Friday, March 11, 2005

Sovereignty vs. Fairness

In response to Jovo, and on my own, I would like to continue the discussion on sovereignty.

As I said in class, I do not think that the US is impinging on the sovereignty of other nations. The fact that the US is an economic super-power does not make it responsible for the financial security of the rest of the world. If the US wants to end its relations with another state, that is a sovereign right. It is not the sovereign right of the rest of the world to engage in trade and economic relations with the US. It is important, considering that sovereignty is the single most important factor in international relations, not to get it confused with what others would call “fairness.”

The way the US deals with the rest of the world is often unfair. In class, Lee mentioned that the US is a big baby, and that’s sometimes correct. If the situation was reversed, and the EU, for example, was placing some kind of economic embargo on the US, there is no doubt that the US would fight it or retaliate in some way. This would be an attack against the sovereignty of the nations of the EU, just as it would be an attack on the US if we were forced to trade with others. The US would feel as though it were being bullied, just as other nations no doubt feel they are being bullied. But there is no law against using your power to put pressure on others. Lets face it; the entire embargo against Cuba is an act of bullying. There is no way for the US to force Cuba to allow democratic elections, just as there is no way for them to force other nations to not deal with Cuba. The US is simply using its economic power, legally, to try and promote its ideals of democracy, which could be considered bullying.

If there comes a time when a worldwide organization of some kind forces countries into relations with others, this will be an attack on sovereignty. Until then, the US, as well as every other country in the world, has the right to trade freely. This includes having the right to choose. Every state has the right to deal with others as they see fit and to choose whom they deal with and whom they do not, as long as they are within the parameters of international law.

Helms Burton

1 comment:

Huck said...

Jim - Excellent post and great points in class. I think you really make a strong case in defense of the Helms-Burton legislation as it relates to its legitimacy under international law and as a measure of the sovereign rights of the United States. Also, thanks for providing a link to the actual legislation itself. It's quite helpful and interesting, though it is tedious to slog through.