The Taepodong effect
What did North Korea invoke to justify its missile tests? That most toxic of ideas: national sovereignty.
North Korea defends its seven missile tests, one of them involving the Taepodong-2 long-range missile capable of reaching Alaska, by saying that its "national sovereignty" entitles it to conduct them in its national self-interest. North Korea's critics, by contrast, argue that in the arena of weapons systems with extra-territorial reach there is no right of unilateral action; international agreements, controls, treaties and responsibilities oblige countries to respect the security interests of neighbours and indeed the international community at large. Disregard of these constraints, they point out, is risky and destabilising.
The critics in question include Japan and the US. The criticism is of course correct; North Korea's behaviour is an example of immature grandstanding and nose-thumbing, wincingly obvious from the choice of date (July 4) for the tests. Japan has a valid point in objecting to North Korea's tests, not least because of North Korea's irresponsible track record in the field: in 1998 it fired a Taepodong-1 over the north of Japan, a highly provocative if not downright stupid act.
But the United States' stance is, at the least, hypocritical. What it rightly censures others for doing it wrongly does itself, and with almost total impunity. The attitude of the Bush administration to a whole raft of international institutions and measures, from the International Criminal Court to the Kyoto environment initiatives, from the United Nations to the non-proliferation treaties on nuclear weapons, is consistently negative and unilateralist. It pleads national interest and national sovereignty just as North Korea does, despite the fact that the hollowness of North Korea's appeal to the concept is proof positive that claims of national immunity from international obligations are unacceptable.
If North Korea cannot get away with the "national sovereignty" scam, and if logical consistency requires that neither can the United States, then of course nor can anyone else. It also requires that the point be taken to its more general set of conclusions, a lesson that (for example) Eurosceptics might do well to learn, and with them petty nationalists of all stamps everywhere. There are many additional reasons why nationalism is the wrong direction for human beings to go in; here the overriding point is that no nation (if, by the way, such a thing actually exists), like no individual, is an island, and promises itself nothing but trouble by trying to be one.
As always, history teaches rich lessons here. When the Eleanor Roosevelt committee was drafting the UN declaration of human rights in 1948, the Soviet representatives were emphatically concerned that nothing in the declaration should allow "interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states", which in effect meant freedom for governments to torture and murder their own citizens without anyone from outside raising complaints on human rights grounds. As it happens, the other post-war major powers (the UK, US, China and France) were not especially happy about the human rights idea either, which was then most eagerly welcomed by third-world countries and colonised peoples, who understood the opportunity it offered. As events have shown, adoption of the UN declaration in Paris in 1948 proved to be the first really major breach of the national sovereignty idea since its origin in the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, with all its subsequent catastrophic horrors.
In fact, as international reaction to the example of North Korea's weasel appeal to national sovereignty shows (to say nothing of the US parallels) we should hope that the cluster of associated toxic ideas - "nation", "nationalism" "national identity" - is well on its way to the rubbish heap of history.Comment No. 115295
Oxford/gbrACGrayling:"In fact, as international reaction to the example of North Korea's weasel appeal to national sovereignty shows (to say nothing of the US parallels) we should hope that the cluster of associated toxic ideas - "nation", "nationalism" "national identity" - is well on its way to the rubbish heap of history."
Actually that shows something else - Communism is dead and in a desparate last-ditch effort to stay afloat the North Korean Communists will even try to appeal to Nationalism. It is not Nationalism that is the problem. South Korea is at least as nationalistic. It is the Communism. Alas that cluster of toxic ideas has not yet gone to the rubbish heap of history, but the good news is that it only survives in North Korea, Cuba, academia and on CiF.
Besides which nationalism has been a hugely successul ideology and whatever the downsides of nationalism, the only thing worse is a lack of nationalism. It works. The "nations" without nationalism are being swept into the rubbish heap of history. If only the Palestinians were more nationalistic in 1947! If only the Native Americans had a sense of their own national identity!
Comment No. 115644
I used the phrase "bent twig" as Isaiah Berlin used it - as a metaphor for nationalism. I think nationalism was obviously effective in Europe as a legitimiser of governments, though not much any more. Has it a place in the 21st century? I stick by the description of it as being used by useless and illegitimate governments an outward and specious appearance of a mandate. As soon as the illusion is torn, they have nothing to fall back on. They compensate for internal failure with external aggression, putting nationalistic symbols such territory on a pedestal.
This is used as much by the left as the right. I agree that Maoism hasn't got much juice left in it now. Confucianism was discredited over a hundred years ago and seems unlikely to make a reappearance. Nationalism would fil the gap nicely in China. It is the only thing that fills it in N. Korea.
As for those poor buggers who lack real nationalism being screwed by history, I sadly agree. Look at the Jewish diaspora in the late 19th century - the only way to protect yourself, in law and fact, is through having a State of your own.
Comment No. 115813
Your criticisms of sovereignty and nationhood would be more credible if you had a viable, proven alternative. Since you do not, you come off like a crank.
Secondly, it is not hypocrisy for a free state to attempt to prevent dictatorships from arming. It's common sense and legitimate self-defense. The U.S. hasn't used a nuclear weapon in 60 years and does not threaten to do so - North Korea fumes that it will nuke another country about every other week. Maybe you should take them at their word.
Also, how far does a Korean missile have to be capable of penetrating U.S. territory before we are permitted to be concerned? And how do you know it can only reach Alaska, and not Seattle or Chicago?
Comment No. 115830
Skopje/mkdRobSterling: I think Bush has actually raised use of nukes as a serious option in the last few weeks. Or is that just 'sabre rattling' and OK.
Comment No. 116191
Cambridge/gbrThe usual half-baked drivel from the Prof. I'm at a bit of a loss as to how we can have "international obligations" without nations. It's like trying to have "interpersonal relations" without people.
And my Eurosceptic instincts suggest to me that we'll find the EU on the rubbish heap of history long before nations and national identity.
Comment No. 116221
Kim is a psychopath, but he's holding the entire population of Seoul hostage, no?
I'm still unclear as to why we and you and Kazakhstan and India have the "right" to nukes but not, say, Slovenia or Northern Fredonia. Once more, Kim is a psychopath and the world should make sure all sharp objects are kept out of his reach. But all this blather about nonproliferation -per se- makes no sense coming from all of us who proliferate.
No comments:
Post a Comment