Re: National Sovereignty

Permiteme saludarte en nuestro idioma, Carlos, antes de pasar al idioma de la
mailing list

Excuse me, the line above is just a salutation in Spanish.
I would like to introduce a counterexample to Carlos' argument. Sure, analogies
are always dangerous, specially in politics, but let me try anyway...
I'm going to center my line in the Spanish Civil war 1936-39, the prelude of
WWII, the mood for Picasso's guernica, the topic for the inspiration of Orwell's
novel (including 1984)...

Carlos Alzugaray Treto wrote:

> Charles Reid and Pat Gunning are engaged in a debate about national
> sovereignty and human rights which, I think, misplaces the real issue.
> There's no doubting the importance of both, national sovereignty and human
> rights. Both are enshrined in different treaties like the UN Charter. There
> has not been up until recently any major conflict between both. What has
> changed is the alleged 'right of humanitarian intervention'. This is a new
> thing in international law and needs to be analyzed in all its implications
> before accepting it. So the basic contradiction here is between that new
> 'right of humanitarian intervention' and national sovereignty. National
> sovereignty presupposes two further precepts: the principle of
> non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states and the right to
> self-determination.The U.S., for example, has been extremely jealous in the
> protection of the principle of non-intervention in its internal affairs,
> while disregarding that same principle when dealing with other states.

I am not going to talk a lot about the obvius differences between so-called
'humanitarian intervention' (the purity of the intention is so naive), and a
intervention, or, best, agression. It sounds to me very obvious. THIS case,
kosovo, isolated from other 'interventions' (like Iraq in the 5 last years, or
the embargo against Cuba), has a strong cualitative difference with the
'intervention' of Nazi regime. When NATO makes a mistake, and bomb civilians, it
shows it in the media, and even try to apologize (ok, mixing with
justification). When the Nazis bombs Guernica (well known), and kill 3000
civilians in one hour, there wasn't any apologize. Furthermore, when USA
aviation bombed Iraq last winter, there weren't any apologize too. AND, when
Serbia's paramilitary forces commit huge atrocities, there aren't any apologize.
They aren't mistakes, but programmed actions, in fact inhuman actions.

>
> That national sovereignty (and sovereign equality) should not be tampered
> with by the way of intervention is based in a long tradition that results
> from the fact that when others interfere in the internal affairs of another
> state, it has brought negative results for the countries where the
> intervention has taken place. In the past, Cuba, Dominican Republica, Haiti,
> Nicaragua, Vietnam, Congo, Chile, have been the object of different kinds of
> intervention with atrocious consequences. That is why national sovereignty,
> and non-intervention, are principles that should be respected.

France and Britain, in the line of Munich Pacts, decided not to support Spanish
democratic regime against a fascist agression. Nazis and fascist weren't
concerned with national sovereignty, and non-intervention. Well, France has a
borderline with Spain. If France government had supported Spanish Republic, the
situation had been quite different, keeping in mind that fascist doesn´t have a
direct supply line with fascist-controlled zone. Even more, France prevented
USSR arms supply through their territory. Please, have a look on a Europe map.

> The new
> 'right of humanitarian intervention' would bring about the demise of these
> principles already established and lead the international system down a road
> that would be catstrophic.

I'm afraid that you are generalizing too much. There are different cases. That
cases aren't the same, they are under different parameters,... in other words,
the result of the sum of two mistakes isn't a success. If nothing happens
against Turkey and its repression politics, it is even worse if nothing happen
against genocide and etnocide. After all, inaction is just another form of
action; if you can avoid an agression and you don't do anything against it, you
are a passive agressor. USA and EU goverments are passive agressors against
kurds et al, but it would be even worst if they were passive agressors against
kosovo. Let me insist: I am not defining 'moral rights'.

    The analogy would be better between Bosnia war and Spanish civil war, but
the one I'm using now is useful too. If France, or UK, or USA had said "Enough!"
in 1936, a DEMOCRATIC regime hadn't be displaced in a wave of blood and pain. If
the so-called 'international community' (maybe more properly named 'rich
countries commnunity) had said the same in 1989, or in 1991, or in 1993-1996,
the actual war hadn't ever happen. <Excuse me for my English, I am pretty
tired>.


>
> Intervention is not something new in international relations. If it has been
> rejected in the past and the principle of non-intervention enshrined in
> international pacts and covenants it is for very good reasons. The intervening
> powers have always alleged a higher moral standard or a higher principle, but
> that has not always been the case. Small countries cannot accept that a new
> 'right of humanitarian intervention' be established because it opens the way
> for the abuse of big powers. It might be alleged that big powers will abuse
> small ones anyway, but at least when they do it they know they are violating
> international law and the agrieved state can appeal to the international
> community.
>

Well, I can agree with your reasoning, Carlos, referred to your country (or
Iberoamerica in general). But I'm afraid that the main supporters of
non-intervention principles are USSR and China, countries with a modern record
of abuse against another countries as bad as America, and far worst inside. I am
very far from agreeing with USA's "backyard wars", or modern almost
institucionalized aggression against muslim countries, but they aren't the same
case that kosovo. Let me insist: without america, EU hadn't did anything, and
the massacre had continuates till the end. After all, there were 600000 refugees
(ciphers of ACNUR, if I don't remember bad) before the start of NATO campaign.
Before it, 2000000 refugees in Bosnia,...

Juan Luis Chulilla Cano
Doctorate student at Social Anthropology department
Complutense University, Madrid
jenofon@idecnet.com

PD: Carlos, it wasn't anything personal. De hecho, por mas que no pueda apoyar
una dictadura, no dejo de aceptar que, hasta la joda del crecimiento del
embargo, Cuba era el pais de Iberoamerica con mayor justicia social, y eso me
parece todo un éxito, en comparación con los paises vecinos. Puedo comprender,
pero no justificar, que ataques a USA, por lo que le han hecho a tu pais, pero
tienes un buen monton de ejemplos distintos, y actuales, en vez de kosovo. No
digo que lo hagan por razones piadosas, pero es mejor que quedarse una vez mas
de brazos cruzados.

Un saludo