John Negroponte interview

[TristanAbbey]

Hi Folks,

We just posted some Q&A with John Negroponte over at Bellum:

http://bellum.stanfordreview.org/?p=1500

Two interesting aspects:
1. His comments on the durability of the nation-state.
2. His assertion that the world today is "quite benign"

Compare #2, especially, to the oft-repeated assertion by many -- from the President on downward -- that we live in a very "dangerous world."

Would love to hear what the forum thinks about his views on the nation-state -- perhaps in the context of his role in Honduras and Iraq as ambassador.

Tristan

[William F. Owen]

Two interesting aspects:
1. His comments on the durability of the nation-state.
2. His assertion that the world today is "quite benign"

Both true and blindingly obvious to any informed observer.
1. There have always been nation states. No event in human history has ever threatened them as an institution, and they will endure. Why is this is in anyway surprising? You have to plumb down into 4GW to find people will to assert it's not true.
2. Also true. Look at the world in the 1960's or 70's. Dangerous is a very relative description.

[John T. Fishel]

Wilf, is a relatively new phenomenon dating really from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. While there have been states into antiquity they were either city-states such as Athens and Sparta or universal empires like Rome, Persia, or China. These tended to alternate with periods of feudalism which is a totally different form of political organization than the state.

With that clarification, we are in agreement.;)

Cheers

JohnT

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, is a relatively new phenomenon dating really from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. While there have been states into antiquity they were either city-states such as Athens and Sparta or universal empires like Rome, Persia, or China. These tended to alternate with periods of feudalism which is a totally different form of political organization than the state.

With that clarification, we are in agreement.;)
Maybe. Nations are described in the "Bible". Egypt, Babylon etc. If it has a king or a ruler then it was a nation as such. Even the Mongols where a Nation!
I find the whole Westphalia thing a complete "so what." True but irrelevant.
I spent a whole weekend with T.X. Hammes and Bill Lind trying to explain it to me and I just couldn't get it!

[TristanAbbey]

Would you describe Bill Lind and TX Hammes as uninformed observers?

[Firn]

While there are a great many fine details I pretty much agree with Negroponte that the states will be the dominant political entities to come. The EU is a pretty interesting case, as it has in a lot of areas very considerable political power over it's member while have little influence in others. The discussion about it's status quo is from the juridical point of view rather intriguing. ;)

Firn

[TristanAbbey]

While there are a great many fine details I pretty much agree with Negroponte that the states will be the dominant political entities to come. The EU is a pretty interesting case, as it has in a lot of areas very considerable political power over it's member while have little influence in others. The discussion about it's status quo is from the juridical point of view rather intriguing. ;)

Firn

Agree on the EU -- Stephen Krasner, political scientist at Stanford, argues that the EU is really its own species (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2001/01/01/think_again_sovereignty?page=0,8), neither nation-state nor confederation:


The European Union, however, is not a model that other parts of the world can imitate...The EU is a new and unique institutional structure, but it will coexist with, not displace, the sovereign-state model.

[William F. Owen]

Would you describe Bill Lind and TX Hammes as uninformed observers?
No, I would not describe them as uninformed. I would attribute that epithet to a lot of folks who ride on their coat tails, and do not understand the actual nature of their arguments as quite clumsy forcing mechanisms - as I have stated elsewhere and in print.

[John T. Fishel]

from its beginning as the Schumann Plan (with a huge assist from Jean Monnet) through the ECSC, EEC, EC, to the EU was to achieve a United States of Europe - a true nation-state. In this it followed some of the lessons perceived as being Bismarck's strategy to achieve the union of the German states. The aspiration for a nation-state is, in my judgement, still there. Whether the EU will achieve it is an open question. So the EU remains in a state of becoming - it is not what it was nor is it yet what it will be.

Cheers

JohnT

[John T. Fishel]

I wonder how the word that is translated into English as "nation" really would translate if it were done carefully. As lovely as the King James translation is - and IMO it is the Bilble as literature in the English language - modern scholarship questions the accuracy of some of its translations. Can you enlighten me on the translation of the word from the ancient Hebrew or ask someone you know who could. I understand that modern Hebrew is somewhat different from the ancient language sorta like modern Greek differs from its ancient counterpart.

Cheers

JohnT

[William F. Owen]

Can you enlighten me on the translation of the word from the ancient Hebrew or ask someone you know who could. I understand that modern Hebrew is somewhat different from the ancient language sorta like modern Greek differs from its ancient counterpart.

Haha! Never thought of that but correct!

Modern Hebrew has two different words for Nation and/or Land.
BUT ancient Hebrew only has one word for People AND Nation = עם

So in Ancient Hebrew "peoples" is "nation" - which of course is central to all Jewish teaching. Thanks for that! I'll add that to my "Jacob Von Clausewitz" thesis!

[marct]

Hi Wilf,


Maybe. Nations are described in the "Bible". Egypt, Babylon etc. If it has a king or a ruler then it was a nation as such. Even the Mongols where a Nation!

"nations", in the sense of a "People" (in social science concepts, a Volk) are discussed, but you really don't find much that is similar to the modern nation-states. About the closest you get are the Five Empires (Egypt, Bablyon, the Hittites, the Mitanni, and the Minoans).


I find the whole Westphalia thing a complete "so what." True but irrelevant.

Hmmm, here I have to disagree with you, Wilf. The "so what?" is that the Treaty of Westphalia (and Osnabrück, everyone seems to forget that one ;)!), established a convention on who was allowed to play. Warfare was restricted to sovereign states by those treaties and everything else was considered to be an insurgency, rebellion or subversion. This was in marked contrast to the "negotiation period" from, say 1510 - 1647, where you had many groups raising troops which were considered by many to have quite legitimate grounds for doing so. As Bob's World would say, it's all about legitimacy, and Westphalia and Osnabrück established the criteria that the Big Boys would accept as "legitimate".

One crucial point in all of this is that warfare was taken away from the realm of religion and, by convention, placed into the hands of the "state". There were practical reasons for this since a lot of the fighting for the past couple of hundred years had been centered around "religious authority" for war (much the same as AQ does today). The other practical reason for this was that it gutted the secular power of the Roman Catholic Church, which was crucial for both the Hapsburg's and the Bourbons.

Cheers,

Marc

[William F. Owen]

The "so what?" is that the Treaty of Westphalia (and Osnabrück, everyone seems to forget that one ;)!), established a convention on who was allowed to play. Warfare was restricted to sovereign states by those treaties and everything else was considered to be an insurgency, rebellion or subversion.
...and this convention was useful how? My point is that it makes no practical difference to any understanding of war and warfare. Nations (Peoples) make war for political -and that includes religion- purpose. That has never changed.
Westphalia makes no impact on that in terms of understanding and practice. War is not about who is allowed to play. It's about who ends up playing. The problem is that you cannot regulate it.
Peoples making war for political aims worked 5,000 years ago (in the B*ble) and it will probably work 5,000 years from now as long as it is a primarily human activity.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,


...and this convention was useful how? My point is that it makes no practical difference to any understanding of war and warfare. Nations (Peoples) make war for political -and that includes religion- purpose. That has never changed.
Westphalia makes no impact on that in terms of understanding and practice. War is not about who is allowed to play. It's about who ends up playing. The problem is that you cannot regulate it.

Sure you can regulate it - just not always successfully :D.

Wilf, you are quite correct that "War", in the sense of actual combat operations, is not about who gets to play. However, and it is a big however (!), "War" in the sense of both operations and the choice to use violence as a means of coercing a political end is all about who gets to play.

Look at it this way: if you were thinking of leading a revolt and you knew that you were going to get support from some fairly major foreign players, then that increases the likelihood of you viewing a military option as being viable. If, on the other hand, you are told in no uncertain terms "sorry, you can't play", you are less likely to use it as an option.

Having said all that, it is also important to note that a fair number of non-State actors got to play in the area - the British East India Company comes to mind. But they only got to play on sufferance and, when they couldn't hack it, they lost their delegated status and were told to hit the showers.

Who gets to play is absolutely crucial because it also includes who gets to buy at wholesale prices, who can be labeled a "criminal" (or "terrorist") and who gets protection from various and sundry other conventional protections such as the Geneva Conventions. This is where a lot of the protocols of the post-Westphalian state system are breaking down right now and why, IMO, the "nation-state" is disappearing: "we" have changed the rules on who gets to play (that, as they say, is however for another post...).


Peoples making war for political aims worked 5,000 years ago (in the B*ble) and it will probably work 5,000 years from now as long as it is a primarily human activity.

Sure, and they will keep on doing so. I would never argue that that won't happen. However, I will argue that the series of interlocking legal fictions that constructed what we call a "nation-state" have been changed significantly and, again IMO, to the point where it is no longer a viable unit of analysis for warfare.

Cheers,

Marc

[William F. Owen]

However, I will argue that the series of interlocking legal fictions that constructed what we call a "nation-state" have been changed significantly and, again IMO, to the point where it is no longer a viable unit of analysis for warfare.
But that is nub of my argument. You cannot have war without nations or societies constructed as such. War requires a trinity of people, leadership and armed force. That may be a nation, against a nation or within a nation. The English War of Roses was a war between "great houses" but within a Kingdom - control of the Kingdom being the issue.
The great Sci-Fi theme of "Corporate Wars" can only occur once "Corporations become nations" - or societies constructed as such - and Corporations exist entirely within a legal construct defined by "nations".

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

Sorry 'bout the delay, but I had to go up to Carleton U for a colloquium.


But that is nub of my argument. You cannot have war without nations or societies constructed as such. War requires a trinity of people, leadership and armed force. That may be a nation, against a nation or within a nation. The English War of Roses was a war between "great houses" but within a Kingdom - control of the Kingdom being the issue.

Hmmm, personally, i would rephrase that as you can't have a war without some of the people involved acting in and as groups. Acting in and as a group is one of the central hallmarks of a "society", but I wouldn't restrict it to "nations" or "a people" (too many instances of a group - a "people" - splitting as a result of conflicts).

And as far as the Wars of the Roses are concerned, it was really a family squabble that was finally ended by someone who wasn't even a member of the family - sniff (yeah, I am a potential member of the Richard II society :D). I'm thinking about changing my sig line to "You can always trust a Percy... to stab you in the back!"


The great Sci-Fi theme of "Corporate Wars" can only occur once "Corporations become nations" - or societies constructed as such - and Corporations exist entirely within a legal construct defined by "nations".

"Corporation" just means "body" as in group. They have to take on certain characteristics that we normally associate with "nations", but that has happened in the past and, IMO, will happen again in the near future. As to whether or not they exist solely within a legal construct defined by nations, that is somewhat problematic: Rome had corporations in the 1st century bce, and it was not a nation in the post-Westphalian sense.

I think in a lot of ways, we are arguing past each other because of terminology, to whit: "nation" and "nation-state".

[Kiwigrunt]

The VOC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company) could be worth a look within the context of the last few posts.

[William F. Owen]

The VOC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company) could be worth a look within the context of the last few posts.
Wallah! - "established in 1602, when the States-General of the Netherlands granted it a 21-year monopoly to carry out colonial activities in Asia."

...so yes these guys were "Blackwater" and an instrument of state/national policy.

[marct]

...so yes these guys were "Blackwater" and an instrument of state/national policy.

In some cases. The English examples are quite interesting, too, since the early ones had little to do with "national policy" and everything to do with filling the Royal coffers without having to go to Parliament.

[William F. Owen]

...since the early ones had little to do with "national policy" and everything to do with filling the Royal coffers without having to go to Parliament.
Divine right of Kings? "England's fortune is my fortune?" That was a policy!

[marct]

Divine right of Kings? "England's fortune is my fortune?" That was a policy!

LOL - yup, and don't forget the little brouhaha that happened a century later over which philosophy to follow :D.