Well, well, well. The right has finally found a reason to support human rights in foreign policy. And if not "the right", at least Ralph Peters has.
And, as is typical when some guy from the American right finds himself in the unfamiliar position of having a selfless thought about non-Americans, finding himself suddenly awake and lying in that muddy water in the ditch on the road to Damascus, he convinces himself that this insight is his - and his side's - alone. No one on the benighted left could ever have so deep a sympathy for the human condition, or see that while anyone remains a slave, we are all in chains.
And so the US, in all its might and righteous glory, should remake the world. And this time justice, not hoary tradition, will be served. Even though for years I have heard the realists on the right patiently explaining to the rest of us children why adults do things differently, how we can hardly concern ourselves with every fallen sparrow.
Pardon the sarcasm. I happen to agree with Mr Peters that the concept of "sovereignty" needs to be reexamined, and that "legitimacy" needs to be built upon more stable ground. But if we travel that road, we must be serious. We must know what we mean when use such words, we must agree on criteria which are both flexible and clear, and we must be willing to reevaluate old alliances - both international and domestic. And once we do all of that, then we have to decide what to do when countries do not meet the criteria.
All of this is much more difficult than it looks at that first, cursory glance, which is why this project terrifies me. Too many people will reach for simple answers and they will not be asking the right questions. Quickly, run through this list of countries and explain to yourself why their governments are legitimate - or not. Were their governments legitimate fifteen years ago (1988) - or not? Thirty years? Fifty?
Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. Bosnia, Serbia, Greece. Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala. Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland. Egypt, Israel, Jordan. Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Somaliland. Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand. France, Germany, Great Britain. Ghana, Ivory Coast, Nigeria. Pakistan, India, Bangladesh. Angola, South Africa, Zimbabwe. And, what the heck, the US.
How has their legitimacy changed over the years? What changed in those countries? And did you seriously take into account the treatment of minorities (ethnic, racial, or religious) in or overseen by each country? How does that impact legitimacy? Did you use a consistent set of criteria up and down that list?
Now, what are you going to do about those on the wrong end of your scale? Wait, before you mobilize the troops, how did those which are now legitimate but weren't fifteen, thirty, fifty years ago become legitimate?
History is easy. It's the future that's hard.
UPDATE: Some editing and a change of title for clarity.
Posted by Martial