Atrocities, Darfur and elsewhere

I hope everyone will agree that, at bottom, we are opposed to genocide, atrocities and murder. I hope we will agree that it is a duty to do something about those things, so as to prevent occurrence, stop transgressions, heal the wounded and punish criminals. I hope everyone will agree that the people who do those things are, indeed, criminals.

Of course, every country has its domestic police. Scarcely anyone except the perpetrators considers the slaughter going on in Darfur or Iraq acceptable. But, it is a slaughter going on elsewhere, not here. Thus, it is felt it is out of range, not within our purview and beyond our power to do anything about it. Our responsibility is mitigated, so it is said, by distance, reduced moral liability, and lack of ability.

Of those arguments, the most troublesome is the moral deficiency that occurs in foreign affairs. We should not be concerned, according to realpolitik and the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, with the internal affairs of another country. The policies of a Sovereign are always indisputable, unless we are willing to go to war for raison d'etat. On the other hand, the Bandit and neo-cons have intervened in Iraq exactly because they disputed the internal policies of the former Sovereign, Saddam Hussein. The United States' interventionist policy in Iraq is supposed to follow the tradition of Nuremberg and the World Wars: we have the right to terminate and depose immoral regimes. But the American Conquest of Iraq has proved to be ineffective in achieving its (alleged) purpose, and may even be the cause of further turmoil, death and destruction.

Do we have any foreign obligations? How should they be handled?

My answer to these question is simple enough: Yes, and we should go to the United Nations in a forceful manner, demanding assistance and solutions.

The proposed policy does not conform  to Kissinger's realpolitik, because it proposes to interfere in Sovereign "internal" affairs. Thus, it proposes to dispose of that old anchor, the Treaty of Westphalia. The argument for this position is what happened after World War II: Nuremberg. When the Allies tried the Nazi war criminals, and ever since, Westphalia was abandoned. The International Criminal Court is only the latest development in the evolution of an international law that seeks to be enforced everywhere. To enforce that sort of  law, the original definition of "international" must be changed from its meaning as "the law of States." Under Westphalia and in realpolitik, international law applied only to the external relations among States. Following Nuremberg, international law also applies to the behavior of governments within States. This last notion implies that neighbors have some rights to pry into domestic affairs, and is the basis of intervention in places like Iraq and Sudan.

Here, I note that conservatives don't like the International Criminal Court, just because it interferes in domestic affairs. Subscription to the ICC implies that there is a superior standard to the national Sovereign. The philosophical foundations of the modern State lie on Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both of whom insisted on the integrity of the Sovereign, as expressed in the contemporaneous Westphalia. Agreeing with conservatives, there can be little doubt that accepting the United Nations and its post-War development amounts to denying those founding ideas.

What, then, are we to do? Are we exempted from concern about the sufferings in far away places? Is there no moral duty? What ethical principle shall we apply?

Again, we should go to the United Nations. This solution invalidates the sort of "unilateral pre-emption" undertaken by the Bandit, while validating the notion that neighbors have a right to look into what is going on next door. That would be to affirm that the ICC and other organizations are, in fact, superior to national authority. (The conservatives are right in their fears.) The new foundation must give us a basis for looking at "internals," which can only be a doctrine of human rights. Human rights stand against the State because they attach to individuals, not institutions. If we adopt that standard, then, slowly but surely, the International will supercede the National. Such a doctrine is another step toward One World, not many.

Of course, we have to be careful that the enabling doctrine is enlightened, not authoritarian and not a cover for one or another interest. That is not a new concern; it is the concern of all that has transpired in modern political history.

That noted, the United States should be beating the drums at the United Nations for supervision of Sudan and Iraq, too. If we do not do this, the atrocities will only continue and get worse.