Another book review at ACX, of The Internationalists:How a Radical Plan to Outlaw War Remade the World by Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro (2017)
As the reviewer confirms pretty quickly, most of us were taught to regard WWI and WWII as deeply related, even to the point of seeing the latter as a continuation of the former. GK Chesterton predicted that the war was not over and would have to be refought, and even noted a major reason why any response to Germany's rise would be delayed: the accusations of German atrocities in Belgium were later dismissed as mere propaganda, even though they were later verified. There was an attitude of not believing anyone, of being above all that and too wise to be taken in. It was a Lost Generation in several ways.
But Hathaway and Shapiro see a sharp break in 1928 with the Kellogg-Briand Peace Pact. Though this is today regarded as starry-eyed and entirely ineffective, they see it having driven a great change in international attitudes that continues to the present day. I won't comment whether that seems accurate to me or not, as I am not one who is fascinated by WWII history, though I have a few friends who are. The reviewer knows far more than I. Yet I will note that there was a great change in the understanding of internationalism in the 20th C, and it seems to track with this timing pretty well. Call it moving the Overton Window if you will, but how virtually everyone views war is different now. In the leadup to the Iraq War in 2003, a student at St Anselm's - a Catholic college, I will note - described to me how a professor was alerting the class that the Bush administration was trying to position its plans as fulfilling Just War criteria, which it obviously wasn't as they did not have the blessing and permission of the United Nations. I don't recall the permission of the UN being part of Medieval Catholic doctrine myself. Yet the view was widespread even among Catholics that this lack of blessing was itself evidence that Just War criteria were not met. An amazing thing, really, and not something anyone would have said about the League of Nations or even of the UN itself over its first decades.
Many now regarded it as a controlling authority, and were distressed when even Obama stated he was going to make his own decisions about American involvement anywhere, thank you very much. And Barack was right about that. Though perhaps he overstated what was going to be entirely his own call. Yet even that, maybe not, as each successive president has grabbed more executive authority in military matters. Obama may just have been a bit ahead of his time on that. No one expects Congress to declare war anymore. It is another Overton Window move of what is even acceptable to talk about. I cross-reference it to my recent Euthanasia post. I think people do not quite notice how their views have moved over the decades in response to changes in the Spirit of the Age.
9 comments:
WWII showed that some people didn't get the memo, and a lot of "little" wars since then seem to show the pact more lip service than attention. But it does seem that there's been some change, and it may stem from the pact--though I suspect it is more because some influential superpowers cared than from any accepted moral authority.
And I wonder how many of those who admire the authority of the UN have had much to do with it? Laws, sausages, and UN resolutions ...
The Medieval Catholic tradition invokes the God-sent sovereign in the role they're ascribing to the UN. We have since replaced the "God-sent" sovereign with democratically-elected ones, some of which (like ours) are bigger than most Medieval empires. There's not in principle any reason you couldn't substitute the permission of another kind of sovereign. The only issue is that the international body isn't sovereign in any meaningful sense: but in their hearts, they kind of wish it were (on the way to Starfleet Command and the Federation, I suppose).
I will make and defend my point that Putin's SMO is a just war.
No takers. We know nothing and want to keep it that way. ;)
Yes, we're all deeply afraid of your cliches.
I know a great deal about what is going on. You know almost nothing and accuse me of cliches.
So be it.
What you don't want to hear is that America is responsible for the conflict in Ukraine.
It is behind the the absolutely egregious killing of the best of Ukrainian youth, in its attempt to fight Ukraine to the last Ukrainian. Something Russia is quite capable of.
Its slaughter now. You will of course not find this in your news feeds, as the point of starting this conflict and fighting Russia, is to somehow weaken it and failure is not something your deep state will talk about.
The flower of Ukrainian youth is the price your leaders are prepared to pay.
So be it.
What you don't want to hear is that you make up your mind first - that Russia or other communist governments are always right and the US always wrong, for example - and then you obsessively follow events to find data that supports that point of view and only that POV. We have watched it in action multiple times even right here. When people present contrary information, you do not discuss, you simply insult them, telling us we don't know as much as you.
It's just tedious. It isn't intimidating in the least. If you had any ability to discuss some of the things you bring up might be worthy. But there is simply no point.
I have challenged you many times: show evidence otherwise. You came close on covid and Canada vs US but left out some obvious pieces of data.
Post a Comment