March 20, 2003
THE "NEW" GOLDEN RULE:
The big question: Can Arabs handle liberty?: The fall of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is going to provide an answer to one of the world's perennial chicken-and-egg questions: What makes the Arab world such a dreadful place? (Zev Chafets, 3/20/03, Jewish World Review)Maybe the Iraqis and other Arab people are just folks - regular people who want to live in harmony with their neighbors near and far. And maybe not.Maybe Iraq and the broader Arab world have ancient values and beliefs that are hostile to America's. Maybe Arab men - who still practice honor killings against their wives and daughters, even in "moderate" countries like Jordan - do not want to release the creative gifts of women. Maybe the venerated spiritual leaders of the Arab world regard Western democracy as an offense against the laws of the Koran and "human liberty" as infidel code words for ungodly license.
Maybe the men made rich by their associations with Saddam and other dictators are not interested in creating a free-market economy. Maybe the secular political class of Baghdad - and Damascus and Cairo - regards domestic repression as preferable to American intervention for any reason whatever.
Maybe the mass of uneducated Arabs are profoundly loyal to tribal traditions and uninterested in attaining newfangled liberties. In short, perhaps the Arabs in Iraq and elsewhere have the governments they deserve. The next few months will clarify the issue.
Bringing liberty to the people of Iraq would be a fine thing. Still, it is not the main thing. The goal of this war is to establish and enforce the new Golden Rule of the post-post-Colonial world order inaugurated in September 2002: Sovereignty is not an inalienable right.
From now on, self-determination will belong to those people whose basic ethos and instincts do not pose a mortal threat to the United States, its interests and allies. The Iraqis and the other Arab nations may pass that test, or they may fail it. Once Saddam is gone, we will begin to find out.
Mr. Chafets brings up, though in a different context, a point that Paul and I have raised in the "just war" discussions. Modern just war theory places an inordinate emphasis on sovereignty, almost exclusively as a means of ruling out all wars. If sovereignty is inviolable, or nearly inviolable, then no action within a nation, no matter how heinous, up to and including genocide, is just cause for regime change. This is a repellent notion and violates the classic Golden Rule.
Our standard must be that sovereignty and self-determination are dependent on leaders and peoples exercising those rights responsibly. They are not absolute and they diminish rapidly if you become a threat not merely to your own citizens but to the citizens of other nations.
Posted by Orrin Judd at March 20, 2003 10:45 AMIf it is true God created all men equal, then this isn't an issue.
However, differing conditions within which human minds, and the societies that reflect those minds, evolved, might mean some groups are intellectually incapable of sustained individual freedom.
Which is it? Transcendentally ordained, or evolutionarily dependent?
The two aren't mutually exclusive. Everyone is capable of being decent and every people are capable of building a decent society, but there are few of either. We're even at the starting line, not the finish line.
Posted by: oj at March 20, 2003 11:56 AMSoverignty derives from the consent of the governed; in Iraq the question of it being abused doesn't really arise, as there is no-one to exercise it. Saddam leads not the government of Iraq but a gang of land-bound pirates, and international law (to the extent such a beast is non-imaginary) should regard them accordingly.
Posted by: mike earl at March 20, 2003 12:38 PMmike:
That's the incredible thing--in modern theory it really doesn't derive from the consent of the governed but from recognition that the regime runs the country. I couldn't believe it either.
I find your last comment difficult to square with your opposition, just yesterday, to self-governance for the Egyptians.
This guy Chafets sounds like he channeling me, although he has a more suave presentation.
As to Jeff's question, I have previously recommended Sahlins's "How Natives Think," which takes the environmental approach. This is, I think, beyond argument.
I was amused/appalled to learn that in 1942 Lloyd George (and a lot of other British Liberals) were advocating a settlement with Hitler, on exactly the grounds that the Germans were allowed to choose their own government, however unpleasant.
How Lloyd George squared this with the right of the Czechs, Danes etc. to choose their own governments is beyond me.
Harry:
I hope my local library has it--thanks for the suggestion.
Didn't the concept of sovereignity arise during the time of kings and monarchs?
Consent of the governed seemed to have little to do with that.
Some kingships were electoral --- Hawaii's for exampl,e though it was a western innovation. The ancient Hawaiians didn't have a king.
However it arose, it got redefined over the last couple hundred years.
Consent is not exclusively a function of elections. So long as people believe that their governor represents them they'll consent to his continued governance.
Posted by: oj at March 20, 2003 6:54 PMThat's why you should realize your remarks about Turkey are all wrong. Nobody over there consents to the government they have, no matter how many pretend elections they hold.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at March 20, 2003 8:42 PMTo the contrary, they seem quite proud of their government.
Posted by: oj at March 20, 2003 8:57 PM