Moral Proselytism Redux

March 11, 2009 at 10:21 am (tWP) (, , , , , , , , )

And it happened. For the first time an international organization issued an arrest warrant for a sitting head of state.


The West Vs the Rest ?...

The sad truth is that Liberal Universalism’s reign is still strong. While the Democratic Trotskyites may have been put out of office in the new world, the Humanitarian Trotskyites are sitting comfortably in theirs, in the old world.

The ICC is one of those initiatives stemming directly from the UN Charter.

A group of idealists (oblivious to the fact that the Charter was written during World War II by the two liberal empires and only signed by the “rest of the world” desperate to fall in the graces of the victorious powers and quasi investment capital monopolisers) concerned that the liberal values of the charter were not being upheld (and honestly who can blame them? One has but to take a look at the UN’s human rights initiatives such as the Human Rights Council to realize something has gone terribly wrong…) get together and out of a manifesto form an organization determined to set things right.

The problem? The overwhelming majority of signatory states to the ICC are western

The ICC is comprised primarily of European and American states. States that share a civilization cultural matrix and most of whom don’t have major geopolitical conflicts nor enough power projection to worry about outright war.

In fact Asia is the most underrepresented continent with only 8 signatory states. It does rather reminds us of the Convention on Cluster Munitions…

The major powers on the other hand are not parties to the ICC. Certainly not India,  China, Russia or the US. Many regional powers follow suit: Ethiopia, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Israel, Turkey, Iran, Angola.

And it is this pitiful organization, devoid of any actual relevance, deficiently representative of the international power framework, that determines the arrest of a sitting head of state. It is these people who decide to overthrow 361 years of Westphalian system.

Does anyone actually believe Omar al-Bashir will surrender himself to the Court? Why would he? Does the ICC have the power or the legitimacy to force him to?

On an “unrelated subject”, would his capture help bring an end to the conflict in the Sudan?

If al-Bashir and his cronies were really removed, who would be left to lead the regime? The extremist clerics that support it ideologicaly? The military that has carried out its democidal bidding?

Or are the Sudanese Arabs supposed to accept a Christian leadership from the south? Pay restitutions and include the peoples of Darfur in the oil deals perhaps?

eidhr-icon-big2For now, the regime hasn’t wasted much time in ordering the expulsion of several humanitarian NGOs.

Finally, have we mentioned the Sudan is not a signatory party to the ICC?…

Quite clearly this initiative is outrageous and useless.

Together with other western Europe initiatives pertaining to universal jurisdiction, it is based on moral premises and dismissal of existing power arrangements.

Just as the Nuremberg Trials became known as victors’ justice, so will (liberal) universal jurisdiction go down in history as one-sided utopian values evangelisation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: