The question of "Effective Sovereignty"

Brought some kids to HACA'09 last thursday and this was one of the questions which arose during the presentation round. "Is UN Intervention in line with its role of safeguarding of state sovereignty?"

The students answered that on the grounds of effective sovereignty arising from social contract, a state would forfeit its right to effective sovereignty if it worked the ill sufferings of its people. But this statement is iffy. In the perfect scenario, the people confer the legitimacy of power unto the ruling party. But this is problematic because a social contract assumes that all parties in power come about by voluntary and consent. This however is not always the case as parties can wrestle their way to power and then dominate the populace with a monopoly of force. A social contract is not always existent. So from a realist point of view, this particular stance of their's is swept under the rug.

However we should judge the argument on the school on which it is formulated. Thus we will now apply the liberal lens. We move onto examine if the UN grounds of intervention is in line with its role of safeguarding state sovereignty. I say yes although some may argue that UN intervention on the grounds of HR violations puts the rights of the individual above those of the nation-state. However if we delve deeper, we find this not to be the case and instead both are reconcilable in true nature. To this, we turn to the rightful scope of UN intervention which is limited in nature. The aims of UN intervention is to put a stop to HR violations. It does not intervene to take over a country and operate as its state. Thus I see this as a utilitarian liberal action, which serves to achieve the greatest good with a little "evil".

Next, we look from the liberal HR lens and analyze the situation. The party in power and its people are all equal as human beings under the HR lens. Thus they do not have any inherent rights over and above their people. By acting contrary to this, they are in effect performing a violation of HR as a private individual. Were it a usual civilian act of transgression then they would be trialled as a citizen of the state under its laws. But since a HR violation by a party or individual in power is directed towards a large group of people and trangresses International Law, thus they then would be rightfully trialled under International Law. Thus it is not so much as a question of an individual's rights over the State's but rather an affirmative action of the equality of all individuals' rights.

Now lastly, a Realist sprinkling of power politics come into play. Authoritarian regimes or ruling individuals with authoritarian tendencies may argue that liberals are transgressing their own rules by intervention and scream bloody murder when they see UN-backed troops crashing into their backyards to arrest them. The simple fact of the matter is that the ones with the muscle can decide the rules and what matters. At the end of the day, it really does not matter as much what you feel is "right" when the current reality of international politics and law is now liberal in stance. Man has always used his fist to protect his ideas and his fellow kind.

3. Mein Kampf: Hitler on the State (a Folkish state, education and military service)

Hitler goes about to clear up certain "misconceptions" of the state. He is idea of what a Folkish state should be is highly "ethno-centric" and asserts that the state is not simply a more or less voluntary grouping of people under a government power. In the modern corruption, the state no longer exists to serve men; men exist in order to worship a state. Thus it is not an end but a means. It is the premise for the foundation of a higher human culture.

However, the state's highest state is the preservation and intensification of the race as a community of physically and psychically homogeneous creatures, this then is the fundamental condition of all human cultural development. The perils of racial mixing as put forth by Hitler have already been discussed in the previous posting. His German Reich must embrace all Germans and assemble and preserve the most valuable of basic racial elements in this people so as to slowly but surely raise them to a dominant position.

The Folkish state must then undertake certain "positive interventions" into the lives of their citizens. Firstly, Hitler states that it raise marriage from the level of a continuous defilement of the race and give it the consecration of a institution which produces images of the Lord and not half-apes. It must declare unfit of propagation those who are visibly sick and diseased or mentally handicapped.

Education focuses on physical training for a citizen with firm character and strength is more valuable than an intellectual weakling. Boxing is to be encouraged as it imbues and nurtures the spirit of attack, lightning decisions and trains the body in steel dexterity. Once the German child passes through school, it does not mean that the state's right to supervise its young citizens suddenly ceases. This right is a duty and is equally present at all times. Education for the males in its broad outlines serve as a preparation for future military service. Only then will the army be the rightful last and highest school of patriotic education. Whereas for females, it culminates in their role as future mothers.

The German soldier must have superior training in peacetime and have self-confidence in his superiority and the invincibility of his people which will not be lost even in the terror of the greatest battles. During military service, the boy will be transformed into a man and learns to obey and later command. His citizen's diploma is earned by completion of his military service which admits him to public activity and his health certificate confirms his physical health for marriage.

2. Mein Kampf: Hitler on Nation and Race

Hitler's writings on Nation and Race are a one-dimensional reading of Nietzsche's philosophy of the Uber-mensch.

The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel. In nature, you will never find a fox who in his inner attitude might, for example, show humanitarian tendencies toward geese. Nature's daily struggles are always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance is a cause of higher development.

The result of all racial crossing is the lowering of the level of the higher race and physical, intellectual regression is the beginning of a slowly but surely progressing sickness.

We can divide mankind into three groups, the founders, the bearers and the destroyers of culture. True genius which is found in founders is always inborn and never cultivated, let alone learned. The founders of all progressive human culture and civilizations are Aryans. The Aryan founders also possess a self-sacrificing will to give one's personal labor and of necessary one's own life for others is most strongly developed. However, for the formation of such higher cultures, the existance of lower human types is essential as a precondition. As such is natural, the strong dominates the weak and directs his energies for their mutual good.

The mightiest counterpart to the Aryan is the Jew. Their instinct for self-preservation is most developed and no other people have gone through greater upheavals and remained unchanged. Their sense of solidarity is not positive either since it is based on the very primitive herd instinct. This primitive heard instinct only exists in the face of danger and dissipates into self-quarreling once any danger is over.

1. Mein Kampf: Hitler on Propaganda

I am currently reading Mein Kampf (Finally! This is a book that I have been intellectually salivating for since the time that I was in JC) As of now, my comments about this book are as follows, "Intellectually uninspiring but highly important as it is historically revealing from hindsight." What am I to expect? I knew all along that Hitler was no intellectual. But still, there are many important points to highight.

Having learnt much from the "superior" war propaganda being unleashed upon the German soldiers in WW1, Hitler argues on how to perfect the art of Propaganda:

Is propaganda a means or an end? It is a means and must therefore be judged with regard to its end. It must consequently take a form calculated to support the aim which it serves.

The German nation was involved in a struggle for a human existence and the purpose of war propaganda should have been yp support this struggle; its aim to bring about victory.

When nations on this planet fight for existence.....then all considerations of humanitarianism or aesthetics crumble into nothingness. As such, these two concepts are inapplicable to propaganda.
Propaganda must be addressed always and exclusively to the masses. It must attract the attention of the crowd by form and color. Its function lies in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes and necessities.

Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. This is because receptivity of the masses is veyr limited. thier intelligience is small but thier power of forgetting is enormous.

It was absolutely wrong to make the enemy ridiculous (as the German authorities did in WW1) becuase actual conflict with the enemy would arouse an entirely different conviction and the results would be devastating. By contrast, British war propaganda rightfully prepared thier side for the terrors of war and thus helped to preserve them from disappointments.

Next, propaganda is not to weight the rights of different people but to exclusively emphasize the one right which it has set out to argue for. It is to serve our own right, always and unflinchingly.

This sentiment and message should not be complicated but bery simple and all of a piece. This way, it does not lead to no half-statements that might have given rise to doubts.

As a whole, all pieces of propaganda must have a common outline and never depart from it. This then must be performed with steady, consistent emphasis which would allow our final success to mature.

Up next, Hitler on Race and Nation

4. On War: The differentiating conditions of Banded fighting from Individual fighting

Why then did man and how then did man come to fight in bands from the initial state of one-on-one fighting? First, we need to explore the reasons why man need and want to engage in Banded fighting? There are two prime reasons. Firstly, it is the need to improve one's state of relative strength. Man in banded fighting are stronger than any individual. Co-operation accords a group of man greater strength which translates into many resultant benefits such as the increase in their chances for individual survivability and their success rates (just to name two). Secondly, man come together in fight in bands because of a commonality in interests which springs forth from social units. In tribes, ancient man may have been unrelated in blood but only in territory and they would still logically combine their efforts to achieve their common goal of fighting to repulse an invader for example. The other social unit of the family makes for easier explanation since all species of animals fight to protect and ensure the success of their genetic line.

Now we move onto the differentiating conditions which exist in Banded fighting as unique and distinct from Individual fighting. The first such condition is Leadership. As social psychologists rightfully observe and assert, even between two people, a system of social dominance is established. Leadership among man who unite to fight on the same side can take the form of formal or informal. As Webster provides, it would also be buttressed by the charismatic appeal of the leader or the legal-rational authority of the leader. Leadership is what transforms a mass of weapon-wielding men into a unit. Leadership also brings into the group of man functional organization and hierarchies.

A second differentiating condition would be ideology which operates as a tool for unification and offers direction and motivation to the men. This is highly important and effective since it is beyond the material and operates on the emotive and basal instincts of men. The banded fighting unit with ideology can be better counted on to "bear their swords in the cold".

Sometimes individuals do fight with the conviction of ideologies, you may argue. And I rightfully agree. However, only in a banded fighting unit can ideology truly flourish. This is largely due to the effects of the next differentiating condition which is group-think which reinforces self-right and in turn may blur judgment and increase risk-taking. Another effect of group-think is to heighten "Other-ing" which strengthens group culture. Group-culture is crucial to the banded fighting unit as it unites them mentally and develops exclusive kinship within the unit in the form of a symbolic code of arms and a unit name for example.

I shall move onto the next differentiating condition which is closely related. As man come together to fight in banded units, they come to recognize certain values such as valor, self-sacrifice, cowardice and camaraderie for example. This is the appearance of concepts which are specific to banded fighting.They praise positive values and mock negative ones. Symbolic acknowledgment of positive values displayed in the heat of battle heightens the social hierarchy within the group and also gives birth to the "Warrior's Vanity" where a warrior seeks to win the admiration of his fellow warriors by his display of positive values. There is then the motivation to outdo each other and in turn win their fellow warriors' admiration which actually serves to improve the overall fighting ability of the unit.

The last differentiating condition is the development of group tactics. The need for close-order fighting tactics develops out of a need to kill the enemy without killing your own. Tactics also arises out of man's ability to adapt and observe. Man is a creature of observation and is able to learn from mistakes. Defeat prompts tactical response. Group Tactics (or rather , developing Group tactics) then improve the success rate of a banded fighting unit.

3.On War: Why do men fight?

I sat and I pondered. I also talked and debated a bit with Uncle Chua and this is what I have gotten thus far. I understand fighting as the physical action of violence of one human against another human. Before I develop on how individual conflict escalates into banded conflict, we first have to consider what is man's propensity to fight which will be the content of this post. (take note that I am pursuing the question in the context of pre-modernity, pre-civilisation and maybe even pre-history.)

There are two types of propensities to fight: one innate and one forced. Let's explore the forced propensity to fight first. Ecology dictates that all environments are limited and a lack of resources (either real or perceived- and in this aspect, ideology can come into play and effectively alter and manipulate perceptions to its advantage. More will be discussed about ideology's role in mankind's escalation from individual conflict to banded conflict) threatens the individual's survival. This is heightened due to competition as posed by other individuals over scarce resources. At first, competition takes the form of a struggle till the point when the individual lacks any other means to achieve his acquisition of the resources which are vital to his survival, he then subsequently resorts to violent means and engages in fighting. (more on the seemingly flawed modern rational-economic lens used to account for the forced propensity to fight later)The individual who is forced to fight due to ecology fights till he reaches a safe zone whereby he can sufficiently provide for himself. Thus it is an action with limits.

Next, I shall move onto the natural propensity to fight. The origins of such a mental make-up is not easily understood. Sure, science tells us that the seat of aggression is located in our lower brain and that such impulses are subject to control from our higher brain. However, we cannot explain the inexplicable natural propensity for violence that some individuals display. Neither would religious explanations such as original sin suffice. Thus I shall just leave it as a real possibility that some individuals have a higher natural propensity for violence. Such individuals would soon develop a worldview that "might makes right" in an environmental with no policing repercussions. As long as such individuals could successfully fend off reprisals and successfully acquire what he set out to fight for, "might makes right" would make sense. Then as Uncle Chua has greatly input, Greed would factor into the issue and this would move the individual to further pursue violence as a means to an end. Such individuals may fight for the pure fun of it and like the ancient horse people of the steppe. Rational CBA may also factor into their decided action to fight since parasitism benefits them greater than rape and pillage on a long term scale. Hence such parties would be involved in raiding.

Let me digress for a bit and explain about how the seemingly flawed modern rational-economic lens used to account for the forced propensity to fight actually still holds true. Survival is still the ultimate motivation. In fact, Keagan's argument of the Aztecs who fought to capture human sacrificial tokens to their Gods. They were of an abundant society and had no immediate threat to survival. But yet, I argue that they were motivated by survival. Why? This is because the Aztecs were fighting in order to gain human sacrificial tokens which would then appease their Gods, if not their world would cease to be. Survival? Yes. Even if you argue that the priests and noble class did not in fact buy entirely into the idea that the Gods would cease the mechanics of the universe unless they were fed, the motivation of fighting would still be survival. The ruling Aztecs would have to set into motion fighting in order to keep alive their way of living and worldview which in turn validates their political survival.

Whatever the type of propensity to fight, the intermediate goals of fighting can converge and blur. These goals are to gain (this includes any gains from basic stealing to routing and even to the non-material dimension such as the political effects of war-mongering), to reclaim, to settle disputes, to defend and sometimes for the pure thrill and exhilaration of it(where the individual is pre-disposed to violence). Sometimes an individual is forced to fight to steal in order to survive. Sometimes a bloodthirsty individual is forced to fight to defend himself from a reprisal. As stated above, the intermediate goals of fighting can converge and blur.

But the ultimate end in fighting differs from the forced individual to the greedy/blood-lust individual. The forced individual would only fight a limited fight. This means that the act of fighting would only be carried out if it serves as a means to an end. Whereas the blood-lust individual is capable of fighting an unlimited fight. He could be fighting just for the fun of it (fighting as a means and end in itself).

2. On War: Clausewitz's "On War" and John Keagan's "A history of Warfare"

War must never be seen as a purpose to itself, but as a means of physically forcing one's will on an opponent ("War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.")

War as a purpose to itself presupposes that man is biologically driven to warring. This is an argument which is hard to make and sustain. However, Keagan then adds that Clausewitz did not factor in that war is also a cultural instrument and a cultural act. It is not entirely governed by the dynanism of all-imposing political forces. Indeed, it can be governed by static, revisionist forces such as culture.
In western military history, this was observed in the aristocracies' undying grip on the honor and exclusivity of the idea of the "Flower Calvary" which resulted in disastrous showings at Balaclava (from "War and Civilisation: Blood and Iron") for example, a prime example of culture obstinately preserving a style of warring despite real political realities. This was again demonstrated by the Japanese Samurai which had effectively employed gunpowder for realpolitik and then forcefully reinstated their Samurai way of warring once gunpowder had achieved its purpose. However, is this then not political? As Keagan later explains, the Samurai could accomplish this as there were no gunpowder weapon wielding enemies at their doorsteps.? Is this not an absence of a particular political reality which allowed them to put culture above politics?

Secondly, I agree more with Weigly who states that war is not so much a continuation of political commerce but also one of political bankrupty. This would resonate with what Frantz Fanon put forth and many freedom-fighters such as the LTTE and the IRA who have found that peaceful demands are empty and achieve little. Their appreciation of their own state of political bankruptcy then forces war upon them as an additional means to continue their political commerce.

Lastly, my understanding of the concept “Politics” is perhaps more inclusive and al-encompassing than Clausewitz’s and Keagan’s. Thus I see Keagan’s argument of incidences of cultural primacy in the preservation and promotion of various warring styles not as arguing against Clausewitz but adding on. Such historical experiences that he highlighted are highly political as they all involve and revolve around the quinessential element of politics, Power. After all, the Japanese generals who united Japan successfully and reinstated the Cult of the Sword only because they had the political means to do so. And later when confronted with the American fleet and forced to modernize some 250 years later, the political necessity won out and dictated the style of warring. As uncle Chua rightfully puts it, the image of the desert raider brandishing his sword before an unimpressed Indiana Jones in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and getting nonchalantly blazed down proves the potency and uncompromising pressure of real politics on the style of warring.

Indeed, war in the political realm is a political instrument of violence that is undertaken to continue political commerce or break political bankrupty in order to achieve power (of its many forms) over other parties or in issues.

1. On War: sec3 SS: Chap 6

There were three reasons cited in my department's notes for the causes of conflicts. They were 1. for resources 2. for territory and 3. over ideological differences. The notes then stated that ideological differences were the quinessential reason why parties would end up in conflict. I disagree strongly and maybe I am taking too much offence since it serves the argument at thier point in education. But yet, it seems so wrong to me so I must state my case.

Firstly, war and conflict are totally two different concepts. War is armed conflict and presupposes a significant number of casualties for it to qualify as war. Conflict is a much looser idea and thus should not be used for the purposes of such a statement.

Secondly, the argument that ideological differences are the quinessential reason why parties end up in conflict seems to be supported only by the Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) and only holds true between Democracies. This lack of interstate war between democracies may only exist because I would argue firstly that since Democracy had "won" the Cold War and has since had the benefits of emplaced and established conflict management devices (trade sanctions, international dialogue mechanisms, Supranational and regional organisations and the list goes on and on) I wonder if the USSR had won. Would the "Iron Fist" of the "Iron Curtain" not also be successful in dowsing any potential interstate flare-ups and prevented large scale conflict with its authoritarian ways? Also, Democracies are only less likely to war with Democracies. What about the other camp? Two authoritarian states may clash. And you may argue that at least the DPT supports the essential claim. I say no. Why? Because nothing is monotheistic in color and hue, especially when it closes to ideologies which are colored by context and unique social and political histories. So to say similar ideologies would firstly be a huge no-no to me and to further the argument and say that there is such a thing as ideological similarities is certainly pushing the logical coherency of an argument too far.

Lastly, ideologies are evolving creatures of the mind. Even if I assume that two ideologies have a common origin or common point in thier trajectories, they are definitely not asymmetrical for eternity. We often forget that ideologies bend to our will and are often tokens of what we really stand for. Indeed, the real tangible concerns like oppression, resources and territory are what counts in sparking a conflict. Ideologies are tools that justify our claims and unite us under a common flag. Case in point, I refer to the "Contigent Democrats" theory. Conflicts exist in states at all levels and the "Contingent Democrats" theory rightfully shows and assets that groups will push for democracy within society only when it serves thier position at that moment. Even if they were supposedly the democratising force, they would renounce democracy if it were in conflict with thier interests. Thus this shows the reality that real tangible concerns bite us at our cores. They rumble when our tummies are unfed. They bleed when we are cut. We cannot deny them. They are the real undenieable facts of life. Ideologies on the other hand, often just serve to help us deny.