Walter Lippman, Syria, and the W/w In his 1944 book, U.S. War Aims, Walter Lippman wrote: "To invoke the general principle of self - determination, and to make it a supreme law of international life…[is]…to invite sheer anarchy. For the principle can be used to promote the dismemberment of practically every organized state." The American ideal, he wrote, was "a state within which diverse peoples find justice and liberty, under equal laws and become a commonwealth." Some analysts estimate that there are between 5,000 and 10,000 diverse groups claiming ‘nation’ status around the world so clearly there is some relevance to Lippman’s concerns. However, could not Lippman’s words also be viewed as a defense of tyranny, imperialism, and neo-colonialism? Obviously there is no clear moral imperative when it comes to self-determination. The question then becomes, at what point does separation as a nation become necessary and the crux of the matter is what Lippman calls “justice and liberty, under equal laws…”. In other words, Lippman’s position is fully in accord with W/w principles. Mere recognition of a people as being a separate entity is not, ipso facto, a justification for political separation. While the W/w platform adds certain economic, environmental, and cultural rights to Lippman’s list, the general intent is clear: what matters is the degree to which distinct people groups are able to flourish economically, participate politically, and also retain their cultural identity within the larger society. Given these criteria the burden of responsibility cuts both ways: diverse and separate peoples must be guaranteed these rights irrevocably by the society in which they live, AND diverse peoples must also be able to accept co-habitation with other peoples within a given political system so long as these rights are preserved. Let us look at this problem within the context of the current conflict in Syria. What we see is two major distinct people groups, the Sunnis and Alawites (Shias), cannot seem to peaceably co-habitate in the land of Syria. The Alawites are by population a minority in the country while the Sunnis are the majority. This poses a thorny dilemma because the incentives for ‘justice and liberty, and equal laws’ is reversed. In Syria, it is the minority Alawites, fearing perhaps what might happen if the majority Sunnis were to be given full political rights, that seeks to deny rights by means of military force. Although the specific contours of a peaceful resolution may seem obscure at times, the ultimate, bottom-line reality is that the Sunnis must be given their due share of rights, BUT they in turn must agree to live in a system that guarantees these rights to minority groups such as the Alawites. If this arrangement cannot be achieved then it is time to talk about self-determination and political separation. It is therefore incumbent on both sides to state, in no uncertain terms, that they are prepared to live together under a system guaranteeing each other’s rights and are willing to meet at some neutral place such as perhaps one of the smaller UAE states (Ras al-Khaimah, Ajman, Fujairah, Umm al-Quwain, etc.) to draft a constitution protecting these rights. Any party not supporting and participating in these talks should be considered an enemy of peace and be denied all political, economic, and military support.
Posted on: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 15:46:49 +0000