48 hours
03.18.2003The countdown to war has begun. Only a miracle could prevent war now. But I don't think Hussein will leave his country and go into exile. In part, it's because even his Arab neighbors despise him and wouldn't welcome him w/ open arms. In two days, we'll know. I hope for a swift, absolute, and stunning victory.
Not because it would vindicate Bush. I don't care about that; I don't even especially like Bush or his overall domestic policy agenda.
But because I genuinely hope for a world free of tyrants, free of madman dictators who brutalize their people, and despots who pursue weapons of mass destruction for use against his enemies - foreign and domestic. I believe in democracy and the overall values of Western civilization - pluralism, the rights of free speech and personal choice, the equality of people regardless of race or gender or ethnicity, the separation of church and state, and an open society. These things are worth defending. They're worth fighting for.
A global world order that sacrifices the safety of tyrants under the banner of "sovereignty" - an antiquated medieval doctrine - over the force of the democratic ethos is not a world order I prefer. Sometimes, the status quo is not the best. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen all the radical and revolutionary changes the world has seen.
The American Declaration of Independence was such a movement. It declared that government (institutions) were created for men, not the other way around. It announced that when those institutions fail, they should be overthrown - even by violence.
The French Revolution - the vanguard of the European enlightenment - was such a movement. It destroyed aristocratic privilege, the static dogma of the "divine right" of monarchs to rule by whim.
The Socialist movement of the early 20th century was such a movement. Although it's project ended in the failure known as Stalinism, it was originally born from the idea that democratic rights must be extended to the poor, oppressed workers. And that revolution was born in violence. It changed the status quo and forced even the Western democracies to change. Social democracy is now the norm - both in Europe and in the Western Hemisphere. That's why we recognize the rights of workers to strike, to demand that they too deserve the dignity of individual civic rights.
In the end, I'm even willing to see the end of the United Nations because I believe in the spirit under which that institution was founded: To prevent the unchecked growth of aggressive dictatorial regimes and secure a lasting peace. The UN Charter speaks of peaceful coexistence. But. It also speaks of other means - including war - as necessary to check such aggressors to force them (by violence, if necessary) to comply w/ the norms of the international community.
I'm now firmly convinced that the UN has failed. I love it's purpose enough to let the institution go. And that is a form of global patriotism. A true national patriot, as so many of the world's great intellects point out, is willing to challenge his or her government to change. Sometimes, a true patriot is willing to overthrow the institutions of state. The soldiers of the French Revolution where patriots even as they threw their own nation into chaos and war in the hope of building a better France.
Perhaps this is my arrogance: I see myself as a patriot of the world. I bind myself by no nationality or creed. And my patriotism demands that I sacrifice one institution - the mechanisms of the United Nations - in the hope of building a better world.
Posted by Miguel at 08:00 AM
Comments
Good luck for all of us then. You don't sacrifice and institution. You sacrifice everything about international cooperation.
Posted by: Marco at March 18, 2003 04:49 AM
I fail to see where I ever decided to "sacrifice everything about international cooperation." That's an overstatement. I don't think French Republicans decided to abolish all government when they overthrew the particular institutions (mainly the monarchy) of their own.
I believe in international cooperation. But cooperation doesn't mean that we must always avoid conflict. By that logic, I would have failed to "cooperate" w/ my mugger if I fought w/ him rather than handing over my wallet.
And after all, don't we place just a bit too much faith in the UN? International cooperation didn't begin w/ the UN. It's been around for as long as states have existed - the dawn of history. That's why countries have embassies and other niceties. The UN was designed as a forum to increase that kind of cooperation - but it's not the only forum for it.
Posted by: Miguel at March 18, 2003 04:57 AM
"I believe in democracy and the overall values of Western civilization - pluralism, the rights of free speech and personal choice, the equality of people regardless of race or gender or ethnicity, the separation of church and state, and an open society. These things are worth defending. They're worth fighting for."
Yes, they are worth fighting for, but not at the expense of my life, the lives of people who do want to fight and who do not neccesarily share your ideals.
Does defending your ideals mean you always have to attack? Can defending mean that you don't have to make moves so as not to aggravate a potentially explosive situation?
Posted by: lippy at March 18, 2003 04:45 PM
According to this article (reprinted here), the invasion will take place whether Saddam leaves Iraq or not.
That suggests that Bush's 48-hour ultimatum is just for show.
Posted by: Prentiss Riddle at March 18, 2003 06:26 PM