The Corruption of the Concept Sovereignty

by | Dec 8, 2002

No more corrupt yet popular reason exists for opposing military strikes against Islamic terrorist states out to destroy America. The reasoning goes like this: these states are “sovereign” and thereby immune from preemptive attacks. “We are really appalled by any country, whether it is a superpower or a poor country, that goes outside the United […]

No more corrupt yet popular reason exists for opposing military strikes against Islamic terrorist states out to destroy America. The reasoning goes like this: these states are “sovereign” and thereby immune from preemptive attacks.

“We are really appalled by any country, whether it is a superpower or a poor country, that goes outside the United Nations and attacks independent countries,” said South African statesman Nelson Mandela about President Bush’s apparent strategy to attack Iraq.

Geographically, it is true that Pakistan, for instance, is a state sovereign from India. Like any nation, Pakistan has distinct borders, just as Iraq is distinct from Turkey and Canada from the United States. Moreover, each nation has a distinct head or heads of state who are independent from external authority.

The Mandela-ites emphasize these latter factors of “sovereign” states as if they were fundamentally important. But they brush aside as irrelevant the nature of a state’s leader(s) and its form of government.

Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, for example, have distinct borders and heads of state. But each state essentially shares the same form of government: theocratic totalitarianism and support for anti-American terrorists. The government of the United States, on the other hand, essentially upholds freedom and fights in self-defense against terrorist states.

It is this distinction — a state’s form of government — that the Mandela-ites want to eliminate with their mantra about “sovereign” states.

Totalitarian states crush their own citizens’ fundamental individual rights, such as the right to property, free speech and the pursuit of happiness. They are one-party systems where voting is non-existent or a sham at best, and any citizen who merely criticizes the regime is either imprisoned or executed.

Thus, no state that destroys the individual rights of its own citizens can claim that it has a “right” to its “sovereignty” — independent self-rule — and to be immune from attack simply because, at the present time, they have not attacked anyone.

Nazi Germany was a “sovereign” state, distinct from, say, Austria, in that it had its own borders and its own government independent of any authority. Does this mean that during the 1930s Hitler had the “right” to enslave his Jewish citizens and to threaten invasion of the comparatively free neighboring states in Europe? In reality, he had no such rights.

Yet the Mandela-ites essentially assert that dictators such as Saddam Hussein have a “right” to execute their innocent citizens and pose a significant threat to free nations, such as in Israel and America, simply because they rule over a demarcated area of land and head its government.

In reality, because totalitarian regimes such as Hussein’s crush their citizens’ fundamental rights, they are by definition outlaw states. Any free or semi-free nation has a right topple such a state if they have a rational self-interest in doing so, and if they try to establish a government that mirrors their own in its place.

Nevertheless, the Mandela-ites still argue that if the United States can attack and topple a “sovereign” state such as Hussein’s Iraq, that will set a precedent for it to “bully” and attack any sovereign nation, such as Canada. It is only because the Mandela-ites lump totalitarian and free states together as equally valid, as equally deserving of remaining in power, that they make such an absurd, dead-end claim.

A free nation such as the United States has no interest in initiating an attack against a state that upholds freedom, such as Canada. Free nations, which translates into free trading and relatively prosperous nations, are peaceful toward one another.

There is only one underlying reason why the Mandela-ites want to destroy the clear distinction between a totalitarian and a free “sovereign” state, why they want totalitarian states to be immune from attack and free states to be branded as evil for self-defensively attacking those states bent on destroying them. The Mandela-ites, too, want the destruction of the free, and subsequently prosperous, nations of the world — from Israel and Australia to Britain and particularly America.

Now, more than ever, we must assert the distinction between the totalitarian and the free states, and assert with moral conviction that the former have no right to exist and the latter have every right to destroy them in self-defense.

Joseph Kellard is a journalist living in New York. To read more of Mr. Kellard's commentary, visit his website The American Individualist at americanindividualist.blogspot.com.

The views expressed above represent those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors and publishers of Capitalism Magazine. Capitalism Magazine sometimes publishes articles we disagree with because we think the article provides information, or a contrasting point of view, that may be of value to our readers.

Have a comment?

Post your response in our Capitalism Community on X.

Related articles

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Are the Democrats betraying Israel?

Both Biden and his predecessor, President Barack Obama, promised that they had Israel’s back, but it now appears that they are painting a target on its back at a time of its greatest vulnerability.

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pin It on Pinterest