sovereignty-under-siege-–-a-global-chessboard-–-oped

Sovereignty Under Siege – A Global Chessboard – OpEd

Donald Trump’s rhetoric about ‘the 51st state’ is treated by many as political theatre – a ploy by the president-elect to, perhaps, destabilize the opposition. But his remarks allude to something much less innocuous – something a bit more unsettling. By now, all of us have heard the rather boisterous rhetoric of the former president. The headlines are ever present: From Foxnews, “Trump suggests Canada become 51st state after Trudeau said tariff would kill economy.” Politico reports, “Trump threatens to retake Panama Canal.” And from AP, “Trump again calls to buy Greenland after eyeing Canada and the Panama Canal.” Admittedly, audacious remarks from Trump are neither new nor are they taken too seriously in many quarters – just more political messaging by an incoming president with much to live up to. Yet, Donald Trump's bold talk about these states does mine something much deeper than mere rhetoric. And while his admonitions may not eventuate – that is beside the point. President-elect Trump is stirring the cauldron of world politics. Comments about tariffs as well as annexing, buying, and reclaiming sovereign territories have elicited both a caustic response as well as its own share of media humor. Beyond its entertainment value, Trump’s provocations (even if he is not aware of it), do point to a subtle and potentially more dangerous issue: Could nation-state sovereignty no longer be the inviolable precept we have believed in since the Peace of Westphalia in the 17th century? Although the concept of the “sovereign nation-state” has its origin in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia and the end of the Thirty Years’ War of Religion, the “inviolability of borders” is a relatively recent phenomenon. The idea of a “right to statehood” emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, embraced by two counterposing entities: the Bolsheviks of Russia and the liberal US President Woodrow Wilson. Both sought to dismantle empires – Russia’s for ideological reasons and the US to expand its own influence. The result was a proliferation of relatively weak, dependent states that (for all practical purposes) became tools of Moscow and Washington foreign policy. The sovereignty of these “neo-states” was little more than a bargaining chip – the latter essentially reliant on foreign support (militarily, economically and politically) for their existence. This dynamic has persisted beyond the Second World War into the neoliberal era of today. In fact, nearly every conflict until the mid-20th century ended with redrawn borders. So, here's the question: Are we not doing the same thing – today in Ukraine? Certainly, there have been previous examples of sovereignty being sacrificed for “peace”: the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia (1938), Serbia/Kosovo (1999) and others. In a world where power increasingly relies on military might, sovereignty has shifted from being a precept of international law to an issue of practical control. And the control comes from beyond the borders of the alleged sovereign state –often for the benefit of foreign power agendas. Ukraine's sovereignty is contested for reasons that have little to do with the country itself. Consider the turn of events in Ukraine. Since Moscow’s 2022 “Special Military Operation,” (i.e. invasion) that country has been unable to maintain control over about one-fifth (20%) of its sovereign territory. Moreover, its prospects for regaining it are diminishing daily. At the same time, those countries supporting Ukraine militarily and financially with billions of dollars are now urging Kiev to stop the war and consider ceding territory for peace. The borders of Ukraine are being redrawn and its sovereign territory redefined by powers external to the country. In this shifting global landscape, it seems that territory and external control are once again becoming central to international politics. Given this reality, the idea of sovereigty (and the US-led “rules-based order” which preserves it) must not become a casualty of flawed political initiatives. Trump’s comments about annexing Canada, taking back Panama and buying Greenland from a country that doesn't have the legal right to sell it highlight the subtle hypocrisy in the international community. Sovereignty, once treated as sacrosanct, increasingly seems to be giving ground to political agendas of assorted foreign policies East and West. Westphalian nation-state sovereignty is built on a key premise: The principle of non-interference asserts that no state should interfere in the internal affairs of another state. It upholds the idea that each state has the right to govern itself without external intervention. The entire Ukraine debacle is antithetical to this principle. The Western-engineered coup of 2014, the Russian invasion, the sabotage of the 2022 peace talks and the hundreds of thousands killed, speak to the critical lack of regard for the concept of sovereignty within the international community. Globalism and a dysfunctional EU (united only in name) are symptoms of this underlying malady – an assault on sovereignty. Today, Ukraine is sovereign in name only with the UK, US, EU and Russia (ultimately deciding) through territorial concessions and political control -- what its “sovereignty” will look like. In the 21st century sovereignty is under assault and American dominance is being challenged – we must never take America's sovereignty – and the freedom it secures for granted. Just ask the people of Ukraine, the Sudetenland and Serbia.