From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Sun May 04 2003 - 19:36:59 MDT
Ron writes:
> In a message dated 5/4/2003 2:48:49 AM Central Standard
> Time, paatschb@optusnet.com.au writes: Ultimately if there is to
> be international law that means anything someone has to be able to
> convince ordinary voting Americans that that is something *they*
> should care about.
>
> Brett,
> You have gotten to the crux of the your misunderstanding. The
> ordinary American in overwhelming numbers does care about
> international law. They have long been devoted to the love of
> international law.
Do you really think this is true Ron? Seems to me that international law
is not an easy thing to love or even to understand, not just for ordinary
American's but for ordinary natonals of any persuasion. For most of us,
most of the time its just esoterics. It is damn hard work to try and get
a real handle on things like the UN Charter or the Geneva Conventions
if one is an ordinary citizen. Most of us have or choose to do other things
with our time it seems (and most of the time I'd include myself in that).
But in the end if international law is to emerge as more that "international
blaw" as John Clarke put it, then it must have champions. Civilizations
do not build themselves. And we live and die in the civilizations and
societies that we build for ourselves.
> But that same American does not see his country receiving
> international law.
The key thing about international law I think is that it must be based on
agreements that if not honoured by one party will be enforced by other
parties. If as you say Americans don't see themselves *receiving*
international law at present, they are in probably in pretty much the same
situation as everyone else. There is no free lunch. Unenforced laws are
not worth anything. That point has been made on this list by others before
too.
I see law and international law, in theory, as essentially simple.
Agreements
should be made that are in the interests of all those that make them. If
they
are broken it is not the paper form of the agreement but the community
determined to live in a world of order rather than disorder that should step
up to enforce those agreements. Unfortunately that requires a pretty active
and enlightened community, a community that can see things in more than
black and white.
> When you state lofty ... positions attempting to "reason" with us
> we do not hear you as reasonable. We hear only a person that is
> doing one thing strictly for his advantage and trying to talk us into
> harming ourselves for his advantage.
I admit I am talking to you and to others for my advantage. I see
international law, well founded, realistically based, as being to my
advantage. I see cooperation where it is possible as preferable. I don't see
the establishment of a real system of international law as harmful to you.
Quite to the contrary. But I do see that many will see any particular
implementation of international law as harmful to them even if it is not in
practice and that is a problem. The problem with enlightened self
interest is achieving the necessary enlightened part.
> As I said before, "Phony baloney."
Not phoney. Possibly mistaken. Possibly pointless.
>I think it is long since time for Americans to take up the European
> policy of looking out for their own good, not that of others.
So, on the matter of international law what do you now think is in your
own good?
Do you think it is in your own good to elect leaders that are in favor of
stepping away from the UN as a failed institution? Or do you think it is
your own good to elect leaders that will try and reform it?
With respect to international law what policy do you see as being in
your own good? Is your own good the same or substantially similar
as the "own good" of all Americans? Seems the trade off in terms of
short and long term benefits might vary from person to person. An
older person might be able to adopt an attitude of fortress America
and never live long enough to see any damage done. The same person
at much younger age might do the same sort of calculation differently
don't you think?
Brett
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun May 04 2003 - 19:47:32 MDT