Requiem Part 2
Is there a wider gulf between Civilisation and the State of Nature, or within Civilisation itself?
In Part 1 of Requiem, I had concluded with the fact that the 'lowest common denominator' was not as I had posited it to be (preservation of life, liberty and property) but rather the grim reality of authoritarianism. As Thomas Hobbes had opined, his thoughts and perspectives shaped by the violent experiences of civil war, humans were inherently selfish and thus existed in that state of nature in which conflict was a natural occurence, even an unavoidable inevitability. He then laid down his suggestion that a sole sovereign would be responsible for governing over the peoples, asserting that the latter had, without hesitation, surrender all rights to this sovereign. This would be the first and only conscious choice each individual in that state of perpetual war would feel compelled to make; upon subordinating those rights to the sovereign, the individual would have absolutely no power whatsoever to challenge the authority of the sovereign. The system of authoritarian rule championed by Hobbes did not consider the unchallenged authority of the sovereign problematic, and neither did he express reservations should the sovereign choose to expand that authority to decide life, empoverishment or death for its subjects.
Hence, the warning that democracy may prove to be 'one man, one vote, one time' is highly relevant and should disabuse intellectuals of the notion that democracy alone guarantees the preservation of life, liberty and property. 'Preservation' against the reversion to the state of war is an obvious, fundamental concern and a bulwark against anarchy (chaos and violence) and lawlessness; equally imperative is 'preservation' against governmental abuse, because the synergy of the collectivisation of material resources, concentration of common political objectives, culmination of collective interests and the consecration of the institution that is the government in legitimacy points towards the government as the most powerful entity in the state. Thus, the most powerful is also the most likely to abuse that power. The only countervailing force that can limit the usage of power by the government comes from the People. Being the same entity that has bestowed upon the government legitimacy and right of representation, the People as a collective force is also the most dependable defender of civil liberties and rights.
As kurt pointed to an article he had composed a few months back, lamenting the disheartening state of affairs in the US, here was my response:a jacksonian, I lament as well the state of affairs that the political system, electorate and the once time-honoured traditions of pluralist politics and demagoguery-free deliberation has degenerated into.
Alas, the ordinary citizen in the US now finds himself more or less disenchanted with the entire system of party politics, disillusioned with the promises of the adversarial Democrats and the discredited Republicans, disgusted with their indulgence with demagoguery - and surely in the natural evolution of the psyche amidst these bouts of skepticism they must have asked themselves: what is left of this system, of this form of governance, that is worth preserving? Yet that is not reflective of the presence of any alternatives, unless we consider a regression into the dark days of Fascism even remotely appealing. What should be asked by the citizens is: what have we forgotten about the traditions set forth by the Founders of the Constitution that have till today carried the Republic as far as they can before being taken for granted and thus eroded by apathy and recklessness?
During the inter-war years, the sentiment of dolchstosselegende, or the "stab in the back" was easily exploited and amplified by the NSDAP - that Germany only lost the Great War in 1918 because the Weimar Republic acceded to that demand, thereby constituting a betrayal of the highest order: snatching "imminent" victory right under the noses of the Army. This myth of betrayal gradually became one of the more prominent cornerstones of the NSDAP programme as well as that of the Communists and Socialists.
In the years leading up to that momentous victory at the polls, both the Left and the Right constantly sought to undermine the Weimar Republic. They shared that common goal: to destabilise the government, render the political center powerless and ultimately precipitate the collapse of the Republic. Galvanising the masses behind that myth of betrayal (while conveniently papering over the disastrous miscalculations of the Generals themselves during the Great War), the Nazis were able to decisively grasp such a huge majority of the votes.
Yet in the post-war decades that ensued, when the extra-parliamentary tactics employed by the extreme Left and Right became indistinguishable, with both ends of the spectrum seeking to undermine the faith of the public in the governing center, the peoples of Western Europe responded by huddling towards the center, recognising and condemning the extreme parties for their regression into violence and eventual irrelevance.
It must have been eerily reminiscent of 1933 that Western Europeans saw in the mirror: the precedent set by the Nazis that shook the populations to the core - that ideological extremism and blind partisanship could only end up destroying the fragile vestiges of democracy and government.
So it seems prudent to suggest that the the US is seemingly beginning to learn this lesson: that the Left and the Right have descended into such blatant demagoguery, acrimonious disregard and the vicious cycle of partisanship, clientelism and witch-hunting; that both ends of the spectrum have betrayed the American people and served not the national interest but themselves and their vested objectives; that there is, tragically, no representative worth voting for at the elections.
a jacksonian, you are right that this is not sheer laziness or inertia. Neither the Left nor the Right have descended into the type of extra-parliamentary behaviour that was typical of extreme left- and right-wing organisations in Western Europe in the '70s and '80s, but they seem to be tempting fate and toeing the line. The Right and definitely the Left have betrayed the people - perhaps this will be the galvanising force necessary to convince citizens to discredit these partisan hacks that roam the halls of Congress, and eventually carve out a center that is worth supporting and voting for.
Of course, to recall what one has forgotten is a much more challenging task than simply blaming the current state of representative democracy on the parties of today, identifying the effect as the cause by ignoring the possibility that what the public has taken for granted has been gradually dissolved and marginalised, shaping the priorities and objectives of future statesmen and their parties such that adherence to preserving tradition is less likely to be observed as a vote-getter.
Reverting to the question that I had posed at the conclusion of Part 1, it is important to ask whether the 'international community' views piratical groups as 'enemies of the human race'. For particular actors in the international system of states, these 'enemies' are tolerated as the necessary price to be paid for the surreptitious advancement of higher priorities, one of which is the depredation upon, and eventual destruction, of the West. These sovereigns believe that they are able to somewhat manage these unruly piratical forces, and as long as these instruments are not intent on inflicting harm on them, then these forces should be allowed to exist and burgeon. A precedent was already established then, during the 16th century:[...] piracy had emerged as an essential, though unsavory, tool of statecraft. Queen Elizabeth viewed English pirates as adjuncts to the royal navy, and regularly granted them "letters of marque" (later known as privateering, or piracy, commissions) to harass Spanish trade.
Yet to risk the stability of the international system by allowing these entities to run roughshod over territories and across borders would be a serious concern for these sovereigns, who would then erect authoritarian or totalitarian safeguards within their Nations in order to preserve domestic sovereignty and ensure that the monopoly of force and ideological control remained in the hands of the ruling elite. In the Middle East, the rulers know very well that a significant proportion of their peoples are vulnerable to the tempting clarion calls for 'Arab nationalism' and 'revolution', and they do not trust that their own peoples would always choose to respect sovereignty and by extension disregard the galvanising appeal of the transnational agendas of these piratical forces. Regimes will fiercely and uncompromisingly guard against the very demons they unleash upon their external environment, fearful of their fragile allegiance as they are in awe of their potential scope and freedom of action without accountability.
It was a brilliant maneuver. The mariners who received these letters, most notably the famed explorers Francis Drake and Walter Raleigh, amassed immense fortunes for themselves and the Crown, wreaked havoc on Spanish fleets, and terrorized Spain's shoreside cities. Meanwhile, the queen could preserve the vestiges of diplomatic relations, reacting with feigned horror to revelations of the pirates' depredations.
[...] This precedent would be repeated time and again until the mid-19th century, as the Western powers regularly employed pirates to wage secret wars.
That is, until it becomes almost impossible to manage, even for the regimes themselves:The corsairs refused to curtail their activities after each war's conclusion, and the states realized that they had created an uncontrollable force. It was this realization that led to the Declaration of Paris in 1856, signed by England, France, Spain, and most other European nations, which abolished the use of piracy for state purposes. Piracy became and remained beyond the pale of legitimate state behavior.
Thus, it seems that until these state sponsors of such piratical forces are at the brink of regime collapse, when the forces they believed they could harness for their own ends have turned on them and have either directly carried out operations subverting the domestic sovereignty of the state, thereby weakening the authority and ideological superstructure that allows the ruling elite control over the masses; or indirectly through the clarion call of transnationalism that instigates citizens to challenge state authority and attempt revolution or coup d'etat; only then will the possibility of establishing a Covenant be considered likely. Even if such a predicament transpires, one wonders - knowing the schisms between the Arabs and the lengthy legacy of sectarianism and tribalism that permeates to this day - if ever a Covenant such as that drawn between the European powers could be created and actually adhered to. They have become so used to the transgressing of international law and the principle of sovereignty that to consciously attempt following the rules for once might prove the axiom "old habits die hard" true, again and again.
[...] The Declaration of Paris is, on the one hand, a recognition of shared guilt. On the other, it represents the first articulation since the Roman era of piracy as a crime in and of itself. The pirate, by this definition, exists like a malevolent satellite to the law of nations. "Considering . . . that the uncertainty of the law and of the duties in such a matter [as piracy] gives rise to differences of opinion between neutrals and belligerents which may occasion serious difficulties, and even conflicts," the declaration stated, the signing parties "have adopted the following solemn declaration: Privateering is and remains abolished."
An intriguing point I would like to raise: when the Covenant was established in 1856, the reality was not of European 'nations' and their fear of Westphalian sovereignty being violated, but rather a more realist concern with overseas empires, especially the British who derived their imperial power from the Navy and dominated the 'high seas', which reinforced and sustained that myth of European invincibility - the ideology that crafted the so-called 'colonial mindset' and the ideas of 'white man's burden' which contributed partially to the justificatory reasons for the transgression of sovereignty in that era.
As a result of this colonial mindset, these colonies and their rag-tag pirate crews were preemptively discredited and devoid of legitimacy, and any action that threatened to subvert colonial authority or challenge European control was automatically categorised as a declaration of war against 'all of civilisation' - be reminded that European intellectuals then chose to distinguish Europeans as part of the 'civilised world', while the colonised formed part of the 'barbarous, uncivilised masses' that had to be subjugated under the banner of the European empires. Thus, it is plausible, even recommended, that we should perceive the judgement passed down by the Europeans as one of false altruism, with the intention of disguising the exploitative nature of colonialism by appealing to this 'common humanity' - even though the contradiction did not present itself glaring enough to warrant questioning till self-determination and nationalism were introduced as ideas into the international system.
By 'all of civilisation' the European powers meant their empires and the peoples being governed under it, though that certainly did not mean that the colonial masters ever perceived their subjects to be as civilised as them. Thus, it is highly questionable that self-determination did not already present itself before in that age, only to be discredited with a wave of the hand and a label that represented 'un-civilisation'.
This brings us back to that same question: we might speak of hostis humani generis, but to each entity the "enemy" is different, the "human race" is defined by varying parameters and standards, occasionally with regard to extreme strains of ethno-religious thought (think Nazism, Islamism). With such serious dichotomies existing and cutting across Nations, parochial definitions of "enemy" have proven will continue to prove to be more relevant and thus more deserving of attention than transnational threats, since the repercussions of dealing with the former are usually felt closer to home since domestic and foreign policy are typically calibrated to deal with the "enemy". Hitler could perceive the non-Aryans as sub-human, while it served the purposes of the superpowers in the Cold War to demonise the other as the "enemy" of the "human race" (again, a collective term employed to generate solidarity among the oppressed and thereby divert attention from its repressive rule).
Hostis humani generis simply does not cut it as a galvanising rationale.
Perhaps I can posit a suggestion as to why Europe today seems disinterested in preserving sovereignty: the European colonial powers viewed sovereignty as a mechanism with which to limit each other's attempts to expand their empires, and to deny the indiscriminate extension of that right, the delegitimisation of piracy served that shared objective; yet in this modern era, it is no longer the recognition of preservation of imperial power that incentivises the struggle to delegitimise piracy and terrorism, but rather a defensive rationale of protecting one's own borders (in comparison to the European state of today, the empire of yesterday seemed more valuable and thus more worthy of protection than merely the Nation-state as defined by territorial borders; the argument is less compelling than before, since the promise of extending the reaches of Empire was kept alive in 1856, but rendered almost ridiculous as a concept now).
It is thus less apparent than ever that the requiem of piracy has ceased, but ever more worrying is the seemingly gradual disinclination to take the initiative to fearlessly espouse one's support of the principles that have laid the groundwork for stability and order in international relations, and to convey the unyielding will to fight to the death for the preservation of these principles. Again, it comes down to people forgetting what has been taken for granted, and blaming the remnants of the pillars holding up Nations for the transgressions of transnational progressivists.
Labels:
Law of Nations,
Piracy,
Transnational Progressivism
4 spoke up:
Oh my god, how impressive is this?! Please say you'll do my term paper for me!!
What is interesting is that the US cannot abide by the 1856 declaration as it goes after Privateering. That is a power that the People of the United States holds as a legitimate way to fight wars and is in the Constitution. We may abide by the spirit of it, but do put forth declarations that we will not be using Privateers in a given conflict. To date no one has said a thing about that in the GWOT, Afghanistan or Iraq. The US, by putting forward that legitimate ways to recognize such actors, give them National imprimature and hold them accountable make *that* a legitimate way to fight wars. Indeed, while outlawing the practice, the Admiralty courts in the UK would still be regulating prizes on captures all the way in to the late 19th century. So the use of Citizens who arm themselves and take up recognizable insignia and get Letters to ensure that they are covered by the rules of war and that they are taking on legitimate tasks of the US, is the way that the US gets around the Paris Convention.
On the larger question of what to do with these 'outlaws', comes our need to move past just the 19th century and major imperial era and shift back through the history of the law of nations. When first promulgated pre-Westphalia and slowly brought together under the Black Book of the Admiralty, this law in regards to these outlaws has two very strict, very definite roots.
First is the original Roman maritime trade laws that served as the basis for the Admiralty laws incorporated into the law of nations. This is the *only* area of law that puts forward a highly biased basis, and is one of the few where a jury is not required nor even the opposition to show up for a verdict to be rendered. That has been true up to the early 20th century in some rare cases.
Second is the common law derived from the blend of English and Norse views, both of which have, if possible, an even *harsher* view of 'outlaws'. To be 'outlaw' was to be banished and to be 'put outside the safety of the law'. In other words, you were given a short period to 'get out of town' and then it was open season on you. That was for crimes considered bad enough to warrant sanction, but not so bad as to require death. The other half, however, was those that did prey upon travelers and such, who would be made 'outlaw' without benefit of their being present. As a threat to the community, this was something done only to those that proved more than local law enforcement could handle. The sanction, however, was just the same and the later, 19th century, of 'wanted dead or alive' did not apply.
The US used exactly this view via the FM-100 for the US Army put out in 1863 and reprinted until 1898. I stumbled across that at the Avalon Project which is chock-a-block with all sorts of treaties, laws and such. The article in question was a legitimate way to handle things under the law of nations and US Code and, strangely, nothing the US has done *since* actually invalidates it. Here it is:
"Art. 82.
Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers - such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates."
If captured by the Army, and it *was* the Army Field Manual, those doing this sort of thing had summary decisions placed upon them - no right of appeal. One of the great things is that the President, as both CinC and Chief Law Enforcement Officer, can *do* this for those falling into the 'predatory warfare' category. Today we would, of course, have some sort of hearing to see if one was: 'illegal enemy combatant'.
Today, of course, doing such a thing as that is *unheard of*. The civil crime of waging 'predatory warfare' is not addressed in any legal code as it is an outright statement that Nations have the right to protect themselves and each other from those who place themselves 'outlaw'. That is the work of Transnationalism: to give sanctuary to those who fight 'outlaw' and ensure that no sanctions can be easily taken against them. Call for a grand framework of 'international law' and *ignore* the existing law of nations. That seems to happen an awful lot, this wanting something brand new for something that is ages old. Perhaps if we only called them 'terrorists' it will make them seem almost 'legitimate'. Convince people they ARE legitimate and then the question of the legitimacy of the nation state comes up... for if any band of outlaws is legitimate in their warfare, that means that nation states are not sovereign in their rights of using same to protect themselves. This does not get rid of warfare but, instead, makes it more pervasive as anyone can wage it at any time and get no sanctions put against them as it is too difficult to get an 'international framework' put together.
I will, however, keep on calling them as they are: banditti, brigands, pirates, buccanneers, and the old term of 'outlaw'. Outlaws to the law of nations.
Predators without civilized backing.
Barbarians.
No matter what their 'cause' their classification is just the same. If we cannot protect our own meanings of what civilization *is*, then they will have won. I will not try to argue their terms, their semantics, their outlooks. They delegitimize themselves by their actions and deserve no attempt to understand them. They have even broken with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by not adhering to it. But the 'international law' folks would have a stroke if they even thought that. Actually having to *do* something to ensure your rights!
Heaven forbid!
Reconciliation of meanings, being as subjective and skewered due to deliberate or inherent bias, is a thankless job in this case. However much the transnational progressivists may like to believe that humanity, because of the (dangerously flawed) assumption that all humans inherently value the same interests and objectives and therefore deserve equal treatment as "members of humanity", what is unavoidable is the fact that the unpardonable actions of these entities are not corroborative of their sentiment or the affinity felt towards this so-called 'global human consciousness', or any other catchy meme that they may churn out.
The US thus has every right - even obligation - to label these piratical forces what they obviously are: illegitimate, unlawful and invalid. As I previously expounded, their causes are unworthy of mention or consideration - simply their status as non-state actors by default puts the onus on them to convince the sovereign actors why they should be allowed to exist in the international system dominated by sovereigns.
What to make of this desire to 'understand' the perspectives and world-views of these parasitic entities that respect none of the rules set and agreed upon by legitimate actors? A well-intentioned attempt to reconcile diametrically opposing conceptions of the international system, of the very basis of 'peace' and 'co-existence'? That latter phrase is non-existent in the grander plans of entities like aQ.
At times, it does seem like the 'international law' ideological mouthpieces have taken up the mantle of anti-anti-terrorism: that is, the rejection of the validity of the so-called 'unilateral' approach taken by the US that characterises this particular set of responsive measures termed 'anti-terrorism', leading to the acceptance of terrorism as being a victim of this 'untrammelled' exercise of prosecutorial power by the US. Much akin to the anti-anti-Communist sentiment that swept across Europe, where advocates believed that emphasis upon the horrifying transgressions of international law, human rights and sovereignty by Communist regimes was simply a diversionary tactic employed by the 'guilty' capitalist West.
The beauty of the law of nations is that *any* wronged Nation can call an illegitimate and predatory attack just that. By pointing out the lack of warrant, the lack of adhering to the basics of actually fighting to create a Nation, and otherwise abide by the codes set up via the Hague and Geneva Conventions, any Nation so attacked can do so and let other Nations know that these are Outlaws. Predators. And common enemy.
Even the lofty Universal Declaration of Human Rights has the paragraph of what you must not do. And as with all treaties, if you do not adhere to it and act in accordance with it, you do not get its protection. The international law folks and Transnationalists of Progressive and Capitalist stripe do not like that. This means that there actually *is* a standard to meet to be eligable for the sanctification of the individual.
While I do have some problems with how this current President has done things, his very first impulse of the 'Wanted' poster was exactly and absolutely correct. These are predators in human form, setting themselves outside the law and seeking to be above it. Not just the laws of any one Nation but of all Nations. Since the start of the Wilsonian conception of things, Nations have been swayed by high language and ideals, but none have questioned if such are actually able to work in any way, shape or form that still allows autonomy and sovereignty of nations. Trying to cure 'the scourge of war' has, instead, ushered in a view of an 'unjust peace' amongst Nations. By attempting to shear sovereign outlooks by Nations for themselves, this international law only attempts to offer 'peace' not 'freedom' nor 'liberty'. Those must come first, or the only peace that is garnered is the peace of oppression: tyranny.
As this modern era loses its grasp of what civilization amongst nations is, we lose the basis for founding liberty and freedom to create justice. This is not just bad for the US, it is bad for *all* Nations as it seeks to remove what makes each Nations separate and special, and replace it with assigned rights and outlooks. Terrorists have brought back the era of personal and predatory warfare by organizations without sanction by any Nation. They do not fight to establish Nation, but to tear down the world order and re-make it to their own views.
By keeping no standard to judge such, the law of nations dissolves from disuse. International law fits no ready form to address these things that the law of nations can and does. What is left is the dissolving of the fabric of Nation to Nation contact and, soon, 'anything goes' as people take up personal, private warfare. That is not an era of 'peace', it is the era of the warlord, the ditator, the despotic tyrant. I do get a sinking feeling that as the founding generation of the US described the failure state of republics and democracies, that we are now seeing that return.
Being so civilized that one is unable to name a predator as a predator or even recognize it as such means that one is not advanced... one becomes something far, far less: prey.
The predators are back, and we have very little time left, a few decades at most and most likely less, to call them as they are and confront them. Or see thousands of years of work crumble to dust... or thousands of dawns appear as the death throws of the republic of the United States will be reactionary and the Terrible Swift Sword exacts one, last stroke before darkness descends again.
Post a Comment