From: "John Foster" <borealis-AT-mercuryspeed.com>
Subject: Re: oh yeah - yankees 
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:20:35 -0800



> John,
> Do you know of any nation state that is "concerned about any other
> nation but
> itself"?

Yes. We have many examples. We Canadians have imposed economic and political
sanctions against Pakistan, and South Africa. I think the concern has been
legitimate. In the case of South Africa, Canada, through Federal initiatives
has restricted trade with South Africa because of Apartheid in the past.
Recently Canada has conferred 'honorary citizenship' to Nelson Mandela. What
Canada  was entitled to do was to restrict investment in countries which it
believed were 'unjust'. Those restrictions are now lifted. In the case of
Pakistan, Canada has imposed economic sanctions against in view of the fact
that Pakistan has not cooperated in several key areas regarding nuclear
proliferation and in it's relations with India which also has nuclear
capability.

Recently I learned that Canada is signatory to at least 800 International
agreements. Many of these agreements are legally binding, and include
provisions, retained as law, with the World Trade Organization. Canada has,
for instance, a Free Trade Agreement with Chile. This agreement provides for
basic labour and environmental standards to ensure that Canadian based
companies comply with relevant legislation that is compatible with both
national goals.

The one issue of course that is most pressing is nuclear proliferation, and
the persistant threat that nuclear war would have for all life. In my
opinion where there is a pressing interest regarding life itself, then there
is an 'overlapping' sense of interdependent national interests. There should
be some collective interest on the part of good government for a recognition
that nuclear war is and will be inevitable in the future if national
interests take precedence within the confines of 'self-interest' as outlined
within the context of the questions you pose regarding statehood and nation
building.

Is there anything wrong with national self-interests? Yes in part because
law and morality are different.

There was something wrong with Apartheid because other nations had taken an
interest in the human suffering that this form of political relations,
hierarchy, supported. There has and is an 'overlapping' consensus that the
issue of human suffering should take precedence to the short term economic
interests of trading nations like Canada. The motto of the Canadian is
'peace', 'order' and 'good goverment'. The motto of the US is 'life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness'. These mottos are essentially different in one
important aspect. The Canadian motto is grounded in law, and the consensus
of Canadians is general in regard to this motto; it has been upheld for over
125 years. The motto of the US is grounded in individualism, and is unlike
the Canadian motto in that these previleges take precedence to good
government, order and peace. The difficulty of course is that if previleges
are not guaranteed in law, they can be abrogated, infringed and suspended.
Let me give you an example, during the period beginning in the early 60's
and ending in the early 70's the US government imposed a draft to recruit
soldiers to fight a war in Indochina. That war claimed may thousands of
innocent lifes, taxed the American people, and ruined many good American
men's futures. Now the interesting thing is that if the motto of the US had
been upheld in law, then the power of the draft would have been unlawful.
One qualifying reason is that under the equality provision of the American
constitution every citizen should have the right to 'life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.'

In Canada conscription (compulsory service) was imposed at the end of world
war 1 in 1917. The legislation was bitterly opposed by all Francophone MP's
(members of parliment). It was judged to be a failure since it nearly caused
the province of Quebec to seperate from Canada. At the end of world war 2,
conscription was imposed but this legislation also was specially divisive in
the nation.

According to historian, J. L. Granatstein, "as a military measure
conscription was a failure;  as a political measure it had largely been
responsible for the re-election of the Borden government, but it left the
Conservative Party with a heavy liability in Quebec and in the agricultural
west." The former government had 'lifted the farmers exemption' to
compulsory service.

This example indicates that within nations are other nations with unique
cultural values that are impossible to change. The geographic context in
Canada is as important as is the geographical context which precipitated the
American Civil War which resulted in the final abolition of slavery in the
US.

The issue of exemptions to compulsory service and to the draft is
'existentially' interesting since if all citizens, indeed, all persons are
created equal, given 'equal treatment of equal cases', 'existence preceeds
essence', and other existentialist notions, then why would there be any need
for exemptions to 'compulsory service' and the 'draft'. In the case of the
US where the draft was not universally applied certain exemptions were
granted to persons who were enrolled in universities. Many of the
universities in the US are private institutions that admit only persons who
have met certain qualifications, and have enough finances to pay the very
high tuitions. This means that in the US when the draft was active that
certain individuals, whose circumstances were beneficially (in terms of self
interest) different than others, could enroll in a University and escape the
draft. The one important social feature here recognized is that the
university enrollment rates for African-Americans, Amerindians, and other
visible minorities, was disporportinately lower than it was for
non-minorities, especially wealthy white males.

If for instance, a recent immigrant to the US had a son, and that son was
not able to perform well to get good grades because he was required to
assist the family business, and also to drop out of high school after grade
ten, then this person would be more likely to be drafted than a similar aged
male whose parents had accumulated enough wealth and education to assist
their son in obtaining good grades, and supplying tuition fees. In many
cases it was also possible for 'concerned' parents to find other ways for
their male children to avoid the draft to fight in Vietnam. One relatively
easy way to prevent the son from fighting an 'unjust war' was to simply
immigrate to Canada. Only those Americans with considerable wealth and work
skills would be 'previleged' to enter Canada as landed immigrants. Many
Americans took advantage of this opportunity to prevent their own direct
involvement in the Vietnam war. Another option was for potential and drafted
(but not yet enlisted US citizens) men to enter Canada and obtain landed
immigrant status or citizenship. At least 70,000 US men are still living in
Canada because they opposed any involvement in the Vietnam war, which was
the greatest ecological and man made disaster in the history of human
civilization.

In Canada the use of compulsory service was short and ineffective, but worse
than that it provided an example how the 'spirit of the nation' could be
broken. Each nation is required to uphold basic dignities such as freedom of
conscience, right to life, etc. In the example of the US, the use of the
draft resulted in a social revolution regarding the legitimization of
authentic dissent against an unjust establishment and hierarchy, and in
Canada the use of conscription provided a 'grounds' for the potential
dissolution of the state of Canada.

Self interest? Is it in the interest of any nation to fail to address
'unjust law' when the nation is itself committed to the rule of law based on
equal treatment, and individual liberties. It is clear that if compulsory
service in a regional scale war,  involving the deaths of thousands of
civilians and soldiers, the destruction of ecosystems in short order, is
warranted, then should it not be provident to rely on voluntary service
based not 'national' self interests per se, but rather on the self-less
service inspired by a devoted love of the just laws which support an active
democracy. The US still has capital punishment as a penalty for murder' and
a recent Senate subcommittee has reported that up 40 % of men and women were
'wrongfully sentenced' to electrocution, gasing, and injection over the last
three or so decades. The most common cause of these errors were 'incompetent
lawyers', 'mistrial', and 'sentences not fitting the crime'. In one state
alone, Texas, there were well over 400 executions over the study period.
That statistic translates into roughly about 160 citizens who were
wrongfully executed. It is also interesting that the US is the only country
in the western democracies which still has capital punishment on the books,
but this is not the case for all the sates in the union. Canada abolished
the death penalty primarily because of the possiblity of errors resulting in
the wrongful sentencing of innocent persons to death. While the US motto
reqards, as it's rule of nationhood, the right to life, there is no
universal evidence of this protection having been upheld.  Many thousands of
US men died in the Vietnam War, and many more were affected by chemical
defoliants which impacted their health, and up to 250,000 Veterans are now
homeless.

cheers

john foster



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---