Since no1m named the so-called 'spruce doctrine' which permits military intervention to protect a population's democratic rights, we see France intervening militarily (i.e. violating Cote D'Ivorian 'sovereignty'😉 in order to do exactly that. How can this be seen as anything but a good thing? Surely it is time to throw out 17th century views of what constitutes sovereignty and replace it with a sensible modern alternative, e.g. the free democratic process?
This principle can be applied in many areas of the world: Palestine for example. We can argue all day long about history and who-did-what-to-whom-when or who deserves what or who is more right (and we often do). But the one irrefutable point is that Palestinians today still cannot vote in a meaningful election. The fact that Israel prevents Palestinians from exercising this fundamental right is very serious -- and broad recognition that the spruce doctrine is valid would bring that to their attention in a way that continually-vetoed UN sanctions do not.
What I have observed is that if you let people establish the government they want, they will work out the rest themselves. They will feed themselves, they will work out healthcare, etc. Once the people have the political power, they can solve their own problems. But the big stumbling block is when a dictator or the military establishes themselves, then the people can't always get to that step. They are blocked.
Hence, the spruce doctrine. It's the right thing to do.
The idea that the Westphalian settlement be radically overturned in favour of neocon adventurism remains repulsive and a recipe for increased international strife in the short, medium and long term.
It's not often that No1M and I agree, but I'll quote you his last shot in the other thread, since I can't put it any better myself:
"Of the two choices, I would say that non-democracies being commonplace is preferable to war being commonplace. The idea of having a "club" of countries who get to decide when and where to unleash war on the rest of the world based on their own non-specific criteria gives me the willies."
And I'll also quote you another enemy of the Westphalian settlement, which links nicely with my substantive criticism of the spruce doctrine in that thread:
"the international system built-up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will collapse; and a new international system will rise..."
But what does Lewis ‘Atiyyatullah think will replace traditional sovereignty?
"a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state."
Since the structural similarities between the neocons (such as yourself) and Al Quaida are self-evident, their similarities in this regard should be no surprise.
This neocon abomination is as much a threat to world peace as Islamic fundamentalism.
(EDIT: French Socialist MP Jean-Marie le Guen has noted "a bit of Bush in Sarkozy" (as I do in you) insofar as he has "a habit of using force before politics without truly taking into consideration the current and future political consequences." A naivety you share, except you don't even have the excuse of desperately trying to shore up domestic support in the face of a difficult election.)
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe UN has been operating in Cote D'Ivoire since 2003 without having any significant effect on anything. One wonders what the heck they have been up to -- but "completely useless" more or less sums up their value. After 8 years of ineffectiveness, I wasn't really inclined to give them a place in the by-line.
You are aware that the French troops operate alongside and in cooperation with a UN peacekeeping force?
French action may address the issue finally. Problems get resolved when " The Spruce Doctrine" is followed.
Originally posted by DrKFThe "Peace of Westphalia" in 1648*??? Oh yes, that arrangement has produced a LOT of peace, hasn't it? I mean, since 1648 we have seen scarcely any wars between European nations (giggle). You are really serious?
The idea that the Westphalian settlement be radically overturned in favour of neocon adventurism remains repulsive and a recipe for increased international strife in the short, medium and long term.
It's not often that No1M and I agree, but I'll quote you his last shot in the other thread, since I can't put it any better myself:
"Of the two choices, I wou ...[text shortened]... ately trying to shore up domestic support in the face of a difficult election.)
The Spruce Doctrine is about people being more important than "The State". It is not about increasing warfare. It is about specifically defining when one group of people may help another -- when the group needing help finds it's most fundamental human rights being abused. Funny, I would have thought socialists would resonate with that (apparently not. And who are you calling a neocon, anyway?)
The basis of any state's sovereignty must be a mandate from the people. You are saying, "No, geography and a shared language or culture define a state. Plus, if a megalomaniac grabs the reins of power it is ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN for ANY OTHER NATION to intervene." So why – apart from moth-eaten documents stored in musty archives in pre-unification Germany?
BTW, I have no problem with any sort of state – Islamic or otherwise – as long as people vote it into power.
*For those into argument from authority: "Scholars of international relations have identified the modern, Western originated, international system of states, multinational corporations, and organizations, as having begun at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648." (Wiki)
Originally posted by spruce112358Heh, the French have been around at least as long as UNOCI.
The UN has been operating in Cote D'Ivoire since 2003 without having any significant effect on anything. One wonders what the heck they have been up to -- but "completely useless" more or less sums up their value. After 8 years of ineffectiveness, I wasn't really inclined to give them a place in the by-line.
French action may address the issue finally. Problems get resolved when " The Spruce Doctrine" is followed.
Originally posted by spruce112358You make a number of dreadful mistakes in what I assume was a hurried post. Chief amongst them is a 'No1M-ism', where you try to tell me what I think. You even put it in quotation marks, as if they were words I had actually said. Bad form, as well as being wide of the mark.
The "Peace of Westphalia" in 1648*??? Oh yes, that arrangement has produced a LOT of peace, hasn't it? I mean, since 1648 we have seen scarcely any wars between European nations (giggle). You are really serious?
The Spruce Doctrine is about people being more important than "The State". It is not about increasing warfare. It is about specifically defi ...[text shortened]... tions, and organizations, as having begun at the Peace of Westphalia in 1648." (Wiki)
In the first instance, I referred to the Westphalian settlement, not the 'peace of Westphalia'. Any idiot can see that the Westphalian settlement has not provided peace (although it should be noted that the majority of armed conflicts since then have occurred precisely when the Westphalian doctrine has been ignored). Peace - the absence of armed conflict - is utopian as a vision, as is the spruce doctrine (whose ultimate destination is, it seems, peace between all men). In common with most utopian visions, it is to be accomplished by force of arms. In common with all utopian visions to be achieved by force of arms, it spells disaster, death and misery for millions. Analogies with fornicating for virginity, etc., have already been made, so I shan't repeat them here.
The spruce doctrine does not place people above states - it places an ideal of human governance above the state, and above people. With that, it is more dangerous yet than placing the state above people.
Neoconservatism cuts across the old left-right divide - we saw that with Iraq, and we will see it again. Like neoliberalism, it bears little relation to the movement which it bastardises. I am calling you a neocon, and a danger.
France has had little impact in Ivory Coast. Outtara's supporters (in marked contrast to the Libyan revolutionaries) happen to include seasoned veterans of civil war. Unfortunately massacres have been perpetrated on both sides -- although Gbagbo started it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Sarkozy's initial reaction to the Tunisian revolution to offer assistance to Ben Ali?
Originally posted by DrKFI am placing a standard of human governance above the state. States don't exist for their own good, they exist to serve people. The Westphalian settlement contains no recognition of that fact. Peace is a natural consequence of people being free and in control of their own destinies through a democratic process. You admit that the Westphalian settlement has done little for peace. It has also done nothing for democracy, which makes it ripe for retirement.
You make a number of dreadful mistakes in what I assume was a hurried post. Chief amongst them is a 'No1M-ism', where you try to tell me what I think. You even put it in quotation marks, as if they were words I had actually said. Bad form, as well as being wide of the mark.
In the first instance, I referred to the Westphalian settlement, not the 'peace of We ...[text shortened]... tle relation to the movement which it bastardises. I am calling you a neocon, and a danger.
The spruce doctrine is not about achieving peace through force of arms. It establishes when groups of nations/the UN may intervene to ensure democratic self-determination for the people of another nation. The intervention doesn't have to be force of arms – though it could be.
Peace as a goal is laudable, but pacifism as a method is highly dangerous. War has never been avoided because one side refused to fight. UN condemnations of violence, hand-holding, prayer-vigils, and singing John Lennon tunes make people feel good, but they produce no results, only years of expense and wasted human lives. Iraq, Cote D'Ivoire, Libya, Cuba, Palestine etc. have all suffered that sort of purgatory. Peace achieved by refusing to correct/prevent the injustices that happen all around us IS a dangerous utopian vision that has lead to disaster time and time again.
17th century notions of proper government are no longer up-to-date, and ivory tower pacifism has produced nothing good. We need a way forward that affirms that the most basic human rights are worth fighting for -- they are not negotiable. Hence the spruce doctrine.
Originally posted by spruce112358...so is it time to cut to the chase and dispense with nationhood altogether? is it time for every nation to cede sovereignty in favor of a body like the UN? If not, then why not? Either we are all party to the same conventions and identical declarations of human rights, or we are not. Anything else smacks of hypocrisy and should be shunned completely.
17th century notions of proper government are no longer up-to-date, and ivory tower pacifism has produced nothing good. We need a way forward that affirms that the most basic human rights are worth fighting for -- they are not negotiable. Hence the spruce doctrine.
Originally posted by spruce112358Why are you singling out Israel/Palestine? What about Iran? What about Syria? What about Yemen etc? Face it, there are a myriad of dictatorships and they are all easy targets to go after if it is politically expedient (cough, oil). All you have to do is generate a long list of the regimes "sins" and "human rights violations" and off you go to war.
Since no1m named the so-called 'spruce doctrine' which permits military intervention to protect a population's democratic rights, we see France intervening militarily (i.e. violating Cote D'Ivorian 'sovereignty'😉 in order to do exactly that. How can this be seen as anything but a good thing? Surely it is time to throw out 17th century views of what cons ...[text shortened]... that step. They are blocked.
Hence, the spruce doctrine. It's the right thing to do.
As for the "democracies" of the world playing the democracy god in the sky, I think they have more on their own plates than they are able to handle. Governments that grow so large that they feel compelled to micromanage every aspect of their citizens lives as well as those internationally, often find themselves facing fiscal involvency.