers, Lahore-Pakistan1991,p:16, 17, 18.
• B. George, MP, Raimondo Luraghi, Bruce W. Watson, Tim Lister, Bruce W. Watson, jr., Jane Helwig, Georgia Sakell, Patricia Smith. Coalition Diplomacy, Military Lessons of the Gulf War. Izharsons Printers, Lahore-Pakistan1991,p:21,22.
• Bruce W. Watson, Bruce W. Watson, jr., Cheryl Stears, Scott Vitiello. Iraqi diplomacy in the Gulf war. Military Lessons of the Gulf War. Izharsons Printers, Lahore-Pakistan1991,p:32.
• Nicola Firzli(Editor in Chief), Nassim Khoury(Editorial Director), Elias Dib(Art Director). The Iran-Iraq Conflict. Institute of Studies and Research. Editions du Monde Arabe, 1981. p: 31,32.
• Bill Turque, Paul E. Johnson, Nancy Woloch. United States (History). Microsoft
Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe 2004, © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation.
• Joshua S. Goldstein. Super Power. Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia Deluxe 2004, © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation.
• Judith Miller & Laurie Mylroie. Saddam Hussain and the Crisis in the Gulf. Publications: Times Books, USA. Page: 4.