Chicago NATO Summit & The Leviathan of the Citizenry

 

The 2012 NATO Summit (Insert Link) being held in Chicago from May 20-21 is an illustrative reminder of the revolving raison d’être of the modern sovereign nation-state of the 21^st Century (Insert Source). The event being staged in Chicago is a first for a city that is no stranger to boosting it’s own perceived qualities (Insert Source & Link). The magnitude of this summit of international diplomacy, whose beginnings were sprouted by the wreckage of the Second World War and the geopolitical strife of the Cold War, deserves at least a brief exploration albeit one that will remain rigidly centered on an ever recurrent theme in political philosophy. The one commonly referred to as the social contract[1] founded on the state of nature[2] (Insert Link), a hypothetical condition of life without government or the rule of law, posited in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan (Insert Link)[3].

Thomas Hobbes’ seminal treatise is a proposition for the advantages of creating and maintaining a civil society; his argument insists on reasons for isolated individuals to willingly subjugate absolute freedom and abstract private judgment[4] (state of nature) to some version of political authority (Insert Source). Hobbes’ reasoning can be derived from his seeming understanding of human incentive, psychological motivations (Insert Source) that are mechanistically and ‘naturally’ self-interested (Insert Link). The moral theory Hobbes generates is one currently being discussed, and there seems to be doubt on whether psychological egoism was the foundation of his moral theory (Insert Source). Hobbes’ political theory couldn’t’ be more stated and his analysis is persistent on the need for society to be contractually obligated and affirms: “It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law.” Hence to contain the whims of individuals left in a perpetual state of nature where all things are permissible: “The right of nature… is the liberty each man hath to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life.” (Insert Source) In Hobbes’ view something beyond individual interests should be adhered to[5] and this is where the social contract comes into play.

Thomas Hobbes seems to conclude that individual rationality is inefficient in maintaining a fragile peace between persons and therefore competing states; His insistence that: “A man’s conscience and his judgment is the same thing; and as the judgment, so also the conscience, may be erroneous.” Implies that the rule of the sovereign is the only probable solution to civil unrest and political anarchy. One can readily ascertain that Hobbes’ take on human motivations are complex, because of their intricate tendencies and ultimate unreliability it would be in our ‘real self-interests’ to abide by the law of a political sovereign, and avoid a collapse into a state of nature or a war of all against all.

The formulation of the 21^st Century nation-state could be seen as an extension of Hobbes’ sovereign, though one where the role of the monarch has been transcribed to variations of political representatives. In relation to one another these patchwork nation-states are in a hypothetical state of nature, in this manifestation Hobbes’ theories have been representative as those of a ‘realist’ tone in international relations (Insert Link). The overriding element that would keep these sovereigns from entering war with one another would be the rationale that war of all against all would be disastrous to human satisfaction (Insert Source). The agreement therein to avoid war and pursue peace at all costs would fall directly in unison with Hobbes’ theories on the laws of nature[6]. The ends to obtain, which in Hobbes’ views relate to maintaining a realizable yet over-arching and conflict free co-existence, would have to be the result of a covenant made possible by the social contract. The probability that NATO is itself an alliance achieved through such means and validation is not in anyway unperceivable.

The initiation and functions of NATO have been well documented (Insert Link) so it is unnecessary to begin by outlining those aspects. A global treaty where the United States became a major role player at its inception, the NATO alliance has bestowed a tone of cooperation amongst interested parties, a joint consensual covenant promising coordinated retaliation towards any existential threat on any of its member nations. The agreement immediately conjures Hobbes-like visions of the conditions made necessary for sovereign(s) to maintain order amidst the outside threat of purely hypothetical abysmal violence. The sovereign nation-states through the recourse of alliances like NATO have derived an authority to operate militarily at all threats both perceived and real should such sovereign decisions makers decide it’s the best possible recourse.

I disagree fundamentally with this kind of Hobbsian realism that seems to be the official modus operandi of all sovereign entities, especially as it pertains to matters relating to foreign policy. The surplus of security measures that are the preferred instruments of political agents who are abiding to variable components of the social contract, are further elevating the states of nature they seek to repress. Centuries of unmitigated, relentless, and mutating warfare have proven that coordinated and seemingly enforceable coercion have proved impossible. The social contract as it is currently expressed in the conceptual apparatus of the sovereign polity, will eventually become incompetent at maintaining a meaningful peace amongst competing interests as each party attempts to maximize its relative position. The theory in effect is a defunct relic of Bourgeois sociopolitical aspirations that have completely broken down in the world of the 21^st Century. A loss of faith in the political process among the citizenry is the most immediate sign of the coming dynamic.

I want to conclude by emphasizing that the prisoners dilemma, where the consequence is a redress into a violent state of nature that none desires but is inevitable due to individuals attempting to survive by conducting pre-emptive strikes, is a device employed by a nearly universal set of political entities. The reasoning is conducive of a circular trap, a shortsighted assumption of how individuals interact in a complex world, it no longer should provide the escape clause by which political entities can evoke militarized geopolitical aims. The continuing force of history has realized the social costs incurred by enabling this kind of sovereign authority, examples that abound throughout the most violent century in human history and a century that threatens to be even more violent.

On May 20-21 2012 Chicago will be the stage in a theater of global politics that has made the hypothetical imaginations of Thomas Hobbes an unprecedented realization. Political order comes at the cost of maximizing pluralistic potential, but as we have witnessed in the Middle East and other parts of the global hemisphere even the most basic forms of social cohesion are yet to be fully realized. In the most stable of nation-states there is a growing sentiment that the potential of western democracies is being further eroded by the realities of political and corporate power expressed in the most basic of Machiavellian principles. The ongoing divide between impersonal nation-states and the citizenry will further corrode some of the so-called moral principles political leaders utilize as devices to legitimize their position. The NATO Summit in Chicago and the reaction will further shed light on the circumstances.

Please Note: the links and sources have yet to be included in this draft for reasons relating to timing. Will correct in the near future. Thanks for reading.

---

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) and Authoritarianism

The incongruity surrounding the initiation of the year 2012 on December 31^st 2011, predictably went over the heads of a populace bubbling with infotainment rather than information. Whilst revelers were fawning the arrival of yet another year that would presumably bring them a period of transition worth celebrating, the President of the United States was signing the National Defense Authorization Act or NDAA. The President also offered a signing statement that read:

 I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation, and prosecution of suspected terrorists… I decided to sign this bill not only because of the critically important services it provides for our forces and their families and the national security programs it authorizes, but also because the Congress revised provisions that otherwise would have jeopardized the safety, security, and liberty of the American people. Moving forward, my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions described below in a manner that best preserves the flexibility on which our safety depends and upholds the values on which this country was founded…

I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a Nation. My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law.

The Bill though a far cry from what has been described by some civil liberties advocates as America’s “Maya Moment” a doomed precipice “when the nation embraced authoritarian powers with little more than a pause between rounds of drinks.” Should concern anyone apprehensive about the Executive’s military detention authority and the closing of the Guantánamo Bay Prison.

Besides granting The Executive Branch broader authority and presumable preference for indefinite military detention, rather than criminal arrest and prosecution for suspected terrorists as described in section 1022, the bill also contains troubling provisions as highlighted in Subtitle D (“Counterterrorism”) that will continue to hinder the possibility of closing the Guantánamo detention facility. Contrary to some reports concerning the “authority” provision of subtitle D, section 1021 in which congress has made military trials and indefinite detention a permanent part of American law, the section as is expressly noted does no such thing. Marty Lederman and Steven Vladeck analyze the section in a their own review as such:

To be sure, as David Cole notes, the law will “put [] Congress’s stamp” on a particular interpretation of the Executive’s military detention authority. But that is hardly surprising: The AUMF (Authorization for Use of Military Force) interpretation reflected in section 1021 is the one the Obama Administration has been pressing upon the habeas courts since March 2009, namely, that the executive has the authority—to the extent consistent with, and as informed by, the laws of war—to militarily detain a person “who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks,” or a person “who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.”

The only context in which this standard has played out thus far in the GTMO (Guantánamo) habeas proceedings is in determining whether particular detainees can be held in military detention on the basis that they are “part of” al-Qaeda or the Taliban, or an “associated” force, or co-belligerent, of al-Qaeda or the Taliban that is likewise “engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.” As applied to such persons, judges across the jurisprudential spectrum have approved the DOJ (Department of Justice) standard, following the lead of the Supreme Court’s explanation in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that the AUMF should be construed in light of “longstanding law-of-war principles” to authorize the detention of enemy forces “for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured,” for the purpose of preventing them “from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again.”

The section underlies what the courts have already authorized in short; the relevant schism concerns such concentrated power being appropriated into a piece of legislation. The facts surrounding the NDAA though more sober than what has been dispensed by critics including myself, should not deter the overarching questions most reasoned individuals have about the broader implications of unhindered Executive power. History has revealed repeatedly the folly of authoritarian policy pursued by political leaders in a number of varying circumstances, which has more often than not lead to inevitable tyranny and further social unrest.

The NDAA has justly brought to light serious reservations concerning the proper role of Presidential powers. The NDAA has also persuaded many to view the bill as a further extension of the Government to legitimize torture, authorize warrantless surveillance, and approve of certain war crimes. The broad and often obfuscating language in the bill seems to conjure instances of doublespeak, where an ever-suffocating war on terror reaches a socially acceptable and codified infinitesimal inevitability, a war that further consolidates the political leadership of the country to legitimate hovering infringements on the constitutional rights of citizens.

The problems are vast and the absurdities of war help to propel the arguments of governments to institute particular provisions, more so when the definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist” can become arbitrarily applied. In moments such as these it is of vital importance that those supportive of social democracies and of maintaining a political infrastructure that has a proper balance of power, remain prepared to question the wisdom of the political classes and hold them accountable.

Apocalypse (Introduction)

Human history is fraught with examples of mankind reaching a summit, an eclipse, or a sort of end. The term “apocalypse” refers directly to these kinds of circumstances, instances pertaining to a religious or eschatological scenario derived directly from the monotheistic tradition and the plethora of literature expressing the visions of various secular apocalypses; apocalypses that are extremely indicative of the modern human paradigm.  I refer to the term “apocalypse” incorporating a similarly broad analogy that attempts to encompass more sociologically holistic phenomena.

The task is one attempting to sculpt a more definitive model of the direct relationship between history and modernity.  The hermeneutic pool one dives into when approaching these kinds of topics suggests an exercise submerged in perplexity, yet there are numerous invocations of the term and context of apocalypse that make sense of this historically unprecedented scenario (Hall, 2009). The most forthright examples of the modern (secular) paradigm are:

• 2012 phenomenon– eschatological beliefs incorporating various interpretations of cataclysmic and transformative events of which include:
  • New age interpretation:  earth & inhabitants undergo a positive spiritual & physical transformation (Stitler, 2006).
  • End of world scenario: solar maxim – earth collides with a black hole, asteroid, or the planet “Nibiru”.
• Environmental collapse – theory centered on a planet threatened by ecological disaster that threatens to decimate human populations at an unprecedented scale.
• Societal collapse – a theory derived from systems science that explains how societies decline either abruptly or gradually through the common disruption of:  social cohesion, economic growth, and adaptability (Tainter, 1990).

 I want to note that both the environmental and the societal collapse theories although loosely apocalyptic in the sense that allows us to conceptualize societal decline, are competent social theories that avoid the trappings of most pseudoscience. The underlining contexts of both theories however, are in no way absent of the teleological constraints or paradigms that are the definitive mark within other forms of apocalyptic literature. I have made the decision to incorporate these theories with the intention of broadcasting the amplest evidence and to delineate the different kinds of apocalypses, in this instance the types where collapse signifies a cataclysmic and transformative event.

The inclination to focus on the apocalypse is merely to spotlight the habitual determination of humanity’s attempt to explain the present condition or present crises. The odyssey though fraught with folly and perhaps a bit of stubborn delusion as to the central role mankind plays in determining the future and the state of being, is one that is uniquely human and perhaps the crucial detail that differentiates the species from that of other animals.

REFERENCES

 Robert K. Sitler (2006).  The 2012 Phenomenon: New Age Appropriation of an Ancient Mayan Calendar.  Novo Religio: the Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions (Berkeley: University of California Press).

Joseph Tainter (1990). The Collapse of Complex Societies (Cambridge University Press).

Michael Hall (2009).  Apocalypse: From Antiquity to The Empire of Modernity. (Polity, CA)