Of Guns and Men

On the heels of the San Bernardino shooting perpetrated by two Moslem terrorists, tiresomely and predictably, President Obama and the chiefly liberal sections of the political establishment were on point railing against the supposedly too great availability of some or all types of weapons.  Their trope is: Guns should be banned or restricted because, intuitively, fewer guns means fewer gun-related deaths.

In making such assertions, however, no hard data are ever adduced.  Rather, they munificently deploy one emotionally-laden appeal after another, hoping to sway public opinion with sentiments that devolve to: "We must do something about it."

Following is just a selection of the factual arguments germane to the issue to be considered:

• Historically, the U.S. has been a "gun-toting" nation.  Indeed, after the Second World War, the Korean War, the Viet Nam War, and others, America was awash with both weapons of every kind and with war veterans suffering from P.T.S.D. and many other mental ailments onset by the traumas they endured in the conflicts in which they fought.  One would have expected those mentally-unstable people with ready access to destructive weaponry to have been shooting up America with terrifying frequency.  Yet, prior to the 1980s there were only two mass shootings of note: A WW2 veteran killed 13 people in 1949 and a discharged Marine killed 16 people in 1966.  Even in the 1980s there were still only a handful of such incidents.  The prevalence of weapons and gun crime (especially high-profile, mass-casualty gun crime) clearly do not correlate historically.
• Case in point: Russia.  The country has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world where it is virtually impossible to obtain a gun.  Fewer than nine out of 100 Russians possess a firearm.  However, its overall homicide rate is almost four times that of the United States.
• By contrast, apart from having a lower homicide rate overall than Russia, despite there being 100 firearms per 100 population, only 10% of all violent crime in America involve firearms.
• The various recent trends in the United States also undermine the anti-gun narrative.  The rate of gun ownership has been on a steady increase over the past two decades.  Simultaneously, the homicide rate has been on a distinct downward course.  (On a point of interest and without necessarily suggesting a causal relationship, home robberies have also been decreasing as gun ownership has been increasing.)
• Consider the following chart:
  
  
  This chart is frequently employed by pro-gun advocates to argue that gun-"control" measures cause an increase in homicide, rather than a decline.  That argument is a post hoc fallacy; much more additional study would be required to validate it.  However, the chart does prove beyond a doubt that gun-"control" does NOT decrease homicides.
• Turning to history again, it demonstrates unequivocally that banning something deemed undesirable does not make it disappear.  The examples are innumerable, and the range includes everything from alcohol and drugs, to pornography and homosexuality, to speeding and D.U.I.  A ban on guns in Denmark, Belgium, and France very tragically did not prevent Moslem terrorists from massacring hundreds of people in cafes, trains, restaurants, and theaters there.  Indeed, arguably, if even a fraction of the victims would have been armed, it is likely that the death toll in all such attacks would have been considerably lower.  Likewise, astringent anti-gun laws in e.g. Chicago, Washington, and Detroit do not prevent those cities from having the highest gun-caused homicide rates in the nation.
• On the subject of D.U.I., more deaths are caused by intoxicated drivers than by guns.  Yet, no proposal has been advanced to further restrict the availability of automobiles or driver's licenses or even to mandate installation of additional safety mechanisms.  The reason why that should be so is self-evident: The overwhelming majority of drivers are law-abiding and responsible citizens.  It would, therefore, be unconscionable to penalize them for the excesses of an exiguous and statistically-insignificant minority, notwithstanding the suffering the latter group causes.
• As far as safety, only 0.025% of the guns in circulation in the United States are utilized for illicit purposes.  That is a safety record of 99.975%, which eclipses many common items in everyday use.
• Per 100,000 population, statistics show that such objects as swimming pools, scissors, stepladders, automobiles as well as many medical procedures are more lethal than guns.  In other words, many--sometimes on the order of magnitude of several tenfold--more deaths are caused by the items aforesaid than by guns.
• The standard retort to the foregoing is that, unlike guns, those objects are "not designed to kill."  That is correct; however, if the focus is on saving every precious life possible, then surely the most prolific provenances of death should be addressed in the order of priority.
• Another stock rejoinder is that people "do not need" firearms.  Surely such advocates recognize that government apparatchiks deciding what people "need" and "do not need," particularly pursuant to their personal beliefs, is the very definition of totalitarianism, indeed, fascism.
• The overwhelming majority of firearms use and fatalities involve the criminal underworld (more than 80%).  By its very definition, that milieu would not be affected by legislation restricting or banning guns.
• On a related note, far more crimes are prevented by the use of firearms than are committed.  The most conservative ratio is 10,500 : 1.  Recently, in Chicago--which, (in)famously has some of the harshest gun-phobic laws in the country--a conceal-carry citizen prevented a mass shooting.
• For years the pro-gun lobby's reflexive retort to attempts to institute gun-"control" has been to advert to the Second Amendment.  For most of the time, the anti-gun campaigners ignored that point and deployed other arguments to support their position.  As of recently, however, that has changed and it is now more common to witness rebuttals along the lines of: "The Second Amendment concerns the right of a militia to bear arms rather than ordinary citizens" and variations on the theme.  Unfortunately for the proponents of that line, the U.S. Supreme Court already issued a crystal clear ruling on the matter (District of Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)), which affirms that the Second Amendment does apply to individual citizens outwith any reference to any militia (s. (1)(f)).
• A favorite anti-gun exponents' mantra--and one coopted by Pres. Obama himself--is that, if countries like Australia and England can "do it," then so can the United States.  "Do it" is either left undefined altogether or its meaning is made suspiciously vague.  The tenor behind such statements is that, basically, countries such as Great Britain and Australia banned gun ownership outright, and their rates of homicide are lower than America's, ergo... - it should be easy by now to fill in the rest.  There are two major problems with this statement:
• England and Australia effected a complete ban of firearms.  Unless mainstream politicians, including the President and highest-ranked lawmakers are lying, that is by no means the goal behind any gun-"control" initiative under even theoretical consideration.
• More importantly, statistics controvert the main premise of the argument, to wit, that the bans in the two countries had any salutary effect on their rates of homicide.  Survey the following charts:
  
  
  It is obvious that, in both cases, anti-firearms measures did not entail a decrease in homicide.  The same conclusion emerges from this, just as it does from every set of data: Banning guns does not reduce homicide.
• The moral of the story is that these highly selective attempts at comparison between the United States and a few carefully picked countries is an exercise in futility.  A far more productive endeavor would be to cross-reference the rate of gun ownership with the rate of homicide, worldwide.  The result of such a study is astounding: The United States is the undisputed leader as far as gun ownership (112.6 guns per 100 residents), leaving Serbia a distant second at under 70 guns per 100 residents.  In terms of the intentional homicide rate, out of 218 states and territories, America is 121st.  So 1st in gun-ownership, 121st in homicides: That does not sound like a country that has an intractable gun problem.
• On a final note, Switzerland has a high rate of gun ownership: little over a half of the U.S.  However, there have been no mass-casualty firearm-related incidents in Switzerland.  Conversely, Spain has a rate similar to Russia (i.e. less than 10% of that of the U.S.).  Hypothetically, if the rate of gun ownership in Spain was similar to Switzerland's or America's, is it likely there would be mass shooting incidents there?  While speculative, logic and extrapolation dictate that the answer be negative: The culture and nomos of Spain are different to that of America.  The familial and societal structure are different, the values (such as individualism) are different, the quality and quantity of crime are different; all of those conspire to create an environment in which people simply do not act out in the way in which they act out in the United States.  That involves not just mass shootings but many aspects of individual and collective behavior.  Indeed, it answers the conundrum with which this piece opened: Why were there almost no mass shootings prior to the 1980s despite the prevalence of guns?

It is incontrovertible that, despite high-profile and widely-publicized incidents, the absolute and overwhelming majority of firearms in the United States are used legally, legitimately and responsibly, and that there is no scientifically-justified cause to believe that restricting or banning them would have the desired effect of significantly reducing gun-related violent crime.

The facts and figures above (all readily available and easily verifiable with simple Internet searches) cannot be rebutted by reiterating that, essentially, "guns are bad."  Anti-gun advocates need to counter the foregoing data with data of their own, which are more scientific, more credible, more reliable, and more plausible.  However, that is consistently and conspicuously not being done for the simple reason that such data do not exist.  The said advocates, accordingly, fall back on the tactic of using interminable argumenta ad misericordia, false analogies, non-sequiturs, and other logical fallacies, i.e. they essay to impose what are mere personal prejudices and values on the rest.

That is anti-intellectual, anti-academic, and disingenuous.

It has also, thankfully, been ineffective in swaying public opinion.


Selected Bibliography (not formatted to standard):

• Crime and Guns (with a plethora of own references).
• Drunk Driving by the Numbers.
• Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware.
• Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts.
• Kates, D.B., & Mauser, G.  "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?"  Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.  Vol. 30, No 2.
• Nine Myths Of Gun Control (also containing further references).
• Planty, M., & Truman, J. L.  (2013).  Firearm Violence, 1993-2011.  Bureau of Justice Statistics, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 
• The most common causes of death due to injury in the United States.
• The truth about gun deaths: Numbers and actual solutions.
• The U.S. Has More Guns, But Russia Has More Murders.

 ©2015 Michael L.S.

Liberalization before institutionalization: The case for autocratic democracy

In the course of reading Carsten Stahn's (pretty lumbering) book The Law and Practice of International Territorial Administration, the following excerpt is encountered:

What is needed, in the immediate post-conflict period is not quick elections, democratic ferment, or economic "shock therapy" but a more controlled and gradual approach to liberalization, combined with the immediate building of government institutions that can manage these political and economic reforms. (Roland Paris, At War's End)

...or, phrased more succinctly, "institutionalization before liberalization."

That, one is tempted to adjudge, sounds very reasonable in the first instance.  It is at once logical and legally sound.  It is consonant with the idea that democracy cannot be imposed but must perforce evolve: It has to be organic and autochthonous, and it can only develop as its foundations are gradually internalized among the dramatis personae (or, in modern parlance, the stakeholders).  Stahn not only criticizes some territorial administration projects for having failed to secure the locals' backing (which is "old news") but shrewdly distinguishes between domestic consent and domestic support.  He adroitly accentuates the importance of the latter as a conditio sine qua non for an international governance mission to stand any chance of success.

Yet, on closer inspection the above postulates can be descried as suffering from a number of deficiencies and assumptions.

For one thing, the reasoning is a standard Catch-22.  The naissance of democracy is contingent on strong domestic "ownership" and local "capacity-building" (the buzzwords of "good governance" de nos jours); but how are these possible without the existence of a environment of liberalism, pluralism, and--yes--democracy?  In other words, how can people freely decide what type of a government they wish to have (viz, internal self-determination) if there is no opportunity for them to express their views by way of a one-person-one-vote mechanism operating among a politically-educated electorate?

Attempts to reform or rebuild the economy in the administrated areas along the lines of the free-market laissez-faire model are also lambasted, on the grounds that doing so is contrary both to human rights standards (self-determination, again) and the laws of occupation.  That may well be correct.  However, territorial administrations are necessarily long-term endeavors (v. infra).  As such, they are also expensive endeavors.  Both the administration and the reconstruction (one will recall that such projects are most frequently undertaken in the aftermath of a devastating and destructive conflict) require a continuous inflow of exorbitant quantities of money.  Donor conferences and charity pledges only go so far, and mostly last until something more current (and bloody) grabs people's attention (another conflict elsewhere, perhaps).  Whence, then, are the funds to be procured?  The answer is: private investors, especially via F.D.I.  However, foreign investors demand stability, transparency, certainty.  They need some manner of guaranty.  An environment in which neither the political nor socioeconomic order is anywhere close to solidification does not lend itself well at all to inspiring investors.  Without such investments though, it is dubitable whether the administrators or the domestic decision-makers--such as there be--can foster a domain conducive to the emergence of a free, liberal, democratic society.  The whole exercise becomes a matter of petitio principii.

Next comes the no small matter concerning the timeframes involved.  Democracy does not evolve in a matter of years (q.v. the amount of time the South needed to accept desegregation); sometimes it does not evolve at all (pick many former U.S.S.R. states or any post-Arab Spring country, with the cautious exception of Tunisia).  Stahn and many others advocate a policy of "persuasion": convincing the local stakeholder to gradually internalize the ideals of democracy, etc.  They suggest the first step be the establishment of an independent and impartial judiciary.  Such a vision though is woefully divorced from the realities on the ground.  Brutal wars do not happen due to "misunderstandings" and "misapprehensions," but due to incompatible and frequently diametrically-opposing goals and objectives of the belligerents.  The ensuing war occasions thousands of fatalities, tens of thousands of wounded, hundreds of thousands of refugees, and millions of seething, livid people.  The proposition that such people will, within a few years, be able to identify and focus on commonalities, and give each other a group hug is ludicrous... - and that encompasses members of the judiciary who, ultimately, are members of the warring communities.  Moreover, the administrators do not have years on end to wait for a groundswell  toward amity and reconciliation: Territorial administrations are necessarily transitional and temporary.

The conclusion is hence insuperable: The precepts of democracy, liberalization and liberalism, tolerance, pluralism, rule of law, etc. must be foisted, with some measure of compulsion, on postconflict societies.  The approach does not have to be exclusive of continual efforts to coopt local stakeholders--indeed, doing so is indispensable to eventual success--but even medium-term results are impossible without a degree of coercion.

One argument frequently advanced against coercion is that local actors are better equipped to handle local problems.  They carry more gravitas with the local populace and are more cognizant of the local challenges, history, culture, values, etc.  That is very myopic and blinkered reasoning: It presupposes that the external administrators are complete neophytes.  The situation is rather the reverse, however.  The administrators have their own experience, whether they are Westerners who come from the history of centuries of conflict and bloodshed or whether they come from areas that experienced centuries of colonial turbulence and postcolonial strife.  In any case, the administrators are informed by first- and second-hand knowledge of events whose corollary has been the realization that representative democracy is the best form of government, that the rule of law, separation of church and state, separation of powers, etc. are the best form of governance, that freedom of conscience and speech and assembly are essential for a thriving society, that the free-market economy is the optimal catalyst for sustained prosperity, and so forth.  Such knowledge, experience, and expertise cannot be dismissed as inferior to the locals'; quite the contrary.

Furthermore, it is questionable to what extent local leaders possess genuine sway and respect.  After all, they are the very same ones who initiated, inflamed, and facilitated the destructive conflict in the first place.  Rather than defer to them and strive to mollify them through compromise, it might be more advantageous to circumvent them and appeal directly to the population.  That was the tactic utilized in e.g. Cambodia, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, and though it was (boringly predictably) criticized, it is difficult to envision an alternative course of action the respective administrators could have taken.

All this is a gamble.  Anything externally imposed runs the risk of encountering implacable opposition solely by virtue of being foreign.  Internal malcontents might possess the pull to constantly and effectively undermine even the most forcefully imposed initiatives.  Ultimately, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the population (or a belligerent community) might not, even latently, be favorably disposed toward prosperity and stability, but be interested in brute dominance.

An international territorial administrator does not have the luxury of investing decades into endeavoring to change the hearts and minds of the administrated population.  Moreover, such an approach elicits the difficult question of why several generations (at least two or three, possibly many more) of people should be subjected to continued repression, oppression, penury, and an overall lesser standard of life when it is possible to fast-forward the process of democratization and liberalization.  Tens of millions more Afghan women do not have to be subjected to a life of ultra-patriarchal tyranny and all manner of physical and psychological abuse merely because academics believe that equal rights should not be imposed and international politicians do not have the resolve needed to ensure that is accomplished as soon as possible.  The bulk of international polity is today more sensitized both to the value and transience of human life than ever before.  It is increasingly not anymore the question of the "less fortunate" (read: by sheer accident of birth) becoming empowered politically and economically, but their becoming empowered politically and economically right now (or, at least, as absolutely soon as possible).

"Institutionalization before liberalization" not only entails no guarantees that the "liberalization" part will ever be attained; it also requires considerable time for an outcome (either way) to emerge.  Reversing the principle necessitates determination, resources, and, frankly, "thick skin" (for one, there will be inevitable, though mendacious and selfserving, charges of neocolonialism leveled), but the millions of longsuffering and brutalized people to whose aid international administrators purportedly come deserve nothing less.

Thus, "liberalization before institutionalization," with the utmost resolve and uncompromising, long-term commitment should be the imperative in scenarios of comprehensive international territorial governance missions.

©2015 Michael L.S.

Zionism and an independent Palestine

I recently had an vigorous, and at times acrimonious, exchange on Twitter concerning the (il)legality of Israel's presence in and legal claims to the West Bank.  (Jerusalem, Golan, and the Gazan airspace and maritime waters were all excluded for convenience's sake.)  I found it bewildering and depressing how woefully unacquainted with international legal rules, theory, and history those who professed to speak with the utmost authority on the matter were.

This issue has been hashed and rehashed--with varying degrees of expertise--in diverse loci.  A very lucid and approachable summary of the salient arguments and counterarguments is provided dispassionately by e.g. Benvenisti.  I will, nevertheless, endeavor to distill these even further here.  In the interests of full disclosure, I clarify ab initio that I am a Zionist, an atheist Jew, and a globalist.  I also firmly subscribe to the notion that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank on legal, ethical, political, and self-preservation grounds.

Title
Israel derives title to any and all territory from its international recognition, not religion or historical ties.  Further, territory cannot be acquired by force; that is a longstanding and indisputable principle of international law.  That axiom is not vitiated in any way by virtue of the character of the force in question (e.g. the distinction between an aggressive war and one of self-defense.)  The only way borders can be altered are by means of cession, secession, and succession.  All three, obviously, necessitate a treaty or similar instrument.  The most recent such applicable instrument in the instant case is the 1949 Armistice Agreement, meaning that land gained and retained in subsequent conflicts is not legally Israel's.  Israel is fully cognizant of this fact, wherefore it never undertook to annex the West Bank, realizing that such a move would be repudiated internationally as wholly illicit.  Instead, it has been exercising territorial administration over the West Bank since 1967.

Legal status of the West Bank
Entering a territory without an enabling treaty constitutes belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica) under international law.  As such, the relevant laws are supposed to apply, which include principally the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and its Additional Protocols, and the customary international law.  (The latter has been to a large degree codified in the conventional instruments aforesaid.)  Israel has acceded to the First Hague Treaty, and is a party to all the four 1948 Conventions.  It has, notably, not signed the seminal Additional Protocols (except the rather pedestrian third one), being one of the very few states in the world to not have done so, the others not being the most shining examples of embodiment of modern liberal democratic values.

The above being the case, one would be forgiven for deducing that the laws of occupation pertain to the West Bank.  Yet, Israel demurs on the basis that:

• As regards Hague 1907 and Geneva 1949, these apply between/among "contracting parties."  Since no contracting party held valid title to the West Bank prior to the 1967 occupation (Jordan's occupation/annexation thereof was illegal) or holds one now (Jordan has renounced all claims to the territory), Israel asserts that the said instruments are inapplicable.
• Israel has also been a "persistent objector" to the idea that the West Bank is subject to occupatio bellica.  Accordingly, in Israel's view, even custom does not apply.
• The upshot is that Israel is supposedly not bound by the laws of occupation in its exercise of authority in the West Bank.

It ought to be noted that the overwhelming preponderance of legal scholars (including in Israel), the I.C.J., the United Nations and its agencies, governments, and international organizations vehemently disagree with the above contentions by Israel.  Moreover, the Israeli Supreme Court as well as many of its politicians--including some of the highest ranking ones--have made statements (admittedly oblique) to the effect that the West Bank does indeed constitute occupied territory.

The argument that the laws of occupation do not cover the West Bank, however, has enabled Israel to circumvent many of the laws' prescriptions and proscriptions, the most notable being the prohibition of transfer of own civilian population to the occupied lands (i.e. establishing and populating settlements).

Settlements
Apart from the fact that these are viewed as illegal by almost every authority of note the world over, Jewish settlements are often cited as the foremost obstacle to attaining a political settlement (no pun intended) between Israel and the Palestinians.  I submit that is a flawed view.  The settlements occupy barely 5% of the West Bank territory, and are almost entirely situated in the propinquity of the Green Line.  As numerous studies and concrete proposals have determined, it would be easy to incorporate them into Israeli borders and cede comparable Israeli territory in recompense as part of a comprehensive peace deal.  The issue of the settlements, therefore, is a deflective device (a "red herring," as it were) in the discourse concerning the feasibility of successfully negotiating a peace accord.

Nevertheless, successive Israeli governments' (particularly the present Netanyahu's administration's) ornery insistence on expanding the existing and establishing new settlements can be said to be indicative of their overall negative and obstructionist attitude toward the eponymous "peace process."  The fact that "the other side" has also repeatedly acted in ways apparently prejudicial to the "peace process" does not mitigate Israel's responsibility in this regard.

Critique
The antecedent necessarily raises a number of issues, as follows:--

• The laws of occupation, and especially the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, were created in the aftermath of the horrors and traumas of the Second World War.  Their main aim and purpose is to safeguard innocent, destitute civilians who find themselves in the theater of war through no fault of their own.  The Conventions' character is purely humanitarian, humane, and human.  Israel's otiose protestation that these treaties do not apply to the Palestinians on a technicality, even if that was legally correct, reflects very poorly on a state that professes adherence to the principles, values, and ideals of modern liberal democracy.  A country that ostentatiously trumpets its liberalism and humanitarianism, claims to represent a beacon of humanity in a region beset by barbarism, and strives to be fully accepted into the family of nations should be nothing short of mortified that it rejects the application of one of the most basic instruments of human compassion to millions of people under its direct control.
• Whether the laws of occupation apply or not, Israel does not on any wise possess valid title to the territories gained in any event since the 1949 Armistice.  That being the case, the status of such territories has to be determined by a treaty or other legal maneuver (e.g. renouncing all claims to the lands, such as happened with Jordan in 1988 or with the 2004 disengagement from Gaza).  However, an important principle intervenes, and gives additional urgency to the matter: the right to self-determination.  This right is enshrined in the U.N. Charter and the I.C.C.P.R. (which Israel has signed and ratified); it is also widely accepted to form part of ius cogens.  A plebiscite to such an effect has been often advanced as a remedy "repairing" all preceding illegalities and questionable acts on the part of the occupant.
• There is, however, a competing principle in international law: the preservation of territorial integrity.  This precept has been gaining in prominence and consistently supplanting self-determination since the natural demise of the trusteeship framework on the United Nations.  Indeed, in all the territorial administration projects undertaken by an international organization, cases that could have been solved by partitioning the lands concerned along demographic lines were approached diametrically oppositely: The hostile groups were forced to remain together and--as G. H. Fox puts it--replace war with politics.  They had to construct democratic institutions and mechanisms that would ensure an equitable representation of them all, and, to use a demotic turn of phrase, "learn to live" with each other.  Naturally, this does not apply in the West Bank (it not being a part of Israel), but it is a formidable trend to consider nonetheless.

Conclusions

The foregoing entails certain inescapable conclusions.

• The status quo is untenable.  The Palestinians will not resign themselves to perpetual occupation.  They will not accept further untold generations living in limbo as, essentially, stateless persons, condemned to impaired lives due to politics.  Contrary to preposterous proposals among some sectors of Israel's body politic, they will not be bribed into abandoning their homes, and despite what can only be termed as wet dreams on the part of others, Israel will not be able to expel them wholesale without simultaneously signing its own death warrant.  The Palestinians are, hence, there to stay, millions of them, and not getting any happier.
• Furthermore, Israel has already seriously depleted its credit of good will among people the world over: From the underdog and victim of centuries of persecution and relentless, vicious assaults Israel is now a miscreant and even a villain to increasingly many.  A decade ago, when Israel's hotels, pizzerias, and nightclubs were being suicide bombed on a weekly basis, this elicited much sympathy; the resulting operations--far more intensive and destructive than the recent ones Gaza--met largely with understanding and mostly unqualified approval.  Today, though rockets indiscriminately rain down on its kindergartens, malls, hospitals, and homes, well-nigh any action in response by Israel brings hundreds of thousands of people out on the streets in protest.  Though the protesters' motivations are baldly hypocritical and deeply suspect, the accusation that they are anti-Semites is facile and ludicrous.  More than anything else, they are fed up with the conflict.  They will not be disappearing either but will only increase in quantity as well as in the quality of their action.
• The current realpolitik will also undergo changes.  It is certain that the United States--as Israel's main sponsor and, some would say, enabler--will gradually lose both its interest and its clout.  It is extremely doubtful that whoever replaces or complements the U.S. on the world stage will be as amicably disposed to Israel.  The E.U. states, too, have collectively and individually been losing patience with Israel and are taking steps to support a Palestinian state without deference to Israel.  The emerging economies have traditionally been cool toward Israel, and that is unlikely to change; quite the contrary might be the case.
• The corollary--unmistakable suggestions of which are already materializing--is that maintaining the present situation will eventuate in Israel's turning into a pariah state.  Oppressing millions of unwilling people can simply not be done with impunity anymore, period.
• Inasmuch as the current state of affairs needs to be changed, Israel would be well advised to take steps to do so expeditiously.  As noted supra, a separate Palestinian state might not be a viable option much longer, both due to prevailing legal and political trends and due to the extent of inextricability of Israel's involvement in the West Bank.
• The only medium- and long-term alternative to "two states for two peoples" is a single, binational state, in which the Palestinians of the West Bank would gain full Israeli citizenship.  One does not have to be conversant with any social science to appreciate that lumping together in close quarters two inimical groups each numbering in millions who diverge greatly in culture, language, religion, economy, education, lifestyle, values, and pretty much every demographic and psychographic category imaginable would be an unmitigated disaster for both, but particularly for the (current) Israelis.

The inevitable denouement is that advancing the two-state solution is in the interests of both parties.  Far from an independent Palestine being perceived as some sort of a defeat for Israel, it is to Israel's great benefit and is fully compatible with Zionism; indeed, Zionism in all its forms (except, perhaps, for its religious incarnation) nothing short of mandates it.

There is, though, the no small matter of Israel's security, and neither Gaza nor southern Lebanon sets a propitious precedent.  It is imperative that Israel's security be guaranteed and that an independent, sovereign Palestine not turn into a vast Hamas- or Hezbollah-infested terrorist camp.  That, however, will not be best ensured by continued occupation, but by inserting wise provisions in the peace accord and envisioning instruments to guarantee their observance.

© 2014 Michael L.S.

Plus ça change: Are human rights modern-day colonialism?

Reading through Anghie's (rather brief) exposition on some of the writings of Francisco de Vitoria--widely considered the pioneer of international law--one cannot but be struck by the parallels that can be drawn between his thinking more than five centuries ago and the doctrines informing some of the most recent of global developments.

When the Spanish encountered the "Indians" (Native Americans), they were unsure how to relate to them.  A common error is made in this regard by believing that the former viewed the latter ex ante as less than human.  That was not the case: De Vitoria and his contemporaries considered the natives fully human.  They also acknowledged that they were "civilized," in that they had discernible values, systems of governance and societal order, capacity to interact with others, etc.  The natives were, accordingly, fully human, equal in their humanity to the Spanish.  However, the Spanish recognized that the natives' values system was at prodigious variance with their own, and the question ineluctably arose of how to reconcile them (if possible) or whose system would take precedence (if not).

De Vitoria astutely sidestepped the prevalent dogma at the time that all authority was ultimately traceable to a "god," or, more plausibly, the "god's" earthly representative (the pope).  The reasoning was that the natives had never heard of Christianity and could hence not be held liable under its injunctions.  He thus fell back on the (Aquinian) notion of natural law, i.e. an objective, ubiquitous set of rules and values immanent in all human beings.  De Vitoria termed its contemporary incarnation as ius gentium.  Here was the rub: He posited that, whereas ius gentium was universal, the Spanish had, in a manner of speaking, "perfected" it.  By implication, the natives required assistance to self-realize the truism, benefits, and execution of ius gentium, and it was the Spaniards' duty to proffer that guidance and help.  Crucially, any opposition was deemed unreasonable: If the norms of ius gentium were the perfection of thought and practice for all humankind, then any opposition to it was a fortiori retrograde, reactionary, and progress-retarding, and, accordingly, had to be staunched... - by any means necessary.  On that view, by extirpating dissent to the process of inculcation of ius gentium among the natives, the Spanish were doing them a major favor (even if that "favor" ended up manifesting itself in the form of blatant theft and ruthless genocide).

The analogy with modern times is glaring.  What was ius gentium in the days of de Vitoria is the conceptualization of putatively "universal" human rights (liberal democratic governance, rule of law, separation of powers, equality of the sexes, various freedoms (thought speech, etc.), protection of minorities, and so forth) today.  These values--just as ius gentium of old--are a product of evolution of the Western thought, and have been institutionalized by means of international organizations (e.g. the U.N.), which, themselves, are a product of Western politics.

The U.N. has promulgated such values through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants, and other instruments.  The Europeans states have embraced even higher normative standards in the form of the E.U.'s Charter of Fundamental Rights and the E.C.H.R.  The O.A.S. has its own charter as does the A.U.  A.S.E.A.N. and the Arab League also compiled declarations, though these have been rebuked for falling short of the "universal" values.

The question is what happens when a subject deviates from these "universal" norms.  That can be due to e.g. its cultural specificities or economic particularities.  The Arab Charter on Human Rights, for instance, fails to guarantee equal treatment of women and discriminates against non-citizens' basic rights.  A.S.E.A.N.'s attempt has met with even more strident criticism for omitting some of the most longstanding, fundamental protections or providing conspicuous and numerous loopholes to evade them.  These, however, are difficult to challenge directly, being that they are endorsed by a multiplicity of quite powerful states.  There is an entire official (government) and semi-official (N.G.O.s) "industry" centered around producing reports and conducting campaigns concerning individual states' adherence to the human right principles.  Which principles?  The "universal" ones, but of course.  And where the presumptive "international society" (read: the Western-led international organizations) can, it does its utmost to introduce as many of these norms as possible to the areas under its control (e.g. Timor-Leste, Kosovo, Iraq, etc.).  Harking back to de Vitoria, opposition to such endeavors is excoriated as backward, unhelpful, and, yes, hostile.  Though such hostility is no longer countered with genocide, its protagonists are excluded from all nation-building processes and, depending on the extent and quality of their opposition, may be subjected to anything from imprisonment to "daisy-cutters."

The issue at the heart of this discourse is what the A.S.E.A.N. Declaration unabashedly makes reference to: the notion of "cultural relativism."  It is an idea with which even a cursory observer of current affairs is familiar, to wit, that every society has a right (indeed, a human right!) to practice and safeguard the values prevailing in that society, even if these diverge considerably from the alleged "universal" values.  That idea is espoused by such diverse actors as autocratic regimes, leftist academics, Western leaders (still reeling under the burden of colonial baggage), and, indeed, a great many people in the type of societies in the docket, including those (e.g. women) who would benefit from a conferral of the "universal" rights on them.  Who, the trope goes, made those rights "universal" and with what justification?  What should give the (Western or West-tainted) powers the right to, yet again, impose their views on the sovereign peoples of the world?  Did we learn nothing from the brutalities of centuries of colonialist practice?

The opposing view is that of the "soft bigotry" of lowered expectations.  The contention here is that the "universal" values are indeed superior to--termed, for simplicity's sake--regional values, and that attempting to equalize the worthiness and merit of the two bespeaks racism, for it implies that the "regionals" are not deserving of enjoying the same liberties and rights as those fortunate enough to be living in, basically, the Western(-modeled) countries.  Far from striving to eschew the aggregate of the colonialist enterprise, "cultural relativism" does the opposite: It perpetuates the "natives'" inferiority.

The crux of the matter, therefore, is the status of the "universal" set of human rights norms in comparison to the others.  Is it--its misnomer notwithstanding--just one of many acceptable (which itself is a normative term) standards or is it the ideal toward whose truly universal implementation to aim?

Descrying a definitive answer to this is impossible.  The Western body politic is petrified of doing or saying anything remotely reminiscent of colonial practices (further affected by the anomie plaguing its society, in which any kind of judgment is unwelcome).  The assorted Third World tyrants are keen to maintain the status quo, which is greatly strengthened by illiberal practices passed off as "local culture."  Many ordinary people in those societies, too, vehemently oppose change.  (That is by no means unprecedented: Some of the most ornery opponents of the Suffragette movement in the West were precisely women.  For instance, tales abound of female prison wardens being far more brutal toward incarcerated women's rights activists than their male counterparts.  Scores of women, too, made public speeches and engaged in other types of campaign denouncing the Suffragettes.)  Who is entitled to deem one system of values better or worse than others, on what basis, and pursuant to what criteria?

Meanwhile, child marriages are rampant.  So is marital rape.  Cheap child labor supports entire economies.  Homosexuals are hanged, "apostates" beheaded, "adulterers" stoned, juveniles imprisoned with adults, "blasphemers" lynched, girls denied access to basic education.  The Gulf Cooperation Council states openly practice what can only be described as modern-day slavery.  Tens of thousands of people are locked up without any due process, including for political slights and "thoughtcrime."  Tens of millions have no recourse to justice against gross excesses by state power.  Hundreds of millions are unable to have any input on who determines the course of their lives.  Do those individuals not deserve the quality of life that those born in other places in the world are fortunate enough to be able to take for granted?  Should those so blessed not assay to help the them?

If the latter narrative is embraced, there will inevitably arise resistance, including from among the "natives."  How should it be addressed: the way of the Spanish or differently?  Is a universalization of human rights necessarily a zero-sum endeavor, viz, either the current state of affairs is accepted or the errant societies are brought into line, even manu militari if need be?

Might the answer lie in gradual, nuanced--yet insistently, doggedly, confidently, continually driven--change employing methods such as Joseph Nye's "soft power"?  That could take generations, meanwhile condemning billions to continued suffering and inferior life quality.  Conversely, rapid, revolutionary tactics could backfire (q.v. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and other, less pronounced, cases in Africa), occasioning conflict whose immediate ramifications would be far more detrimental than the invidious conditions at present.

One conclusion does seem inevitable: The "universal" norms of human rights are superior and should be adopted and practiced globally.  How that is actualized is a different matter, but de Vitoria's strategy is not an option.
 
© 2014 Michael L.S.

In defense of academic method and inquiry

The University of Manchester annually organizes a postgraduate conference in law.  (This year's was held at the end of October at the Old Trafford.)  It is an enjoyable all-day event, where selected doctoral students present their ongoing research in a supportive, semi-formal environment, devoid of the pressures of more rigid "peer-reviewed" conferences.  The "rules" are more relaxed, in that e.g. a presenter speaks for a full half hour whereupon there follows a fairy generous Q&A part.  As there were quite a few presenters, the session is divided into parallel panels, and the attendees chose to patronize the one in the morning and the one in the afternoon they envision to be of the most interest or otherwise stimulating.

Most of the ones I saw were highly thought-provoking and certainly worthy foci for academic inquiry.  There was one exploring "domestic violence" experienced by underage women in abusive relationships.  Another discussed the relevance of the current narcotics legislation--particularly the classification of substances--vis-a-vis the so-called "legal highs."  Yet another explored the utility of the concept of "money-laundering," both legally and societally.  (The latter evinced an interesting, if somewhat unconvincing, point that small-time money-launderers (e.g. street-level drug-pushers) sometimes proceed to invest their laundered funds into legitimate businesses.  Entrepreneurs'R'Us!)  One presentation though caught my undivided attention, and for all the wrong reasons.

A young man assayed to "reframe" the wanton, gluttonous riots that beset parts of Great Britain back in 2011.  In his view, apart from practically a given that the initial riots were justified due to the police killing an unarmed man, both those and the subsequent mushrooming riots were pretty much legitimate manifestations of indignation by--you can easily guess the part that follows--"victims" of "marginalization" and "disenfranchisement" of the, naturally, lower (lowest?) communal strata.

How did he figure that out?  Well, he interviewed those who had gotten arrested in the aftermath of the riots, and discovered that the preponderance of them had long had alcohol, drugs, domestic, etc. problems.  In a most unusual turn of events, they also happened to be "poor" and jobless.  Not only were they "victims" who were understandably (if not legitimately, at least not wholly legitimately) expressing their frustrations with the inequity and iniquity that is modern Great Britain, but the riots were not "mindless," as routinely portrayed in the media, nor were the rioters merely brutal thugs.  Indeed, an anecdote was proffered about how one scumbag--sorry, "victim" of "oppression" by the "system"--was about to throw a brick through the window front of a charity shop, when another "victim" thwarted him in that mission on the basis that their beef was with such faceless corporate pigs as the banks and big businesses.  Because, you see, vandalizing a Barclays or a Tesco is fine; a mom-and-pop store is apparently not.  (No explication as to the grounds for an objective evaluation of such conscience-based, hence totally normative, judgments was adduced.)

Rather prosaically and anticlimactically by this stage, quite a few choice words were reserved for the police and the government.  The latter (ab)used the ensuing prosecutions as a show of force, whereas the former engaged in unpalatable breaches of privacy and the hallowed "human rights" of the participants.  How exactly did the police do that?  Firstly, it plastered the faces of the suspects all over posters and billboards, including on vans driving around the city.  That, ladies and gentlemen, the presenter in short shrift repudiated as a revolting invasion of the suspects' privacy.  He then explained how the police was able to identify those it went on to apprehend by reason of their having had previous dealings with the police (read: they were "known" to the police).  Thus, the narrative goes, the police perpetuated the vicious cycle of "victimhood" of those who were (and are) already among the most "vulnerable."  Besides, does it not stand to reason that those who had already been chewed up and spat out by The System(TM) would be only too alacritous to rage against it, given an opportunity!?!  All that was rounded off with some statistics about the conviction, incarceration, and remission (reoffending) rates, the corollary of which was the "prison does not work."

That, folks, is an example of doctoral-level thinking.  One is tempted to weep uncontrollably in sheer despair.

If you could detect a soupcon of sarcasm and an overall casual tone in the foregoing, I congratulate you on your perspicacity.  True: I am finding it difficult to write about this with the detached severity reserved for academic discourse.  The reason is simple: With due respect to the gentleman in question, the above is dilettante hokum, in content and reasoning, more apposite to be found in a two-bit samizdat flier by a college Marxist appreciation club than the dissertation by a law doctoral candidate at a global-top-50 university.

The entire presentation was an orgy of the most extreme left-wing dogma, lacking even cursory mention of counterpoints and nuance, let alone a thorough treatment and critical analysis of the same.  The "novelty" of the whole schtick was supposed to be embodied in the fact that it sought to depart from the established tableau of the rioters as criminals and of the riots as brainless, meaningless violence.  It seems that--just as is the case in journalism--aspiring (and not just those!) academics make their names either by producing high-quality work or by being outrageous.

A county court judge who was in the audience ably rebuked the presenter for his assertion that "prison does not work."  She enjoined him about the use of prison not merely as a locus of rehabilitation (by extension, wherein appropriate treatment is rendered to ensure there is no remission to a life of crime) but also as one of punishment.  In that regard, prison indeed does work: The miscreants are removed from the society, protecting the latter from the former's continued pernicious malfeasance.

Then there is the matter of the candidate's very sketchy methodology.  Why did he not assay to interview those who rioted but were not arrested?  Could their motivation have been not pushback against putative "victimization" but something more trivial, yea, possibly wanton violence?  Come to think of it, what is the ratio of arrested vs. not-arrested rioters: How representative is the presenter's study group of Manchester's rioters as a whole?

But the presentation evidenced a much more insidious problem, one increasingly visible in academia.  It used to be the problem that students grew out of in the early stages of their undergraduate studies.  Now, apparently it is observable among graduate students and even among seasoned academics, and it is this: prejudice... - or, if more detailed an explanation be necessary: espousing and exhibiting propaganda and rhetoric in lieu of objective, impassive, neutral research and analysis.

It was readily apparent that the presenter had formulated his conclusions before he had even conceived of his research, let alone embarked on it.  Indeed, his dissertation is predicated on his personal dogma, not on the findings pursuant to extensive, comprehensive, analytical study.  Epistemological arguments about the plausibility or otherwise of truly objective research aside, striving to illuminate a research question by prejudging it and then weaving the argument retrospectively to fit the predetermined denouement is surely the very antithesis of academic inquiry.

Back when I was a lecturer in rhetoric and research, I always endeavored to impress upon my (mostly freshmen and sophomore) students the indispensability of approaching a research area and the subsequent processes with an open mind.  Sometimes a researcher knows a lot about the researched field, sometimes less, sometimes nothing.  Sometimes they think they know a lot.  Whatever the case, the scientific method is clear: One approaches the research as if one truly knows nothing, at least in terms of the possible outcomes.  The mindset ought to be: I do not know anything about how this will turn out, I do not know what I will find; I will therefore search wide and deep for the answers, wherever the search may lead me.

You do not include your opinions, you do not choose which evidence you like, you do not discard facts you dislike.  You are not down in the thick of it, participating in it or influencing it.  You are high above the fray, espying the goings-on you witness, describing them, and attempting to find as many possible explanations for what you see (i.e. you hypothesize).  You can use primary sources and your own experiments and/or secondary sources; but you keep digging in all directions, you keep asking questions, you keep wondering.  You then set about trying rigorously to at once prove and disprove your hypotheses, until one remains standing: That becomes a theory (in the academic, scientific sense), i.e. your conclusion.  Sometimes the conclusion conforms to your own intuitions and views; at other times it might not.  But the conclusions must at all costs be arrived at independently from your intuitions, opinions, prejudices, experiences, and other views, conscious or unconscious.

Basing academic work on opinion is an insult to generations of academics.  One does not require advanced education to put opinion on paper; rudimentary literacy skills are sufficient for such an exercise.  The whole point of graduate studies is to detach every facet of oneself from one's work.  Failing that, one does not end up with a thesis or dissertation worth its name, but with something not unlike an op-ed in Cosmo.

© 2014 Michael L.S.

Are you in or out already!?

Great Britain's animosity toward the European Union (and, for that matter, most things Continental) is longstanding and antedates the formation of Union itself by a margin measured in centuries.  Brits always had a distaste for the rest of the Europeans; in fact, one can hardly think of any nation on the Continent toward which Brits feel any affinity.  Europhobia--mostly masquerading as "Euroskepticism," and colloquially denoting an opposition to formal European integration--has been part and parcel of the British political (and, by extension, legal) life since the country acceded to the European Union forty or so years ago.  The hostility toward the E.U. unseated some of the most powerful politicians and even whole governments (the Major administration being the most infamous instance).  With the inexorable popularization of the United Kingdom Independence Party (U.K.I.P.), Europhobia has broken through to the fore of the political discourse and has now come to vex all the three mainstream factions, eager to amortize U.K.I.P.'s successes by animating their own rhetoric, burnishing their anti-European credentials, and disseminating promises about "getting tough on [insert putative Euro-generated problem here]."

U.K.I.P. is agitating for a referendum to be organized as soon as possible on the straightforward matter: Does the voter wish Great Britain to exit the European Union?.  Though rarely averred explicitly, U.K.I.P. proposes that leaving the E.U. would not entail severing all contacts with the organization, but that the interaction would be downgraded to one of trade and commerce.  The incumbent British premier, David Cameron, is also sounding out (or, as the case might be, sounding off) about his country "renegotiating" the terms of its engagement with the Union.

The proponents of Great Britain's independence from the E.U. commonly propound the following arguments:

• The European Union is undemocratic and unaccountable.
• It is expensive, with the E.U. demanding "disproportionate" contributions to its budget from Great Britain.
• It is the provenance of innumerable quantities of migrants, who augment the British population count, infringe on British values, and negatively impact its economy
• It saddles the country with petty regulations, such as those appertaining to Occupational Safety and Health or the apocryphal tale about the "correct" curvature of supermarket bananas.
• It infringes on British "sovereignty," particularly with regard to the stupefying decisions in human rights cases ascribed to some amorphous "European courts."
• It causes Great Britain to sacrifice possible closer relations with its Commonwealth.

(The foregoing is an illustrative, not an exhaustive, list.)

The ineluctable conclusion is that the country leaving the E.U. would be a bonanza in economic, political, cultural, sociological, and many other terms.

However, the Europhobes ignore or do not even reckon with the following:

• If the E.U. is "undemocratic," what is Great Britain?  It is a country with a bicameral parliamentary system.  Yet, one of those chambers is fully appointed and appointments are made on very arbitrary, capricious, opaque, and all around dubious grounds.  The other chamber's deputies are elected through a system where a faction that garners scarcely 40% of the popular vote translates that into holding more than 60% of the seats.  Lastly, the head of state is an individual who holds that position by nothing other than accident of birth.  The European Union is surely a paragon of democracy in comparison.
• If the E.U. is "unaccountable," then what is the British parliament?  Is one seriously contending that the government in London is more "in tune with" someone living in, say, Manchester (let alone Edinburgh or Derry) than are the organs of the European Union!?
• There has been much acrimony about the E.U.'s recent demand for extra remittance to its quasifederal budget from Great Britain on account of the latter's well-performing economy.  If that is somehow egregious, why is it not equally egregious that the taxes from the affluent Home Counties are deployed to fund the welfare payments of the putative poor or that they are redistributed to the more indigent areas in the north of the country?  After all, a Sussex taxpayer hardly has more of a connection to a politician in Brussels or a Greek in Athens than to a Scot in Glasgow or to an Irishman in Belfast.
• Further regarding the allegedly exorbitant cost of the E.U. upon the longsuffering British taxpayer, it turns out that each Brit pays less than a hundred euros per annum to the E.U.  Considering the ability to travel (and settle) in 27 states without any restrictions, avail--freely--of all those states' health care (whose quality very often exceeds that offered in G.B.), and accrue indirect benefits of Great Britain's membership in the Union, that is a pretty good deal.
• As far as immigration, formal studies are unequivocal in determining that European Union migrants are net contributors to the British economy; yes, even after the "flood" of impecunious and supposedly indolent Romanians and Bulgarians.  Moreover, E.U. migrants share many of the majority Brits' demographics (ethnicity, religion, cultural and historical heritage, etc.).  The drain on the economy is not effected by E.U. migrants.  Nor are E.U. migrants the ones who are slow or ill-disposed to integrate in the British society.  Nor are they the ones whose values and culture frequently clash with the natives'.  The preponderance of the antecedent would be non-E.U. immigrants, and withdrawing from the E.U. will do nothing to stem the tide of them.  Indeed, Great Britain would lose many of its most industrious, productive, and best educated residents by withdrawing.
• It is correct to observe that the E.U. has issued edicts that boggle the mind; howbeit, in many cases it was the zeal of the national (and particularly municipal) organs that caused E.U. regulations and directives to be implemented in absurd and frustrating ways.  In any event, do the Europhobes credulously argue that exiting the Union would or could cause the "meddlesome" Union diktats to be rescinded?  If Great Britain is to continue trading with the E.U., its goods and services will have to conform to Union-wide standards, and that means that the "busybody rules" instituted per E.U. laws will have to remain in situ.
• As regards the human rights charge, Europhobes often (whether due to ignorance or out of intellectual dishonesty) conflate the European Court of Justice with the European Court of Human Rights.  The former is an E.U. organ and its decisions have occasioned groundbreaking progress in e.g. consumers' rights, whereas the latter is not in any way connected to the European Union, belonging as it does to a completely separate set of treaty instruments.  Withdrawing from the E.U. would in no way rein in "human rights gone mad" pursuant to either the European Court of Human Rights' decisions or the Human Rights Act-inspired British courts' judgments (that Act incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law).  For that to happen, Great Britain would have to exit the E.C.H.R. mechanism, the political and legal fallout from which would be far more perilous than that of exiting the E.U.
• Concerning the Commonwealth, firstly, by "Commonwealth" what is commonly meant are Canada and Australia; its other significant member states are--not to put too fine a point on it--economic and political basket cases.  A question then insuperably arises: How can it make more sense to trade with countries on the other side of the world with populations numbering a few ten million than with a bloc just across la Manche whose population exceeds a half billion?  Besides, what makes the Europhobes believe that the Canadians and Australians are idly sitting around just waiting for the "mother country" to come knocking on the door seeking to rekindle ties of yore which opportunity they would eagerly and readily exploit?
• What, therefore, practical benefits from withdrawing from the European Union do the "Euroskeptics" envision, other than being able to pull up the drawbridge and wave their flag again on their isolated little island?  Can they genuinely be so naive as to aver in earnest that exiting the E.U. would render Great Britain once more the place of, per John Major, "long shadows on cricket grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers[, ... 'o]ld maids bicycling to holy communion through the morning mist' and [...] Shakespeare [...] read even in school."?

For the record, many of us outsiders would indeed very much prefer Great Britain to exit wholesale.  After all, ever since joining, the state has been nothing but an albatross around the Union's neck, retarding its progress and subverting its operations.  Great Britain, as an enfant terrible, forever insists on opt-outs from this and rebates from that.  As if being the one Trojan horse is insufficient, the country is one of the foremost (possibly the only) advocates of allowing Turkey (yes, Turkey!) to become a full member-state.  If that is not proof positive that Great Britain wishes to corrode the E.U. from within, it is hard to imagine what might be.

The legal grounds for a British exit are incontestable.  The E.U. treaties are just that, and a country can derogate from or fully withdraw its consent from a treaty at any time.  The political repercussions and implications for Great Britain's international reputation (q.v. Guzman's theory of compliance) are another matter, but that is for the British people to ponder.

It is rather transparent the fact that the British society--such as it might be--has not yet reconciled itself to the loss of its empire and to the profound societal changes culminating in what many would describe as a state of anomie, all of which came to pass within two or three generations.  Great Britain went from being an imperial power that controlled a fourth of the planet and in which everybody "knew their place" to an island living on past glories, playing second fiddle to the superpowers that be, and having its values diluted by the newly-empowered, irreverent lower "classes" and heterogeneous immigrants alike.  That is quite a humiliation and it is natural for one coping mechanism to consist of harking back to yesteryear and latching onto whatever doctrine might be promoted as able to recreate the environment from that bygone era.

However, that will be impossible.  The world has irrevocably changed and the notion that a state such as Great Britain (and for how long even that, i.e. before it disintegrates owing to an inevitable future Scottish referendum?) can be more successful alone than as part of a strong commercial and political union is nothing short of utter nonsense.  It does boggle the mind though that even many reasonable and educated British people's kneejerk reaction is one of such myopic ignorance and parochialism.

If Great Britain does come to its senses before it is too late, it will undergo the type of radical reform that the Germans subjected themselves to (not necessarily always of own volition) in the aftermath of the Second World War.  Germany is today a modern, confident, prosperous, forward-looking state right at the center of the European Union, often "calling the shots" as its distinguished insider.  What a contrast to the petulant, snobby, uncooperative Great Britain.  It does not need to be that way, but it will have to be a collective British decision.

One thing is certain: The status quo is untenable.

© 2014 Michael L.S.

Condition: Academic detachment from reality. Prescription: a dose of reality

Last month I attended a Ph.D. "master class" in which eight or so doctoral candidates presented their work-in-progress, preliminary findings, context of their research, etc.  One presentation in particular caught my attention.

A young lady is examining compliance with international humanitarian law (the Geneva Conventions et alia).  Her hypothesis is that the laws in question are often(?) not followed on the battlefield because military personnel receive inadequate training in this regard; in particular, the imperative of adherence to these provisions is not impressed upon them with sufficient urgency and sobriety.  If only--she contends--soldiers were instructed more formidably in how critical it is to comply with the norms of international humanitarian law, the likelihood of instances of abuse such as the Abu 3'rayb prisoner mistreatment scandal or the more recent contretemps involving Sgt. Alexander Blackman would have been minimized if not altogether averted.

As I was absorbing her polemic, it struck me again how alarmingly insular and detached from the real world academia is becoming.  College students and academics have been castigated for being "out of touch" on many issues.  An apposite example is the now decades-in-the-making promotion of a happy-go-lucky mode of education for children that accentuates their right to personhood, individuality, having fun, and so forth, which critics claim (now supported by hard research) deprives them of the structure, discipline, knowledge, and skills that they require to grow into both competent workers and functional adults.  Prison reform, human rights, civil liberties, sexual equality, and immigration are some other matters that lend themselves to such criticism, too.

The biggest difficulty with the issue in the docket is that it is being theorized on by someone who has no first- or even second-hand experience of the battlefield.  It is not only unrealistic, but also egregious and insulting, for an adolescent ensconced in an armchair in Manchester to be prescribing to grown men and women situated in the midst of war how they ought to behave.

Imagine, if you will, the reality of the theater of war: Mines and R.P.G.s are exploding left and right, dozens of bullets are making the cracking sound inches away from your ears, you have witnessed people who an hour ago were laughing and planning Christmas with their families blown to smithereens a few feet in front of you, your friends' guts are spilling out of their bodies or their limbs are gone...

There is no Undo button to press anywhere.

There is no Pause button.

There is no Quit button.

Somehow you make it out alive and later on you come across a wounded enemy combatant who mere minutes previously had been launching grenades at you and spraying you with bullets.  Can anyone seriously argue that in such a situation you can be reasonably expected to engage in an objective, dispassionate, detached introspection of the Geneva Conventions!?!  "Ludicrous" does not begin to describe it!

I am not even remotely impugning the importance of both the existence and enforcement of robust international rules governing engagement in armed conflicts.  Wanton destruction, revenge, brutalization of civilians or even coldblooded abuse of enemy combatants are to be unreservedly condemned, outlawed, and censured.  However, there has to be a dose of hard realism present when presuming to prescribe the behavior of individuals placed under unimaginable levels of personal, existential stress.  P.T.S.D. is a recognized condition, which affects the sufferers profoundly; this has to be accounted for in any discourse seeking to regulate the conduct of those likely to be severely afflicted by it.

After all, many of those insisting that soldiers should abide by the international humanitarian law even in the most stressful circumstances are among the first to characterize many types of criminals and societal transgressors as "victims" who should first and foremost be helped address their multifarious problems, and be punished only as an afterthought and certainly with leniency.  Can they not extend the same kind of consideration to those who underwent experiences the "disenfranchised" and "marginalized" rioters of 2011 or violent robbers afflicted by assorted "substance addictions" cannot even fathom?

© 2014 Michael L.S.