Wow. I think I’m in love:
The idea of absolute state sovereignty is relatively new, and it derives from agreements among kings, emperors, kaisers, and czars for their mutual benefit. What we’re left with from the state making of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Europe is a legacy that tells us we cannot intervene in states as they slaughter their own citizens because they’re sovereign. By that logic, Hitler would have been perfectly legitimate as long as he killed only German Jews. It’s patently flawed logic. Any state that benefits only a dictatorship, oligarchy, or clique, that oppresses, brutalizes, and even massacres elements of its own citizenry, has no legitimate claim on sovereignty—period. Sovereignty is fine for contemporary Japan, the European states, or, for that matter, India. Mexico is now coming along and trying very hard. But states like Iraq, Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, and a number of African thugocracies have no legitimate claim on sovereignty.
That’s from an interview with military historian Ralph Peters, who up until today, I had never heard of. As should be obvious, he says what I’ve tried to say myself, but far more eloquently than I’ve yet managed to achieve. After reading his thoughts on world affairs, I’m now going to go head off to find some of his books, and fast.
Added bonus points: Peters refers to the House of Saud as “the Arab world’s Beverly Hillbillies… (a group of) malevolent hicks”