Do Countries Have "Rights"? - essay

[Pierre Trudeau]

(This is the 1st draft of an original essay I will be submitting to some Canadian publications. I wanted to post it here and get some feedback. Thanks!)


DO COUNTRIES HAVE "RIGHTS"?

Since Israel began its latest assault on Lebanon, numerous voices have chimed in to support Israel’s activities and criticize its enemies because those enemies do not accept Israel’s "right to exist". This phrase, "Israel’s right to exist", keeps being bandied about in a manner that suggests it is a self-evident truth that we all must accept. But is it really true? Does Israel, in fact, have a "right" to exist? Indeed, does any country, for that matter?

What exactly do we mean when we speak of "rights"? Generally, we accept that individual human beings have certain fundamental rights. But we only have such "rights" if others agree to respect them. Without some sort of civil body to enforce such rights, they are illusory. An individual person may have a right to exist, but there’s no point standing in the path of an oncoming tornado, demanding that Nature respect your human rights. These rights can only be observed by people and by the institutions they create.

Here in Canada, we can say that citizens have certain rights because those rights are enumerated in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a constitutional document that all people and institutions throughout the land are compelled to uphold, under pain of legal prosecution. It is, indeed, one of the greatest benefits a nation-state can offer (which is not to say that a nation-state is the only possible route to enforceable human rights). Still, these rights are limited to what the state is capable of protecting: we cannot say we have a "right" to be free from illness, because no entity has the capacity to enforce such a right. The best we can do in Canada is to assert that everyone has the right to medical treatment, which can (for the most part) be enforced by the Canada Health Act and other statutes.

Unlike people, nation-states are ultimately artificial creations, subject to innumerable forces: they rise and fall, expand and shrink, divide and merge. Some nation-states capably represent their populations, some are instruments of oppression, and some are barely functional. If nation-states were to vanish, humanity would still be able to function… in fact, we might all be better off. This is why we should question our assumptions about nation-states and their supposed "rights".

For instance, what higher body is available to define and enforce "rights" which apply to those states? One might suggest the UN, but in fact, that is not within its mandate at all. While the UN does attempt to establish a body of international law to regulate the conduct of nation-states, nowhere in the UN charter does it assert that nation-states possess any fundamental rights, nor that the UN is empowered to delineate and enforce such "rights". Nor, indeed, is it even capable, in practical terms, of enforcing them. As far as the UN is concerned, the existence of nation-states is a mere point of fact; it only tries influence how they behave to one another.

So, if no higher body exists to grant "rights" to nation-states, how would they be acquired? Nations come into existence through an expression of collective will, as a result of wars or treaties, or as larger nations subdivide. Usually, a nation maintains its existence through a combination of force (or the threat of its use) and treaties and trade agreements with surrounding nations that recognize its existence. In the case of Israel, its existence is guaranteed simply because it has sufficient firepower (and a superpower ally) to keep its enemies at bay. Its enemies, of course, include just about every other country in the region. Only two, Egypt and Jordan, have entered into a treaty with Israel and officially recognize its existence. (Interestingly, those peace agreements remain unbroken, a fact that ought to give hope to all sides in the current conflict.) So, in many cases, particular nations will recognize certain rights accruing to other nations, but only on the basis of specific agreements ratified by those nations. Any nation-state not a party to those treaties is not obliged to recognize any fundamental "rights" of another nation.

Does a nation-state enjoy the "right to exist" merely by virtue of its existence: "I exist, therefore I have a right to exist"? Imagine if the province of Quebec were to suddenly separate from Canada and declare itself a sovereign state. Are the rest of us in Canada duly obliged to recognize its "right to exist"? Indeed, what’s to stop any province, city or region from separating and declaring itself a new nation-state, if we have no choice but to honour their "right to exist" from the moment they spring into existence? Any ethnic, religious or extremist group could forcibly take control of an area, declare it a new sovereign "homeland", and then the rest of the world would have to accept its "right to exist". After all, that is exactly what happened with Israel.

None of this should be construed to say that I believe Israel (or any other country) should not exist. But I regard its existence as a fact, not a "right"… much like the fact that George W. Bush is president of the United States, whether or not he really has a "right" to be. There’s no denying that Israel is there, and we should all try to make the best of it (preferably by influencing it to work harder with its neighbours and the UN), but it’s a tragic mistake to assert that it exists because it has a "right" to exist.

For those of us who dream of a future without nation-states, the persistent and erroneous notion that any country (even Canada or the USA) has a "right to exist" must be extinguished, or we will never manage to rid ourselves of them. And as for the very concept of "rights", those should be reserved for people, rather than countries or corporations. Even governments only have as much "rights" as we the people consent to give them. After all, it’s our right.

[dwnforthecount]

1. My Critique

Ok, first off, VERY good essay with great insight into a nation's right to exist. I did some thinking on the subject before and came to the same conclusions: people have stated rights but countries are, in most cases, too large to be effected by any organization which could map out the rights of all nations. So since there's no rule book, every nation has a right to do anything it wants. However, other nation-states have a right to fight back when they feel wronged. Anyways, you've already said all of this. Very thoughtful and enlightening.

The only problem is a statement you made in the second paragraph from the end: George W. Bush is president of the United States, whether or not he really has a "right" to be. Trust me I hate him as much as the next person, but he was elected by a population which agrees to give him the "right" to be president as long as the majority of the electoral college votes for him. Since the population has agreed to let one man have the position of President, they have thus given an individual the right to become President if he is popular enough with the nation. (On a side note: Since he STOLE two elections, he probably doesn't have the right to be president as he has violated the system, but the point is the presidency is a right that is respected by the people, you might want to find another example.)

[Pierre Trudeau]

2. thanks, point well taken

In fact, I was referring specifically to questions of electoral legitimacy with Bush, not the office of the presidency itself. If it turns that that he did in fact steal two elections, then of course, he has no "right" to be president.

It is rather unclear in the writing, and I guess I assumed the reader would make that connection, but it needs to be set up better.... or use another example. I picked Bush because he's so well-known, which is helpful in an analogy.

Well, I'm glad I'm not alone in these thoughts... it always seems difficult to escape from some form of nationalism, no matter the discussion. Perhaps we should start "untraining" ourselves from nationalistic thinking to pave the way for a nation-free future.

[alvarezadams]

3. I am an anti-nationalist...

... but I have learned that nationalism is a fait accompli. What your essay lacks is any reference to "Self Determination" - a keypoint to international law and a political concept that has been of prime importance since the revolutions of 1848.

I am the first person to argue that nationalism is a bane on our existence. It is a ridiculous concept pregnant with mischief - and it has been a tool for the right since Disraeli founded the Primrose League. It has always been easy to wave the flag in order to keep people's minds off empty stomachs or whatever else is wrong with the status quo.

But nationalism is a reality. Regions want self-determination beyond autonomy. Artificial states are likely to divide into more sensible ones--- at the cost of ethnic cleansing. Ultimately the moves for self-determination are either supported or quashed on the basis of self-interest, just as secular Pan-Arabism was persecuted by the West, making fundamentalist Pan-Arabism a reality.

Look up Wilson's 14 Points before you publish. Consider the situation of peoples that are forced to assume a role withing artificial states that they do not want to play. Remember the Armenians and the Greeks in Turkey or any number of similar situations (including the Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran). And above all understand that perception is all - on paper Communism or any other -ism looks great, just as anti-nationalism is utterly logical. But we're not logical beasts.

I have always disagreed with Israel's de jure right to exist. Yet it exists de facto, and said existence must be accepted with all legal consequences. Palestine has a de jure right to exist but de facto it doesn't.

Food for thought.

[Pierre Trudeau]

5. much obliged!

Thanks for raising the points you did. I also accept nationalism as a fait accompli in my essay, but I want to stress that it need not be regarded as inevitable or inescapable. The more we can start to think of nationalism as temporary, a mere stage in the evolution of humanity, that someday our successors will (hopefully) look back on nation-states as a quaint relic.

I am well aware that my own nation was formed largely to resist being absorbed by another nation: the United States. And no offense to anyone, but I am glad that Canada exists, and I consider myself lucky to have been born there. Nevertheless, I would prefer to think of myself as a citizen of Earth, not just a Canadian. Many of the things I admire about Canada are not exclusive to Canada; the ideals reflected in our Charter Of Rights And Freedoms are shared by countless others throughout the world. It would be a grave error to insist that Canadians have a monopoly on politeness or other alleged national traits. Our aspirations should be human and global rather than national.

Look up Wilson's 14 Points before you publish.

Thanks, I remembered Wilson's points but hadn't reviewed them. Here is probably the most cogent excerpt from Wilson's speech in 1918:

"What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world as against force and selfish aggression. All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us."

Although he didn't emphasize it sufficiently, Wilson also suggests that the primary "rights" lie with the people of the world, and that the "rights" of nations flow from the consent of their people.

Also, he did of course propose in this speech a supra-national body to mediate and govern relations between nations, eventually leading to the formation of the UN.

Most of his points, however, dealt with the specific situations in Europe at that time, and the restorations of nationhood were based more on practical solutions than on an insistence on each "nation's" fundamental "right to exist". In fact, the most relevant Point might be number Five:

"V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.
"

Wilson's speech in its entirety, courtesy of the US State Dept.:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/51.htm


Consider the situation of peoples that are forced to assume a role withing artificial states that they do not want to play. Remember the Armenians and the Greeks in Turkey or any number of similar situations (including the Kurds in Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran).

My reference to Quebec reflects these concerns. Linguistically and culturally, Quebecois consider themselves a distinct nation trapped within another nation, and there has been endless talk of separation. That view is a little inaccurate, because Quebec is one of the co-founders of Canada, they signed on freely right from the start, and Canada was always viewed as a union of two nations. At least if Quebec does separate, the likelihood of "ethnic cleansing" will be minimal: an avalanche of newspapaer editorials but zero bloodshed.

Still, of course it's hard not to sympathize with the plight of Kurds or other suppressed minorities in troubled nations which do not enjoy the benefit of a Charter of Rights. BUT I maintain that the correct answer is "human rights should be upheld everywhere without discrimination", NOT "they should have their own racial homeland".


Finally, I agree with your concise assessment:
I have always disagreed with Israel's de jure right to exist. Yet it exists de facto, and said existence must be accepted with all legal consequences. Palestine has a de jure right to exist but de facto it doesn't.

In my next draft I will make use of those terms "de jure" and "de facto". I am not a lawyer (thank heavens), so I lack some legal expertise, but my aim is to articulate these concepts for the general reader.

[alvarezadams]

6. You're preaching to the choir

as far as I'm concerned. Nationalism is a bane, but it's something we have to live with. To propose a world without nationalism is as utopic as any "-ism" and since nationalism is a tool often used by manipulative politicians I think that your article is in vain.

Nice sentiments though.

FWIW, if you want some historical background you might want to look up the revolutions of 1848... and that precursor to the manipulative conservative thinktanks, the Primrose League: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primrose_League :

"The Primrose League was an organization for spreading Conservative principles in Great Britain. It was founded in 1883 and active until the mid 1990s. It was finally wound up in December 2004.

Its aims (published in the Primrose League Gazette, vol.83, no.2, March/April 1979) were:

To Uphold and support God, Queen, and Country, and the Conservative cause;
To provide an effective voice to represent the interests of our members and to bring the experience of the Leaders to bear on the conduct of public affairs for the common good;
To encourage and help our members to improve their professional competence as leaders;
To fight for free enterprise. "

It was instrumental in ringing up jingoism in any number of wars - and to keep minds off such concepts as food, health and universal suffrage. Whenever any progressive idea came about one could count on Primrose to push for a war here, jangle sabres there and otherwise turn minds away from unprofitable "social" causes.

[KKKarl is an idiot]

4. Who said we have to have nations?

The Europeans went to Africa. Formed nations out of multiple tribes. Then the left, leaving behind a slew of wars because they defined the boundaries where at one time there was no mapped out boundary.

How is it that Israel has a right to exist when the people of Tibet & Taiwan do not have this same right. Who makes up to rules? Why is democracy okay to spread in a country like Iraq? but not in China. It is because the US cannot win a war with China that it does not invade China & force them to give Tibet it's independence & follow a part of democracy.

I agree with a future with no nations. I thought you could maybe use some of the points above to show how flawed the current system is.

[Pierre Trudeau]

7. indeed

This is certainly something worth mentioning:
The Europeans went to Africa. Formed nations out of multiple tribes. Then the left, leaving behind a slew of wars because they defined the boundaries where at one time there was no mapped out boundary.

In the paragraph about how nation-states come into being, I might also speak of the many nations that came into being as the waning imperial powers carved up their colonies in somewhat arbitrary fashion, which led to a new set of intra- and inter-nationalist rivalries.

I agree with a future with no nations.

It's reassuring to hear this. I want to stress that I am not interested in any organized campaign to abolish nations, which would be futile, nor do I consider myself an "anti-nationalist" with all the limitations imposed by an "ism". (On the contrary, a lot of good can also be attributed to nation-states, but we can still think of them as stepping-stones to a more evolved form of governance).

It's more of a psychological campaign, to encourage people to think of a world without nations, even if it won't happen in our lifetimes. As long as we accept the supremacy of nation-states, our thinking itself will be framed within the limitations of nationalism. The concept that any nation has an inherent "right to exist" is therefore a tremendous obstacle that we ought to jettison if we are to move forward on the path beyond nations to a globally-conscious self-governed Earth.