"What is Sauce for the Goose..."
Kosovo and the loss of sovereignty
In all the concerns over the resolution of the Kosovo problem, it perhaps has been overlooked that a serious proposal has been made that may be the precursor to a 'once for all' solution to the vexing problem of ethnic, religious and cultural desires for self-rule. While in Paris recently, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright proposed that nations be willing to give up 'sovereignty' in order to secure peace.
She said: "Great nations who understand the importance of sovereignty at various times cede various portions of it in order to achieve some better good for their country". "We are looking at how the nation-state functions in a totally different way than people did at the beginning of the century."
This is news indeed to the average American, who cannot imagine anyone working for his own government, indeed, his own State Department, who would advocate the surrender of United States sovereignty. Yet, ultimately that is the logical end of this proposal.
How do we get there from here? The ethnic Albanians and Serbs are being asked to yield their aspirations to political sovereignty, their right of self-determination, to those who are indifferent at best to their religious, ethnic or cultural mores; and at worst, to those who despise them.
This proposal is not in the interests of the people of either faction, although it does serve a much larger agenda. It is no secret that the 'sovereign-ness' of countries - especially the United States - has been a severe handicap to the efforts of the globalists to knit the governance of the whole planet together into one super-state, answerable to no one but itself.
Where does the idea of sovereignty spring
from ? Is it a philosophical expression of the desire to rule one's self? Or
the desire to not to be questioned for one's actions? Is sovereignty a bad
thing when practiced by nations? Certainly, there are many in leading positions
who blame the concept of sovereignty for the woes of the present world. They
regard the ethnic, religious or cultural wars as the striving of ignorant,
irrational people who put fables above the greater good of unity. But this
unity which they imagine is only a unity if it is without convictions. For
religion, ethnicity, and culture will have no serious place in the New World
Order except the place Religion occupied in the old Soviet Union: a mere
historical curiosity: not to be taken seriously.
But that is precisely what the fighting is all about: people insist on being taken seriously.
The idea of sovereignty is born in us. It is
the driving force behind much of what we collectively regard as 'fair' and
'unfair', and it is inextricably religious in nature. We are created beings,
with a bequeathment of rights from God, as described in the American Declaration
of Independence.
We are being tempted to embrace a violation of the same principle which the authors of the Declaration of Independence based their cause for taking up arms against Great Britain. When God bestowed on humans the right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' He also conveyed some aspects of sovereignty upon them. These 'inalienable' rights are those that cannot be taken away or given away because they inhere to each of us. Collective sovereignty derives from individual sovereignty, and ultimately is traceable back to God. No one can lightly be deprived of his rights without bringing the scrutiny and judgment of Almighty God to bear. Americans were justified in throwing off the yoke of Britain because it was violating rights that were more primary than the obligation to obey earthly powers. Truly, we 'ought to obey God, rather than men', when forced to make a choice.
Madam Albright is saying that the warring factions should surrender to the larger 'sovereignty', and thus secure the blessings of peace under the presumably benevolent hand of a higher government. Indeed, when the disposition of the people and a higher government are in agreement, the idea is quite acceptable and legitimate. The formation of the U.S. Federal government, based upon a union of sovereign states, is a perfect example. Note that the states remained 'sovereign' (at least until the Civil War), even though they were in a Federal Union. In general, however, it makes no sense to give up God-given rights by putting one's future into the hands of those who refuse to even accept the idea of a God other than themselves. That is not 'seeking peace', that is suicide.
In the final analysis, no matter how this
matter over Kosovo plays out, the idea has now been proposed in a serious way
in the international arena that a nation should give up sovereignty for the
greater good of peace. The pernicious thing about this idea is that it will
eventually be applied to the United States. After preaching the gospel of
surrender of national sovereignty to others, it will fall to a future United
States to follow suit. What is sauce for the Goose will surely become sauce for
the Gander.
John F. Schmidt
jfs2@greenepa.net
February 25, 1999