Interesting post. When it chooses to, the Bush administration knows how to practice international law and relations. Iraq is the sole, shining example of their ignoring international law. Everywhere else, even with Iran and North Korea, and ESPECIALLY in Afghanistan, the administration is behaving admirably. Zimbabwe, however, is a tricky beast at best. The horrors of the regime are thus far strictly INTERNAL. A bedrock principal of international law, embodied even in the U.N. Charter (that dead letter), is that no country may interfere in the internal affairs of any other country. So what right does the President have to interfere in the activities of Zimbabwean citizens? The logical reply from Zimbabwe should be sanctions against American citizens doing business in that country but at this point, ARE any Americans doing business there? I hope NOT. ANYWAY, I'm glad to see it! Here, as in so many other areas, I support President Bush. Perhaps he is acting on the idea that human rights are inherently of concern to all nations. This is a principal that, up until now, the U.S. has refused to accept. (We never signed the U.N. International Declaration of Human Rights, AFAIK, even though Eleanor Roosevelt was instrumental in creating the document.)
Nosborne - Do you mean by what legal right? or do you mean by what moral right? In either case I'm guessing that you already know the answer. As for the issue of people doing business in Zimbabwe, of course, there are people all over the world doing business in Zimbabwe. These include US businesses. I hold our country in the highest esteem but I also recognize that if there is a penny to be made anywhere in the world then some US company will find a way to extract that penny. It's what we do. Jack
What LEGAL right. Countries don't have morals. Countries can't AFFORD morals. Countries are not like individuals; for one thing, countries don't exist in a governed society; it's more like Hobbes' "war of all against all". No country can turn to a higher authority seeking redress. Countries DO have expected patterns of conduct, though. Fundamental to these expectations is that a country will abide by its agreements with other countries. Nothing can force the U.S. to behave as a responsible member of the family of nations but there are consequences even to the US for disregarding those international expectations. The President is learning this, I think. Hence, diplomacy instead of unilateral military action. If the President has decided that human rights are the concern of all nations wherever violations occur, he is faced with a rather nasty choice: Either he re examines his earlier refusal to adhere to agreements we have made such as the UN Charter and anti torture conventions or he admits that the US is a rogue nation that can do whatever seems best to it because no one can stop it. The latter is, of course, the neoconservative "Empire" model. Looked good on paper; not so good in practice. On the other hand, if he bases his sanctions on damage being done to American commercial interests in Zimbabwe rather than concern for human rights, the dilemma disappears! Note, please: it isn't just Americans who place profit above people! I am speculating that Iraq has taught the President that the cost of rogue state status, coupled with the fact that military action is dangerously unpredictable as well as expensive and unpopular with the electorate, is too great to bear. So we see him behaving as a responsible head of state in concert with other states and international organizations when he deals with North Korea and Iran. That's what I HOPE, anyway!
I'd be more impressed with that document if it were focused solely on liberties and not also on government entitlements. -=Steve=-
I believe that I understand what you're say here but I have some disagreement. As our country and the rest of the world evolves we are constantly faced with novel situations. These are situations in which there is no clear precedent and yet decisions need to be made. What do we, as a people, as a nation, fall back upon in order to make these decisions? We fall back upon moral principles. There is not any sort of uniform aregreement as to the content of these principles and each Administration imposes its own definitions. Despite this there is a trajectory, a moral trajectory that becomes established and becomes a part of the fabric of our country and of our time. Countries DO have morals, whether they like it or not. 1939 Germany had a moral code. We see that now. Myanmar has a moral code. It is clear. If you are a person who wishes to protest the World Trade Organization Conference in a major city and you find yourself stuck in a restricted area 3 miles from the convention site then you will surely believe that the USA has a moral code. It's all happening in the gray area. Jack
Moral codes and nations What is the source of any moral code for nations? I don't mean the morals of the citizens or even their expression of collective morality but a SEPARATE AND DISTINCT moral code binding upon governments AS governments? What happens when a government's moral obligations run counter to the best interests of its citizens? Is there a difference between a govenrment's moral obligations and its accountability to its citizenry? This is NOT a trivial question. One of the difficulties of the Nuremburg trials was that much of the Nazi conduct was "legal" under the domestic law of Germany at the time it was committed. The question was (properly) ignored by the victorious Allies who put on trials to mete out a sort of "rough justice" to the major Nazi officials. But they did so because they COULD and in order to satisfy the moral outrage of their own citizens. No, governments, like other artificial persons, have no independent morality beyond what the individual moral convictions of the citizens might impose upon it.
Re: Moral codes and nations I do not believe that there is any such thing as a moral code that is binding on individuals as moral codes are elective. With that in mind it is unreasonable to expect that there would be binding moral codes for governments. If I'm misunderstanding this please help me to better understand. Jack
WHOA! We are indeed talking about two entirely different things! Under your definition, I suppose that an organization might have a moral code similar to the moral codes that individuals claim to possess. I won't venture to guess how an optional moral code can be any kind of moral code at all, though. I am definitely NOT saying such a thing is impossible, you understand, only that the subject is WAAAY out of my line. I suppose that you might take the Reform Jewish idea that a person first "legislates" a rule or set of rules for himself then acts as if he were bound by the rules whether or not a given rule is convenient under the circumstances? I've never really understood the concept, though. I guess that it is somehow tied up with whether there is an "objective" right or wrong. Another way of thinking about it might be, "What is the source of the authority that compels me to act, or refrain from acting, in a particular way in a particular set of circumstances?" Like I said, WAAAY out of my line!
This article states "Mugabe led Zimbabwe to independence from Britain in 1980 and had its name changed from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe," Actualy Zimbabwe was formerly Southern Rhodesia. Northern Rhodesia became Zambia.
