Larison and Bose both make points that will by now be familiar to readers of this little compendium of mental-ward graffiti. One of the most curious pseudo-ideas lurking in the corridors of consensus thinking on "foreign policy" is this notion of legitimacy: whether or not this or that state has a "legitimate" right, duty, obligation, case, cause, what have you to do such-and-such in, around, for, or against some other state. But legitimacy in the political realm derives from compacts, and for all our species faddish love of "universal" declarations of this and that, there are no universal principles dictating what state actors can and cannot "legitimately" do except their actual capacities to do it. The shifting, entirely relative norms of national behavior don't derive from some codified or traditional collection of powers. The legitimacy of America's expeditionary interest in Everywhere, for instance, derives (or derived, at least) from our actual and perceived expeditionary power.
The failure to perceive our own meddling in the affairs of others as helping to foment commensurable actions in other regional and international powers is an obvious historic blind spot made worse by our brief and largely imaginary so-called unipolar moment. Our self-congratulatory self-perception as the sole survivor of the doctrinal, ideological wars of the twentieth century convinced us in quite certain terms that we need not merely make the world safe for democracy, but that, having already done so successfully, we could now make it democracy. Democracy in this formulation referred in general to no particular political system, although we did have a hard-on for Elections; instead, it meant quiescence and clientism. Anyway, we were thus, what is the word, emboldened. Insofar as we believed the American system to have triumphed globally, it made a sort of perverted sense to claim the uniform right to intervene everywhere, since the whole globe was really just an extension of the domestic political economy. The current regime doesn't appear to have any more or less reservations in this regard.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Whither Pakistan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
but are there less reservations in the "there are no universal principles dictating what state actors can and cannot 'legitimately' do except their actual capacities to do it" regard, (especially the 'actual capacity' part?) it seems now-a-days that the likelyhood of success plays little part in the decision making process. we don't even have to 'win,' nor even 'seem successful' to garner and sustain the political will for a war.
as for the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan, is there any coal in them thar hills? we might increase the likelyhood of success if we send in coal mining operations, and provide whatever 'security' needed for their operations. do something a little more in our wheelhouse.
Oh please, you sound like fucking Bolton. Either no one has any legitimacy to do anything (a proposition I can get behind), or else the laws we've created to manage interactions between nations grant legitimacy to operations thereunder. Sure, powerful nations do as they please regardless, but you are mistaking inapplicability for misuse.
But Ioz, what about the ICC??
A serious query: Do you think the 'failure to perceive our own meddling in the affairs of others...' is intentional or un?
More to the point perhaps, what do the supporters of the exporters of American Democracy consider it (their 'obvious historic blind spot') to be caused by?
"the laws we've created to manage interactions between nations grant legitimacy to operations thereunder"
What laws are those?
Anyway, I'm pretty certain I was arguing that no one has any legitimacy to do anything, as you put it. That isn't the say nothing is right or wrong, regrettable or commendable. It's just to say that legitimacy is a meaningless rubric with which to grade the validity or rightness of state actions.
Almost every country in the world has agreed to a series of compacts, most notably the UN Charter, which are in turn the law of those individual countries. The very purpose of these laws, like all law, is to delineate legitimate and non-legitimate. In this application the word is limited by the animating human construct, but that's always the case.
"Legitimacy is therefore a "meaningless" rubric if you misunderstand what legitimate conveys (as is the case 99% of the time with American commentators), or you reject the premise that legitimacy can be created in the passing of laws by political arrangements. I think you are complaining about the former, while claiming the mantle of the latter. I mean, if no one has any legitimacy to do anything, then that paragraph was best left unwritten, no?
as i read that paragraph:
1. legitimacy is a pseudo idea in the "corridors of consensus thinking" (99% of American commentators).
2. but legitimacy "in the political realm" means something else.
3. legitimacy based on a hodgepodge of compacts between different groups of states does not amount to a universal principle of legitimacy, and certainly not whatever the consensus thinkers dream up.
(but i thought the argument was not whether anyone has any legitimacy to do anything, but rather a criticism of the way we delude ourselves, as in item #1 above.)
to my mind, legitimacy, even in the political sense, is a meaningless rubric when might makes right and powerful state actors are able to break the terms of their compacts with impunity.
"... to my mind, legitimacy, even in the political sense, is a meaningless rubric when might makes right and powerful state actors are able to break the terms of their compacts with impunity"
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain this to la Rana... more slowly.
On a similar note, take the notion of "rogue state." Well, a rogue state is a state whose actions we can't understand, and can't predict. We can predict our own craziness, but that doesn't make us any less crazy than, say, the nutters in Iran.
Caledonian/melendwyr on "legitimacy" here.
Abortion hasn't seem to have helped reduce illegitimacy, so I recommend a foreign policy of cold showers and Mormonism.
Well, a rogue state is a state whose actions we can't understand, and can't predict
On the contrary, as Larison often points out they generally behave how one would predict if one were a realist rather than a ninny.
Point taken, TGGP, but frankly, I don't believe any state is particularly rational. Take the Cold War. MAD for the West, and we know Castro and Guevara were ready to start the big one, consequences be damned. I like realism, I believe that we ought to see everyone as a power-hungry agent, but... Well, I don't think anyone's particularly rational, and a lot of times, the ruin of powers can't be explained by realism, but by psychology, if anything.
Post a Comment