Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Pirates vs. Emperors
History shows that when a powerful empire sets sail overseas its
spokespeople often depict the undertaking as an effort to create order
and bring peace. When a pirate ship ventures into the open seas, by
contrast, the empire portrays the endeavor as a crime against humanity.
The difference is not so much what emperors and pirates do—both pillage
and plunder, albeit to vastly different degrees. What matters most is
which of the two is in a position to effectively define right and wrong.
This history seemed to repeat itself on April 20—only days after Barack
Obama called the United States a “nation of laws” and said that his
administration would not prosecute Americans for torture. On that
night, police and FBI agents led a shackled Abdiwali Abdiqadir Muse, a
teenager from war-ravaged, poverty-stricken Somalia accused of piracy,
into federal detention for his role in an American ship captain’s
kidnapping. While presented as a step toward law-based accountability,
the scene evokes images of an old story—the reigning double standards
of what passes for international justice.
About 16 centuries ago the renowned theologian St. Augustine related a
tale about a pirate captured by Alexander the Great who asked his
prisoner “how he dares molest the sea.” “How dare you molest the whole
world?” responded the pirate. “Because I do it with a little ship only,
I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an
emperor.”
Centuries later, this unjust dynamic became widespread as Western
powers carved up the globe. Throughout their colonies they established
courts that prosecuted crimes defined by the occupying power. Not
surprisingly, the courts typically focused their efforts on the alleged
crimes of imperial subjects, while upholding the institutionalized
injustices and the acts of physical violence needed to sustain it.
The creation of the United Nations was, among other things, an attempt
to overcome the resulting impunity for the relatively powerful. But
while the U.N. has had much success in setting international legal and
human rights standards, it has been largely ineffective in enforcing
them, especially when doing so would challenge the interests of
powerful member-states.
This failure is principally one of design, one embedded in the United
Nations’ very structure due to the World War II victors’ efforts to
ensure that the new international body would allow them to pursue their
interests on the global stage. As the Mexican delegate to the founding
convention in San Francisco in 1945 noted, the U.N. Charter assured
that “the mice would be disciplined, but the lions would be free.”
More than 60 years later, his words have proven to be prophetic.
Accountability for “mice” and impunity for “lions” — and the mice with
whom they are on good terms — has become the rule, not the exception in
international affairs.
Among many examples, witness the current international tribunal in
Cambodia. Between 1969 and 1973, the U.S. military carpet-bombed
Cambodia, causing the deaths of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of
civilians, while indirectly contributing to the Khmer Rouge’s seizure
of power. Yet the U.N.-backed court will not try any U.S. officials for
committing serious crimes.
As Marlon Brando, in his role as a human rights lawyer in apartheid-era
South Africa in the 1989 film, A Dry White Season, explained, “Justice
and law could be described as distant cousins, and here … they're not
even on speaking terms.”
Bridging the gap between law and justice requires that we in the United
States acknowledge the double standards that effectively allow a small
number of powerful countries to determine who should face international
justice, while exempting themselves from scrutiny. We must reject
President Obama’s statement upon the recent release of the torture
memos that “nothing will be gained by … laying blame for the past”
—words that seem to apply only to some crimes and wrongdoers.
It requires that we imagine the possibility that people like “us,” and
the officials from countries with which we ally ourselves, might also
be held legally accountable for actions abroad, and to endeavor to make
the possibility real.
Until we do so, let us not pretend that law and justice are one and the
same, or that emperors and pirates are compelled to live by the same
standards.
15 Comments so far
Show AllAnd as always, those who win the wars write the histories.
It never ceases to disgust me how much of America's genocidal past goes down the proverbial memory hole in the country's so-called "education" system.
I really wish your words would have some kind of impact. They won't. We are in the dark ages again no one is listening anymore. Oh sure they read but it doesn't mean anything anymore. We are lost in a sea of words that have not meaning or impact.
Long Live Hypocrisy!
Following Obama's logic, no crime would ever be prosecuted, since that would mean assigning "blame for the past" somewhere, on someone. Unless he in his chiefly wisdom believes crime can only take place in some timeless dimension. In the real world, all crimes occurred at some time "in the past," or they never occurred at all. Obama is counselling the nation to accept the "fact" that no crimes worth worrying over were committed during the Bush administration, and thus there is no one to blame or prosecute. Like all emperors he is claiming fiat authority to declare wholesale criminality blameless, for reasons of state.
Great title, Joe!
-JR
Against Stupidity the Gods Themselves Contend in Vain
The author states ".....The creation of the United Nations was, among other things, an attempt to overcome the resulting impunity for the relatively powerful...."
Hahaha they got another one. THe United Nation, WTO, World Bank, IMF, Globalization, WHO, Legions of western inpired NGO organization(Amnesty, Human rights Watch) etc are all devices instituted to more efficiently and with minimum hassle plunder the resources of black, brown and yellow nations. Everything else is window dressing.
Think about it, the West has stolen more with less hussle in terms of percentage, mass and efficeincy from these prey nation after these front organizations were created than before their creation. Do the maths.
Yes
Unfortunately, to use the old cliche, Dr. Nevins is just spitting into the wind. Rightly or wrongly, the spoils always go to the victors in any competitive endeavor, whether it is a campaign of conquest or a backyard game of badminton. One can only hope that the victors will, in the long run, act in some sort of compassionate manner for the greater benefit and good of most of the people involved. Of course, that too is subject to the interpretation of whomever is currently in the position of power.
One could even conjecture that had the young Somali succeeded in his quest for ransom, he could very well have gotten on the track toward becoming one of the tribal or gang warlords of Somalia in his later adult life and have become a minor "Emperor" in his own right. After all, that is essentially how all "royalty" first gained their titles.
The whole idea of 'punishment' rubs me the wrong way. Justice must evolve by making the protection of EVERYONE the over-riding imperative. And that includes those who commit 'crimes' against others. No child ever dreamed of being poor, hungry, loathed by others, persecuted, degraded, and otherwise treated 'like dirt' - every person comes into being according to the rules of 'society' - those who hold power over him/her, and make the rules. 'Crimes' are the result of the failure of society to have the education, experience, and foresight needed to protect the most vulnerable and helpless among us. However odious the behavior may be, I can assure you that the person, as a child, never hoped to end up being like that. Circumstances beyond our control decide who and what we will be, whether it be genetic traits or social conditions - nobody is 'bad' - or at least they couldn't be, if we protected them as dearly as we try to protect ourselves. A 'failed society' is one that allows power to accumulate in anyone's hands - and that was primarily what many of America's founders tried to avoid.
Justice prevails when power is curtailed - and it takes a lot of determined people to stop the few from ruining our childhood dreams of a good life - safety, and security in knowing 'society' will help us fulfill all of our needs. We are 'our brother's keeper' - social animals evolved that way.
Good post. Power can be curtailed by capping wealth. A yearly cap on the net worth of all individuals and organizations established via referendum would limit their power. There is no democracy without economic democracy.
"If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree..."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
“I hold it that, a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” -Thomas Jefferson
Good point. You're in good company. We can't make any progress - once we identify the problem - unless we plan for the future. Most revolutions end in disaster because of the power vacuum that allows the people exhibiting the worst behavior to suddenly take charge. A 'wealth cap' - absolutely on 'net worth' - would be one way to contain power. But power is more than just money, even though it seems that way right now. Power is also the monopoly of ideas, threats and intimidation, brute strength, and a variety of control factors to which humans are susceptible. Money is merely an expression of power - the ability to affect - control - exploit others with relative impunity is the problem. Cults don't need money to control people - abusive people don't need money to control people - scam-artists are everywhere, and the psychology of mind control has risen to a highly-evolved scientific art. Power often leads to wealth - but money itself is not the culprit. Remember, the correct admonition is 'the love of money is the root of all evil' - not money itself. My father says 'religion is the root of all evil' - it is the control-factor in both proverbs that hits the mark.
Most people (like 90% of doctors, regarding drug reps) are highly susceptible to advanced propaganda campaigns - so much so that they deny it vehemently. This is a threat to society - mind control, in any form, must be recognized for what it is, and laws must be formulated to forbid such tactics. This is not about 'freedom of speech' - it is about egregious exploitation, to the detriment of society. There can never be any kind of 'democracy' - or freedom - as long as the practice (also called 'manipulation') is allowed. Societies form governments to protect the collective against dire threats - and denying people 'free choice' is probably the most disastrous and dire threat to all of us. How can anyone make a 'free choice' if they've been brainwashed? The power to control the minds of people is far more important that mere money, although money often does buy access in our corrupted form of government. But the other forms are just as dangerous to groups of people, especially the most vulnerable of society.
We have to be precise and conclusive, not only in describing the problem, but in formulating the solution. New governments try to fulfill promises to the people - but by ignoring the glaring defects in their constitutions, it doesn't take long for serious corruption to take root. Maybe that's why Jefferson thought frequent revolutions were a good idea... even if he couldn't see how and why governments become corrupted. And that's why our Constitution is fatally flawed and needs competent revision that reflects the science of the day - hopefully a non-violent, non-lethal revolution (probably not in my lifetime though).
Good comments with respect to the nature of what gets called guilt. However good people may be "on the inside," though, we need them to act well.
In this case, "a lot of determined people" have the option of stopping "the few from ruining our childhood dreams" by prosecuting those people in and around our government who worked to accumulate power in a few hands in particularly loathsome ways, by making people "persecuted, degraded, and otherwise treated 'like dirt.'"
Cheney, Bush, Yoo, and the rest of the chain of command in torture are not "the most vulnerable and helpless among us."
Prosecute! That's not torture: Give these criminals a cell as nice as the next guys, let there be a TV -- and access to a library with some good reading on ethics.
vae victis
"This failure is principally one of design, one embedded in the United Nations’ very structure," ...absolutely! Get rid of the security council and put that power in the control of the General Assembly and any new council should be responsible to the GA. Of course, it must be expected that the petulant U.s. would probably quit the UN once they couldn't control it.
“the mice would be disciplined, but the lions would be free”
Beautiful. And we should acknowledge that the same rule basically applies at the domestic level as at the international level.