North American Union (NAFTA) Would Trump US Supreme Court

[longeyes]

I would say that is because those people view RKBA through a Somalia-like bias. They see firearms as enabling mayhem that destabilizes the ability to own property. They see it as contributing to feudalism and feuds between armed gangs.

Maybe the real choice is whether you prefer your mayhem small and local (banditry), regional (warlords), or global (state-sponsored)? That we talk about self-defense and resistance to tyranny at all indicates that we see human nature as violent and untrustworthy even in the best of societies (ours).

 

[gc70]

I think our public education system is also "corporate," though governmentally-funded; its primary job is to produce useful workers, not individuals or citizens.

The public education system in the US appears to promote undisciplined, self-centered, rebellious, and irresponsible behavior - hardly characteristics of useful workers.

 

[longeyes]

How about useful consumers then?

I think it depends on how you define "useful" and "worker;" those terms have to be seen within the context of the grander vision of neutering the American population. Perhaps the American citizen is envisioned as good houseboy material?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

By the way, regarding the original conclusion that this NATFA Tribunal would be allowed to trump the Supreme Court? I dug up some information related to that and posted it to the same thread over at TFL:

A court in British Columbia has already ruled that the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal exceeded its authority (Metalclad) and vacated a ruling of that tribunal, so I do not understand how Dr. Corsi reached the conclusion that the NAFTA Tribunal would be superior or outside the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

I am still reading up on the subject myself; but here is some interesting and brief analysis of the issue so far that offers a different view:
http://www.casselsbrock.com/publicationdetail.asp?aid=762

Found another article alleging the Supreme Court business. A Canadian company that lost a case before the Missouri Supreme Court based on predatory business practices and had to pay out $150 million. The company alleges that the other side used jingoism to inflate the damages from a few million to a $500 million award (including punitive damages). Further the state of Missouri required they post bond for $625 million in order to appeal the decision, so the company settled for $150 million instead. The company came back and sued the U.S. government three years after the fact claiming that the verdict violated the investor rights it is guaranteed under NAFTA. The government argued the case was outside NAFTA's jurisdiction because they had provided a means (a single trial in the Missouri court system that could be appealed) to resolve the dispute. The NAFTA tribunal found that under these set of facts, this did not meet the definition of a means of resolution that all the countries had agreed to under NAFTA. The case was sent for further fact-finding on four other separate issues relating to jurisdiction and is still pending. However, in a similar case where a Massachusetts court denied a Canadian company AND that case was denied review by SCOTUS, the Chpater 11 tribunal acknowledged that in that case this was a fair means.

Link from Canadian Company's lawyers in the original case:
http://www1.jonesday.com/experience/experience_detail.aspx?exID=S3051
Quick law-school summary of the NAFTA case online:
http://www.law.nyu.edu/kingsburyb/fall01/intl_law/unit1/intl_law2001_unit1_loewen1.html
Link to decisions of NAFTA tribunal in this case (from noted lefty Bill Moyers):
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB65/

Ultimately, that is what happened in the Missouri case as well. The NAFTA court ruled that the decision could have been appealed and that the Canadian company should have done so rather than bring it to the tribunal. The whole thing probably wouldn't have happened at all except for some really questionable decisions by the Missouri judge to begin with.

Anyway, it was this decision that caused some to allege that it is now fair game for NAFTA to review any U.S. court decision, even the Supreme Court (and despite the fact that the NAFTA Tribunal hasn't claimed a power anything like that)

 

[Zedicus]

And adding to what Bartholomew Roberts just said.

All it takes for bs like this to stand and actually be accepted my the mindless masses is the wrong Slimeballs in government, combined with far to few who even question it.:banghead:

 

[Otherguy Overby]

I sense some animosity toward big business in this thread. So, let's consider: Ultimately business has to provide something of value to survive. It may seek beneficial favors from government to get ahead, but it is just doing that for it's own benefit. Is that really evil? After all, government created the situation.

However, government provides NOTHING that has not been stolen from someone to benefit either government or a third party. Business, at least has profit motive, IOW provide goods or services for a profit. Government is comprised of people who can't be bothered with that concept.

Next time you are standing in line at a Department of Motor Vehicles, or something similar in a big city, please consider this: Where else could you be forced to stand in line for no tangible goods or services and then be treated with rudeness, indifference and incompetence for your time and money? Please remember that if you don't hand over your money for nothing, you can be punished...

Your choice: Government or business?

Government is evil.

 

[longeyes]

Business, at least has profit motive, IOW provide goods or services for a profit.

And, unfortunately, that may not conduce to our political, social, and cultural benefit. We need to look at more than The Invisible Hand. I consider that reductive, even though I honor the comparative benefit of capitalism and free markets. As I said, globalism is turning human beings into not just consumers but product.

 

[ProficientRifleman]

Longeyes

Read the information on the SPP.org website. That's the site which is announcing the formation of the North American Union. They don't call it the NAU yet, though.

One of their bullet comments talks about the formation of "human capital".

The origin of the word "capital", as refers to money, comes from herding animals. How many "head" do you have?

A few years ago a trend began to talk about "people" as a "natural resource". Now people are just "human capital".

Does anyone need it spelled out more clearly?

 

[LAK]

It is very clear, with even a cursory look at the major political force driving globalism, that individual liberties and rights enumerated in our Constitution have no place in the big plantation. The UN "Declaration of Human Rights" literally spells this out.

"Isolationism" is a newspeak term that was created by the driving political forces of globalism to target resistance to the breakdown of nation states.

We need controlled trade with foreign countries - and the interests of our nation, as a definable independant nation first. That is what built this country, and the further we have been moved away from that, the further away our prosperity and control over our own national affairs has progressed.

I too am of the opinion that all is not lost, and that fighting this monster is the only option. But to think for even a second that we can capitulate in the beginning and then work towards securing some particular rights later on is to dream. These people, once they effectively have the reigns, are not going to give them up later on.

These people, in all forms and under all their fronts need to be exposed and openly villified for what they are and their agenda. It is imperative that as many people as possible are made aware of who these people are and what their M.O.s are on the surface and underneath.

For those that believe that the elected representives are their best avenue of action - tell them this.

We know what the game is, how and where it is going - whether you acknowledge it or not. If you will not oppose this insane and traitorous agenda, and not work to reverse it's current progress, I will work to do everything I can to get you out and keep you out of any public office.

These people need their supporting base - general public confidence - shaken, broken down and removed. That is their crucial base of support, because without it, they will quickly fall. So spread the word and expose these frauds to as many people as you can.

-----------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Thin Black Line]

Short CNN/Lou Dobbs video report on erasing borders to create the
NAU:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ensmPJm5B5A&feature=PlayList&p=FCB503727E25BA5D&index=7

 

[longeyes]

what's wrong with globalism...

When there are no longer Irish bartenders in Dublin...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

"Isolationism" is a newspeak term that was created by the driving political forces of globalism to target resistance to the breakdown of nation states.

And here all this time I thought it was a term used to describe the United States standing by and watching as evil men took the reigns in Russia and Nazi Germany. Standing by and allowing those countries to grow stronger and more threatening until we had no choice but to confront them, where if we had confronted them early we would never have lost so many lives.

We need controlled trade with foreign countries - and the interests of our nation, as a definable independant nation first.

This country is the original European Union. It united the 13 separate colonies into a unified trade bloc that gave them considerable power compared to the European nations that then dominated the world - even though this country was in its infancy. This country is the driving reason for globalism. We have been so successful economically that nations are have to join in larger economic unions in order to compete with us.

Within my lifetime, the United States will be faced with two choices - expand economic unions like NAFTA in order to remain at the top of the competitive heap or surrender their place as a global leader to another economic union. Considering how bureaucratic the EU has become, I doubt it will be them. That leaves Russia, China and India as likely candidates. You think freedom is suffering now? How will it be doing when those positions are reversed? What happens to "controlled trade" when the United States isn't the one controlling trade?

I too am of the opinion that all is not lost, and that fighting this monster is the only option.

Obviously you aren't alone. What I am still waiting for is someone to explain to me why I am wrong. I want someone to explain to me why the current national boundaries are going to remain the defining economic zones in the next 100 years.

But to think for even a second that we can capitulate in the beginning and then work towards securing some particular rights later on is to dream.

If you think I am saying capitulate, then you do not understand what I am saying. I am saying that the stormclouds are gathering and that it is going to rain. All the angry screaming in the world won't stop the rain from falling. At the same time, it isn't a given that we have to stand here and let everything we own be soaked. We can divert that rain to useful purposes and protect our stuff from getting wet.

Within my life, either the technological underpinnings of our society will fail entirely or we will revisit the issue of federalism that the 13 colonies faced; but this time on a global scale. You can spend your energy digging in your heels so it happens in your children's lifetime instead or you can spend your energy making sure that the mistakes our Founders made in forming that union are not repeated on a global scale.

 

[DKSuddeth]

I decided against reading after page 2 of this thread, but has anyone theorized that this is a worldwide attempt, with the collusion of the antigunners in USA, of a global firearm registration? Along that same line, what happened to australia, britain, chicago, and California after registration was made mandatory?

 

[longeyes]

Nothing wrong with globalism as international trade or cross-border cooperation, but we need globalism with a human face and with a constitutional face that protects the civil liberties we hold most sacred here in the U.S. I don't think you need to jettison all sovereignty, all national culture, and all borders because you work, build, trade with others.

Our job is to use globalism to spread the best American values, including the concept of the Second Amendment, as productively and peacefully as possible.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Obviously you aren't alone. What I am still waiting for is someone to explain to me why I am wrong.

Let's reverse that and you can explain how America's place in the new
Global Economy is going to help US citizens when our jobs are continuously
out-sourced by those who make the decisions. I live in the midwest where
GM, Delphi, and Ford are all laying off 10s of thousands in the latest round.
Many of these operations had already been outsourced to Mexico in previous
rounds and I watched as good paying jobs were replaced by those with lower
pay. The promised "high-tech jobs" I kept hearing about during the so-called
NAFTA debates about the lower end jobs going to Mexico mostly ended up
getting out-sourced to India

Bart, no one is disagreeing with you that "globalism is coming." But, like
the politicians and investment bankers, you're a bit sketchy on what it's
going to bring the majority of US Citizens in the future. What happens
when everyone in Detroit gets to compete with everyone in Mexico City?
Well, we're already seeing it: lay-offs and bankruptcies. This has been
ALLOWED to happen by taking away protective tariffs and increasing
transportation and manufacturing infrastructure in distant lands rather than
investing in America locally.

We have been so successful economically that nations are have to join in larger economic unions in order to compete with us.

What's our national debt today? Who's buying our T-Bonds? One could
argue we've been rail-roaded right into globalism --capitulate to it or watch
the US$ collapse. Again, thank our so-called leadership for that.

That leaves Russia, China and India as likely candidates.

I wonder how competition with these distant sources will change if oil went
to $100, $200 or more.....sorry, didn't want to complicate things

You think freedom is suffering now? How will it be doing when those positions are reversed?

Sadly, the infrastructure to do that is already being put into place

I am saying that the stormclouds are gathering and that it is going to rain.

And some of us are saying while the hens sleep in the coop, the fox is at the
door. In fact, the farmer has left him in charge because he's retired
and moved to Brussels.

Bart, please explain this to all of us: How has Switzerland survived so
long with it's wonderful standard of living? Shouldn't such an isolationist
country have fallen apart and turned into Albania by now? (Yes, I do
realise their leadership is now trying to push the EU onto them --at about
the same time that their long-standing and successful defense system has
been under pressure to change, ie, regulate possession of firearms.
Hmmmm.....interesting "coincidence.") Yes, I see globalism as anathema to
private firearms ownership. Along with "economic integration", "transparency
on small arms and regulation" is somewhere down on their agenda as well.

 

[longeyes]

One thing's sure: we are not going to enhance our international competitiveness by importing millions of unskilled, uneducated workers who require a high level of public social services. I have yet to hear exactly how, and to what extent, American prosperity and productivity will be maintained in the coming scenario. This, in detail, is what needs to be posed to Bush and to all prospective political leadership. WHAT IS YOUR PLAN? WHAT IS YOUR SCENARIO?

When I learned that the U.S. had high tariffs from 1860 through 1928 it opened my eyes. No, I am not a "protectionist," but the reality is that economics is sublimated warfare and intelligent economic self-protection is definitely part of the game plan. If we're going to be the great consumer market, let us make sure that we charge for the privilege of accessing our marketplace and use the profits obtained therefrom to enhance our productivity, train our workers, and rebuild our infrastructure.

Let's take the proposed NASCO Corridor. Who exactly will benefit and to what degree? Let's see the business plan, the spreadsheet, the profit projections.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let's reverse that and you can explain how America's place in the new Global Economy is going to help US citizens when our jobs are continuously out-sourced by those who make the decisions.

1. I don't have the knowledge to explain that.
2. It is totally irrelevant to my question.

People keep suggesting we should resist globalism; but I don't see any examples of how to resist an evolutionary process short of the technological equivalent of a comet striking the Earth. To me it is like saying we should resist the Earth rotating - how would we go about doing that even if we reach the conclusion we should?

I am open to hearing ideas on that topic. I'm just not hearing any.

Bart, no one is disagreeing with you that "globalism is coming."

Really? Because I got the impression from reading LAK's posts and a few others that there was disagreement and that some believed it could be stopped. I would just like to hear how... if it can't be stopped, then what next?

But, like the politicians and investment bankers, you're a bit sketchy on what it's going to bring the majority of US Citizens in the future.

If I had the knowledge to give specific predicitions on what it would bring the majority of U.S. citizens in the future, I would be on the phone with a stockbroker instead of typing here. I don't know the answer to that question; but I do not yet see anything that says to me it has to turn out badly. Certainly there are a lot of valid reasons to be cautious and even alarmed at some of the developments; but right now I disagree with the premise that globalism = doom. I think it is way too early to say how that will turn out and that our collective individual opinions do matter and can affect the ultimate outcome in a positive manner.

What happens when everyone in Detroit gets to compete with everyone in Mexico City?

Just guessing; but what little I know of economics says the lifestyle in Detroit will go down and the lifestyle of Mexico City will go up until they equalize.

However, let's say there is no NAFTA. What happens then? Do Detroit workers maintain the same lifestyle indefinitely or do they eventually succumb to an international marketplace that is more competitive? As long as the technological means is there for Mexico City and Detroit to compete for the same customers, the market will be equalizing at some point in the future.

How has Switzerland survived so long with it's wonderful standard of living? Shouldn't such an isolationist country have fallen apart and turned into Albania by now?

Switzerland has been an international financial center for a very long time now. It is also the center for the Hague and various other international efforts closely tied to attempts to influence international law. From a strictly business perspective, I would guess the Swiss have thrived without joining the EU by limiting immigration and by providing a better business environment than their neighbors/competitors. Like I said, I'm not an economist.

However, Switzerland joined the European Free Trade Association (kind of familiar sounding, eh?) in 1960 and has seven bilateral agreements running with the EU currently. So, they aren't quite the picture of isolationism that you paint.

 

[longeyes]

People keep suggesting we should resist globalism; but I don't see any examples of how to resist an evolutionary process short of the technological equivalent of a comet striking the Earth. To me it is like saying we should resist the Earth rotating - how would we go about doing that even if we reach the conclusion we should?

Here's one for you, in a word: Catastrophism. Evolutionary processes can be aborted, sometimes rather violently. There will be plenty of political comets coming along in the times ahead.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There will be plenty of political comets coming along in the times ahead.

If globalism is being driven only by politics then that works just fine; but if it is being driven by technology and economics, then political attempts to stop it are simply treating the symptom.

 

[longeyes]

Again, I generally agree, but...

Technology and economics took a five-hundred year "vacation" around AD 500. Stuff happens.

Is it impossible that computers will "go away" at some point? No, and we can both think of ways in which that could happen, both nature- and man-induced.

Personally I suspect religion will be the great engine, not economics or technology. What religion, in what form is the question. And that will depend on which comet hits first.

 

[wingman]

Personally I suspect religion will be the great engine, not economics or technology. What religion, in what form is the question.

Yep, it will come full circle as most things do, but the period between changes
may be difficult.

 

[k_semler]

Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America
--United States Federal Government

WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010:

• Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
--Building A North American Community, PP.10, CFR

 

[LAK]

Bartholomew Roberts

And here all this time I thought it was a term used to describe the United States standing by and watching as evil men took the reigns in Russia and Nazi Germany. Standing by and allowing those countries to grow stronger and more threatening until we had no choice but to confront them, where if we had confronted them early we would never have lost so many lives.

Without turning this into a discussion of whether or not we should have joined in that particular war, it was that particular war that was a foundational event for the globalists, and their criminal cartel called "United Nations", among other things. And in their zeal to stamp out any political opposition they introduced the term.

This country is the original European Union. It united the 13 separate colonies into a unified trade bloc that gave them considerable power compared to the European nations that then dominated the world - even though this country was in its infancy. This country is the driving reason for globalism. We have been so successful economically that nations are have to join in larger economic unions in order to compete with us.

I would agree in the context of structure - and there is a significant parallel in the centralizing of power in the Federal government, and the centralizing of the political power in Europa. However, the United States has been, and is continued to be, used as the big stick by the founding fathers of globalism in it's agenda.

Within my lifetime, the United States will be faced with two choices - expand economic unions like NAFTA in order to remain at the top of the competitive heap or surrender their place as a global leader to another economic union.

We will never be at the top of the heap with a growing trillion dollar debt, a diminishing and oppressed middle class. Expanding the scope of economic union and globalism are not going to change that. It is precisely these things which have brought about these problems to begin with. All it is going to further accomplish is to balkanize North America - creating an ideal divide and conquer political environment, and destroy the middle class and the middle class ladder altogther.

If you study the material by the people pushing this agenda it is often injected that we must help our "poorer neigboring" States. But what they do not discuss openly is that in order to do this there must be a levelling of the economic playing field. That means that our standard of living must go down. All this "free trade" and unrestricted travel, work and residency is going to bring us, is the total destruction of our middle class as our level is reduced to theirs.

Considering how bureaucratic the EU has become, I doubt it will be them. That leaves Russia, China and India as likely candidates. You think freedom is suffering now? How will it be doing when those positions are reversed? What happens to "controlled trade" when the United States isn't the one controlling trade?

The EU has enormous potential and is rapidly expanding, and it probably has a far greater concentration of private wealth than to be found here in the U.S.. Food for another discussion; but the EU, despite it's deceptively muddled economics, is not as weak as it appears.

All nations need to control their trade if they are to survive as nations - independant political states. China, as you mention it, is doing a very good job at that indeed. Look at their compounding rate of expansion; their manufacturing capability, and the amount of U.S. dollars in their purse. Compare how much - how little - Chinese currency is sitting in ours.

Liberty in this country is suffering because it has been and is under the direct and indirect assault of the same political forces driving globalism. If we submit to their economic train ride right to the big plantation - the plantation mamgers are not going to be receptive to any change of hearts later on. That is a certainty; the plantation enforcers will indeed be too big for any organized dissent. You can take that to the bank.

Obviously you aren't alone. What I am still waiting for is someone to explain to me why I am wrong. I want someone to explain to me why the current national boundaries are going to remain the defining economic zones in the next 100 years

Because there is a direct relationship between an economy and it's controlling political power. This is why it is imperative that the direct control of any national economy remains in the hands of the elected representatives of a nation, that "free trade" stops at the national borders, and that any trade with those outside of them are carefully controlled. If the economic power is handed over to any outside power, so will the higher political power follow.

We have a reasonable chance of keeping an elected government within the bounds of our Constitution in check - by one or more Constitutional means. If we let it get away from us and it becomes the entire North Americas, or a greater union to include the South hemisphere as well, we do not stand a chance of keeping anything in check, and we can kiss our Constitution, nation, ideology and culture goodbye.

If you think I am saying capitulate, then you do not understand what I am saying. I am saying that the stormclouds are gathering and that it is going to rain. All the angry screaming in the world won't stop the rain from falling. At the same time, it isn't a given that we have to stand here and let everything we own be soaked. We can divert that rain to useful purposes and protect our stuff from getting wet.

I have to refer to what I have written directly above. We are right at the brink of global government by any other name. If we allow this economic vehicle of global trade to take us there, there will be no way back except by force. Once such a system of governance is firmly in place, and there is a consolidation of sufficient military force, even that option will be out of the question. Better to be explicitly plain with our representatives now, and tell them in no uncertain terms to decide where their loyalties lie - or get out of office.

Within my life, either the technological underpinnings of our society will fail entirely or we will revisit the issue of federalism that the 13 colonies faced; but this time on a global scale. You can spend your energy digging in your heels so it happens in your children's lifetime instead or you can spend your energy making sure that the mistakes our Founders made in forming that union are not repeated on a global scale

Again, see above. It is really that simple. One only need look at the current state of Europa to see the future. A citizenry reduced to a level of slaves; disarmed, at the mercy of thugs, and working four out of eight hours a day to support the regime that oppresses them.

No thanks.

-----------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Thin Black Line]

1. I don't have the knowledge to explain that.
2. It is totally irrelevant to my question.

People keep suggesting we should resist globalism; but I don't see any examples of how to resist an evolutionary process short of the technological equivalent of a comet striking the Earth. To me it is like saying we should resist the Earth rotating

Bart, I appreciate the honesty. But, in a nutshell you are saying you
can't positively prove your position but you won't accept anyone's
statements to negate it. This leaves us in the philosophical doldrums
of "Yes it is"/"No it isn't"..... I think my kids had one of these
yesterday....

Well, in any case, let me give it a try here:

Increasing central authority on a wider scale is anathema to those who
believe in decentralisation. It reeks of past empires from the Khanates to
the Soviet Union. You and I could waste a lot of time arguing that such
"growth" is A) a cancer versus B) an evolution. Or, we could take a Hegelian
perspective that A) and B) are both correct in that the process itself
later leads to the synthesis and the final outcome. I really don't want to
digress on the moral relativism of *that* position.

True evolution for humans in the future may be dispersed/distributed nodes
rather than concentrating authority in a single social body. I see nothing
currently in the human psyche that says such vast power should be
concentrated in a "small" body of supposedly representative individuals.
There are far too many character/psychological flaws. (And, yes, I have
the graduate degree in a behavioral science to make such a grounded
statement). However, your focus is on economic progress and mine is on
social progress. I, too, will be the first to agree that I am NOT qualified
to make mass economic decisions. All I can prove is my own personal
and family frugality which would be the envy of many people. Maybe I
couldn't run a country that way, but it shows that my node is running
fine

To sum up my point, WE are not ready for centralising economic and
political authority for mass systems at this time. It's not that it can't be
done in the future, but as a people we are not ready. Humans are too
war-like, corrupt, selfish, etc, etc ad to do this anytime in our
lifetimes without at the very least massive indifference to the needs of
their fellow man. We are far too inhuman and insensitive which breeds
the iniquity which fuels the negative cycle all over again. If this does
not lead to central system collapse, it leads to authoritarianism all over
again --no matter which country's philosophy (US, EU, China, etc) is
taking the lead.

Please do not construe this as a statement of "hopelessness." That would
be short-sighted. We are not ready NOW. I and many others would like
the ability to "opt-out" of the system currently being put into place, but
as you know that is not possible. The system has been constructed and
enforced in such a way as to make this dangerous to our very lives. The
so-called Authority will not allow such Autonomous Zones to exist because
by its very nature it sees such AZ's as the "cancer" to itself. On the
flipside, we would see ourselves as the vaccine to a disease. The last
hope before the organism dies and has to be reborn again. We only hope
it comes back in a better form --a butterfly that emerges from the caterpillar.
So far, we've had maggots and flies.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've assumed the lotus position and will be visiting
the Astral Plane for a little while before I return to the Material Plane to clean
my EBR

 

[Waitone]

Here is a repost of a previously posted article by one Richard Haass, President Council on Foreign Relations. Prior to his current gig he was a policy wonk in the state department. I highlighted his comments pertaining to this particular thread's subject matter:

Published on TaipeiTimes
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/02/21/2003294021

State sovereignty must be altered in globalized era
In the age of globalization, states should give up some sovereignty to world bodies in order to protect their own interests

By Richard Haass

Tuesday, Feb 21, 2006,Page 9

For 350 years, sovereignty -- the notion that states are the central actors on the world stage and that governments are essentially free to do what they want within their own territory but not within the territory of other states -- has provided the organizing principle of international relations. The time has come to rethink this notion.

The world's 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the UN General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organizations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

Less is more

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function. This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the WTO because on balance they benefit from an international trading order even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the US, China, and India, accept emissions limits or adopt common standards because they recognize that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalization. At its core, globalization entails the increasing volume, velocity, and importance of flows -- within and across borders -- of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, e-mails, weapons and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty's fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalization thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan's Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, the US' preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection.

Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue -- correctly -- that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilizing refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The NATO intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Conditions needed

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation.

The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens rather than from what states do to one another.

Richard Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of The Opportunity: America's Moment to Alter History's Course.

Copyright: Project Syndicate
Copyright © 1999-2006 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.