A State's "Right to exist"???

"We knew all the answers and we shouted them like anthems"... -The Scissor Sisters

[tanseybe][marquard][campbel2] my 2 ¢ :

While admitting a lack of knowledge of the ideosyncracies of the politics of these real world examples of areas attempting to acheive "statehood" in the face or opposition, I think the thing that strikes me the most about Israel's current "right of state" is the way it enforces a certain set of presuppositions about what a state is.

Granted, there is a certain "fact" of sovereignty that makes a state "exist". It would be pretty silly to walk around oblivious of the fact of states that exist on almost every land mass on the planet. But I think this is seperate from the "right" of these states to hold this existence. Statehood is not Natural, in any way. Because an organization has developed-in the face of opposition or completely free from it-to oversee a certain sovereign force over a particular parcel of land, does not create any causal connection between the land and the organization, despite what ideology might be employed to instill that kind of value in people's moralities. The way I see it, this fact can have positive attributes or negative attributes. I'm going to stay out of that for right now. But I do think that discussion of an organization's claim to a piece of land automatically moves the argument into a moral realm of ideological "connection to particular land" that very nicely (especially for some) totally removes the discussion from the positive or negative attributes of a particular state.

"Democracy" is actually the biggest modern perpetrator of this technique. (In the "archaic" past state's have called upon the divine, leadership qualities, filiation, or simple brute force to prove the right of sovereignty, but now we are civilized.) Because we have the highest moral values (in the "political" realm) attached to the idea of some sort of obscure organizational representation, modern politics tend to view democracy as the ultimate decider of the "right" of a state-like organization to particular piece of land. 'If the people who live on the land are represented in the government that holds sovereign power over the land, then the government is fair and just, and has the right to exist.' This, in a somewhat more long-winded form (amid other variations and distractions), was the argument for destroying the sovereignty of Iraq, and for continuing to have US troops there.

I think the holes in this argument are obvious. First, who says any person "wants" representation? Second, who says that they want representation in this particular form? Third, even if they do approve of the substance and form of the representation, will the state actually come through in providing it? Failure on any of these three counts would make the whole "right" of the state collapse. And since it is almost impossible to guarantee the satisfaction of the goals of representation in any form, the use of representation as a moral value for the right of a state is equally impossible. That is, unless you don't care about having a logical moral value and only care about an ideological position as a stabilizing force for power.

Which, I think is the only real use of a "state's right to exist". It is impossible to prove, and therefore it is unprovable. It can only be used as a rallying force to strengthen the sovereignty of the state. This is even more obvious when a certain state's right to exist is based upon oppression (Israel, Apartheid, Slavery in the Southern US, the USA in general, etc). In order to hold a population captive, guaranteeing rights to some while denying rights to others (bear in mind a "right" only becomes necessary under contestation, there is no Natural Right) an organization must not only use physical force but also justify this force through a moral response to the contestation of its oppressive organization (War is always in the mind).

For example: Imagine an American Indian organization that is fighting against the British for liberation from colonialism in 1776. In 1789 when the Constitution is written, they are castigated by the "world community" for continuing to rebel against the new American government. Colonization is over! Now America is a free republic. Why aren't they happy? Obviously, the ideologically-rich preamble to the Constitution is just a distraction from the fact that American Indians will continue to be oppressed over the next 200+ years. Of course, this didn't happen as such, but I think it proves the point that the "right" of a state, no matter what the moral foundation, can still exclude and oppress, and often does so under the very auspices of that "right". Look at Israel, for example. The Jewish guerilla organizations fighting against British "occupation" became the IDF. Once they got the British out, they established their own oppressive government. All that changed, from a "statehood" perspective, was the people wielding the sovereignty. Which state is more "right" is not important, neither is really more "right" than the other, or than any potential Palestinian state. What continues to be the real point of contestation is who (even this "who" is as nebulous as "what" the state is) has the sovereignty, and what they do with it.

End of the story: certainly, might makes right. Whoever has power seeks to preserve it. Governments are not in the business of giving power away. And, "people" will tend to get power for themselves, regardless of who and what they get it from, and how. But to discuss the organizations that wield power from the point of view of "right" to do so, pushes the argument into a moral dimension that ignores facts and sets up ideology. Therefore, I find it pointless. And, when an argument concerning the negative facts of oppression is countered with an argument bringing up someone's "Natural Right" to oppress (or wield power over others in any form), I begin to think about a certain word that I use to describe such behavior...