|
Right, but my point is this. The Treaty of Westphalia, upon which the UN Charter and other documents are supposedly based, makes absolutely no explicit mention of either sovereignty or self-determination. In fact, it only served to solidify the status quo of hierarchy in Europe following the 30 Years' War, whereby the Holy Roman Empire had administrative authority over the individual German republics, and Spain, France, and Sweden just acknowledged their inability to wrest those German principalities from Holy Roman control. Nobody was interested in asking the Germans what they wanted, whether independence or allegiance to a particular party. It was simply a formal declaration of the way power in Europe was distributed.
And yet, that is precisely where we get the concept of self-determination. So my argument is that not only is the contemporary concept of self-determination faultily grounded, but it has never actually been practiced either. You can point to the Founding Fathers, but the United States did not fight the Revolutionary War for some lofty principle of self-determination. We fought it for a variety of reasons, not least of which that we wanted to pay less for imported goods from other countries.
The Atlantic Charter touted the principle of self-determination as well, but was then used to justify lumping together the Czech Republic and Slovakia as one country, and all of the Balkan states as one entity. Again, it was imposed upon them from above. And what did the Charter accomplish regarding colonialism, probably the most egregious breach of the principle of self-determination in world history? Remember, the United Nations wrote its Charter in 1948, but Ghana, the first African state to receive its independence from a European colonial power, did not receive independence until 1957. And colonial independence was certainly not a gesture of goodwill toward the internationally-agreed-upon principle of national sovereignty either - it was simply a prudent measure taken by Europe to avoid violent conflict, such as what arose in Algeria, Angola, the DRC, Kenya, or Zimbabwe.
Non-interference in domestic affairs is also something that has never existed. Washington warned of entangling alliances, but lest we forget how we won our independence we should note that it was an alliance with France that proved critical in driving off the British. Had the Marquis de Lafayette not arrived, and France not fought the British over control of the Channel, America would undoubtedly still be part of the Commonwealth. So to argue that a nation (which doesn't really exist either - reference Benedict Anderson) can put into place its own system of government of its own choosing is often naive.
Furthermore, the United States is far from the only country that interferes with the domestic affairs of sovereign states. The United Nations, European Union, ASEAN, NATO, etc. are supranational entities with some level of authority over the actions and behavior of member states, who willingly give up some of their sovereignty to join. That's the way the international system works. For each state to remain completely independent of one another, the world trade system would completely collapse, arms races would be the norm, and war more frequent. There would be no mediatory authority in any regard to interaction between states.
Lastly, I will leave with some thoughts on the relevance of self-determination today. In 1998, a Symposium on the continuing political Relevance of the Peace of Westphalia, then–NATO Secretary General Javier Solana said that "humanity and democracy [were] two principles essentially irrelevant to the original Westphalian order" and levied a criticism that "the Westphalian system had its limits. For one, the principle of sovereignty it relied on also produced the basis for rivalry, not community of states; exclusion, not integration." In other words, self-determination carried out to its logical conclusion implies that there is no oversight over bad behavior - rivalries grow as states compete for power and security, and the lack of economic or political linkages makes it appealing for states to attempt to expand their sphere of influence through power projection and the use of force. Furthermore, sovereignty allows no provision for human rights and the treatment of an individual population. For instance, what is happening in Burma would likely happen all across the world - think about the Middle Ages in Europe, when foreign policy isolationism was probably at its apogee. Europe devolved into hegemonic principalities based on the tenets of Machiavellian leadership - whoever could demonstrate the most power, be it through violence or culture, retained control. Principalities were expanded not through economic linkages and exchange of thought, but through convulsions of violent conflict.
Also, in 2000, then–German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer referred to the Peace of Westphalia in his Humboldt Speech, which argued that the system of European politics set up by Westphalia was obsolete: "The core of the concept of Europe after 1945 was and still is a rejection of the European balance-of-power principle and the hegemonic ambitions of individual states that had emerged following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a rejection which took the form of closer meshing of vital interests and the transfer of nation-state sovereign rights to supranational European institutions." The international system is migrating to more global governance through the creation of institutions that promote global issues and understanding. I don't see how this is a bad trend. After all, violent conflict between member states of the EU seems absurd.
If you look to see who is arguing for increased national sovereignty today, it's reactionary people like Pat Buchanan and Jean-Marie le Pen, and groups like al-Qaeda. In the aftermath of the 11 March 2004 Madrid attacks, Lewis ‘Atiyyatullah, who claims to represent the terrorist network al-Qaeda, declared that "the international system built-up by the West since the Treaty of Westphalia will collapse; and a new international system will rise under the leadership of a mighty Islamic state".
Globalization and internationalization of politics has been a very good trend. It has maximized production through the liberalization of trade and it has provided greater peace and security than at any other point in history.
To implement protectionist and non-intervention principles into the American body politick would, I believe, be extremely detrimental to the international system.
___________________
|
