Friday, July 02, 2004

Morning of Day 1 or 'What I Did to Numb the Mind Yesterday' and Sovereignty

With Alex gone the house is very quiet. Pictures of us everywhere but no soft, cafe colored skin to touch.

She worries that I don't eat when she's gone so I'll keep it here for the record.

Diet:
Yesterday I ate Pad Thai Chicken, had a couple cups of coffee, one of those fake crab legs, and a chocolate chip muffin. Yeah, not too healthy.

I taped Pasion de Gavilanes for her, watched Charmed like we usually do and then played a video game. Bed time at half past midnight. When I woke up this morning I had a sore spot on the lower left hand side of my face that appears to be the start of a pimple under my goatee. I have been told by my civilian employee that beards of any type are not authorized by the employee handbook. Of course, the employee handbook also says we shall wear a shirt and tie to work each day and I see an awful lot of Polo shirts in this place. He said that was up to the main customer... so, shouldn't beards be as well? All part of the same policy. That's the round-up for yesterday and this morning.

And now onto what's in my head. I do a lot of thinking to divert attention away from that terrible hollow spot Alex fills. And my thoughts this morning are on Iraq. Prisoner treatment, US policy, election politics concerning, transfer of power; you name it. It's all swirling around in there.


SOVEREIGNTY

Most notably, thought, are my thoughts on sovereignty. What are we talking about here? Lots of comments have been made on the 'illusion of sovereignty' Iraq is about to be enshrouded in.

Let's look at the concept of sovereignty:

Sovereignty is conventionally defined as supreme political and legal authority in a given territory. It bestows upon a state an international legal personality, an ability to control its own natural resources, collect taxes, build its military and define its own system of government.

As a byproduct, this establishes the convention of borders. Imaginary lines on the very land and water. Borders allow sovereign nations to assert control over what is theirs. A nation needs to do this to protect their interests and resources from 'outsiders' who are other groups of people with their own sovereignty and borders. Then the nations build armies within those borders. The purpose of the army is to kill and destroy opposing forces when diplomatic means fail.

From this idea of sovereignty springs borders which leads to defining 'outsiders' which leads to the formation of armies based in the fear that someone will take what is within those borders.

This is what occurs when there are nations and sovereignty. You get to use words like "our own" and "foreigners" and such. Once, foreign meant not indigenous and had connotations of exotic. Now foreign is used to describe anyone not like those within your borders, likely a person or idea that could cause you harm and should be regarded with suspicion.

Where's this going? You probably already guessed. Take away the borders, take away the sovereignty and what do you have? A single government of the world with a wide variety of social and ethnic groups who are now citizens of the same planet.

How Utopian you think. How utterly ridiculous. There will still exist the same problems with resource sharing and ethnic violence. This is true. If a global government were started today, it would end in flames with lines being redrawn by local warlords loosely based on current political lines, likely.

Does that mean we ignore the prospect altogether? Not work in that direction? I hardly think that to be prudent, either.

A single government allows for a military police force to go anywhere and do anything it needs to to quell ethnic violence. Imagine the redistribution of wealth if the American economy were used to heal and feed those now considered foreign. Imagine where a terrorist could hide if a global police force, bolstered by the latest in the world's technology no longer held in secret from country to country, could travel anywhere to perform its duties.

Logistically impossible? How so? You now have the world's entire economy and personnel pool to draw from. Government would be immense? Yes, but smaller than the combined governments of the world right now.

Differences in ideology too broad? Ahh... now we get to the sticking point.

Can a Muslim, Marxist or Communist ever submit themselves to the will of the popular vote? Yes, I am assuming a democratic government. Communism failed so it is ruled out. Muslim governments have not advanced their social programs for millennia and how many women would submit to a Muslim male dominated rule (haggle that all you want, Muslim governments are male dominated).

Democracy is the only form that would give everyone a voice in world affairs. The specific form of democracy I cannot say. Ideally it would be some sort of mass voting system unable to be breached by those wishing to control the outcome of voting, but that's speculation.

The main point is this: sovereignty is the primary cause of death and suffering in the world today. Without it, in a global community longing for a better social schema, I believe things would be much improved.

It's a long way off and I have no illusions of a great world revolution coming in my lifetime or in the next ten lifetimes. But it has merit that should be explored rather than despised. The fear of losing sovereignty is the fear of being ruled by someone imposing beliefs you do not hold.

It is all, however, based in fear. Poets like to say love is the most powerful emotion, but it is fear that rules the human heart in these days.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home