Going along with the theme this week of foreign policy associated with the last presidential debate, I though I would discuss an issue that does not get much attention, state sovereignty. This is the basic doctrine in today's foreign policy and International Relations realm. Despite being the accepted status quo, it seems as if it goes somewhat ignored.
The United States seems to be one of the biggest culprits of breaking this doctrine. Whether the United States was plotting to assassinate Fidel Castro, trying to overthrow the South Vietnam government of Deim or even more recently the invasion of Iraq. The United States has a long history of overthrow plots, coups, and assassination cover ups to protect the "interest" of our country, most notably communism.
One of the more controversial violations of state sovereignty in recent history was the capture and killing of Osama Bin Laden. This is controversial in the fact that if the United States had tried to work with Pakistan, it is likely that we would have never had the chance to take out one of the world's most dangerous terrorists. I think it is safe to assume that the world is a better place without Osama Bin Laden but the fact remains that the sovereignty of Pakistan was violated in his capture and killing.
This is where this issue of state sovereignty becomes a bit of a touchy subject. In certain instances state sovereignty must be violated in order to achieve the interests of a country right? Was it wrong to violate the sovereignty of Pakistan to eliminate Bin Laden? These are some of the difficult questions facing the worlds leaders.
The track record of the Neoconservatives outlines policies of explicit and blatant violations of state sovereignty. This includes a record of taking out Saddam Hussein in Iraq and moving into Afghanistan with the hopes of surrounding and moving into Iran. This is still on the agenda for the Neocons including the foreign advisers for Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney. These advisers include former UN Ambassador under the Bush Administration John Bolton and Pentagon adviser during the Bush Administration Dan Senor. Senor was one of the biggest advocates for the invasion of Iraq in 2001.
During the crisis in Libya involving the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi republicans in congress, namely John McCain, wanted to send U.S. troops on the ground. This was during a time which we were still actively involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the Vice Presidential debate, congressman Paul Ryan made a reference to the issue in Benghazi accusing the President of not acting soon enough and trying to go through the UN and seeking a diplomatic solution. If diplomacy is dead, then we might as well invade Iran right now to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. The response by the GOP is always military intervention.
This is the grey area involved with abiding by state sovereignty. Despite the fact that President Obama gave the order to take down Osama Bin Laden, it was a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. This is also the case when Neoconservatives decide to invade nations such as Iraq for the sake of "nation building." Issues of human rights also come up during the interventions of these nations including what some are suggesting we do involving the current crisis in Syria with the Assad regime. However these are nonetheless violations of state sovereignty. The United States has always had a hidden agenda trying to take out leaders who are threatening to us. State sovereignty is the standard when it comes to International Relations yet it is constantly violated by nations all over the world. We need to get to a place where diplomacy works and is an effective strategy to problem solving in the International Relations community.