Sovereignty or Slavery

Sovereignty

By Peter Fredson

December 29, 2005

When I become confused by lies I often turn to my Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary that has been my companion since 1950. Today I read some articles published since 2004 about Iraqi Sovereignty put out by the Neocoms of the Bush Administration and the more I read the more I was confused.

The meaning to the Bush thugs of Sovereignty is similar to the meanings of Liberty, Democracy, Freedom, and Constitution. That is, those words mean whatever George, Dick, Condi, Karl and Donald want them to mean, nothing less. They fit no dictionary or encyclopedia or thesaurus meanings or definitions. They are elastic beyond ordinary comprehension, and evidently pertain to the realm of religion or to political propaganda.

My Webster’s says that sov’er-eign spelling is due to a supposed connection with reign. 1. Chief or highest; supreme, 2. Supreme in power; superior in position to all others; specif., princely, royal. 3. Independent of, and unlimited by, any other; possessing, or entitled to, original and independent authority or jurisdiction; as, a sovereign state. 4. Efficacious, effectual, as a remedy. Supreme political power or authority.

To me this means that if in any country (say Iraq, or Country A), there are troops of another country, (Say the U.S. or Country B) controlling all avenues, bearing heavy weapons, pointing weapons ceaselessly at all occupants of Country A, (forcing occupants to kneel, lie down, humiliate themselves in many ways) riding huge tanks, flying deadly helicopters and gunships, using very high explosives, knocking down houses, killing civilians without care, then Country B would be said to be supreme or sovereign, and Country A would be subservient, slavish, colonialist or would fit some other powerless designation.

In fact, if there is even one soldier of another country in Country B who
has the power to kill, menace, or destroy without recourse by Country B, then any sovereignty is dead, moot, or sham.

If Country A seizes the oil resources of Country B, and gives the oil to a friend of the royal executive of Country A, then there is no question of where sovereignty is located. It is NOT in Country B.

If Country A seizes all the military bases of Country B and builds its own permanent installations there, without a ‘by-you-leave” then Country B is NOT sovereign. If Country A seizes property of Country B to build a billion-dollar embassy from which everyone knows it intends to dominate the entire region, then any discussion of who has sovereignty must cease as mere nonsense.

If Country A forces Country B, under continuing violent duress, to cede its resources to “advisors” who will convert the property of Country B into their own bank accounts, then any discussion of who has sovereignty must enter discussion of the nature of malevolent EVIL.

How many horrendous legalisms did Paul Bremer impose on Iraq? Does anyone know what his definition of sovereignty could possibly be? How many “advisors” does it take to rob a country blind? How many foreign
troops are too many. How many contractors does it take to destroy a country? How many people of Country B must the leader of Country A have to kill? As many as he wants. How many billions may be stolen before somebody says, “Stop it?” Can anyone in Country A say “Stop it?” Or, is everybody satisfied to bow down as the imperial leader passes by and pretend that nothing is happening? Does anyone in Country A notice that democracy is vanishing, that there are few civil rights left that the immortal leader does not claim to be his exclusive privilege to bestow?

If Country A forces Country B by various “legalisms” to immunize itself from any court in the world, then we have not sovereignty but a gang of thugs who have visions of great power, wealth and splendor, using troops illicitly, illegally, immorally and unethically to rob some nation of its wealth. This is not simple robbery but is nowadays considered statescraft and diplomacy, by preemption, based on imaginary intentions that supposedly frighten the cowardly warhawks of Country A.

There is the added dimension of supremacy by the divine will of the creator of the Universe, supposedly appointing as a kind of Messiah the leader of Country A, which entitles him to act in an imperial and majestic manner, above that of any ordinary human, to assume royal stances and gestures, parade about aircraft carriers, declare VICTORY by huge signs, and further declare that he will pursue some course which is sheer braggadocio.

The combination of religion, politics and cruise missiles is very persuasive. It lets the leader of Country A believe that he IS the law, can flout any man-made rules or constitutions, and rise above morals and ethics. This may be either a first step toward insanity, or further military action to reaffirm his greatness and courage.

It lets a petulant, irritable, superstitious egomaniac believe he is a new edition of Julius Caesar, and he can go on to kill, threaten, and destroy other nations until the public finally tires of his pretensions, strutting and smirking. It makes him a very dangerous person. And it makes for an entire nation of slavish sycophants, satisfied to be alive in an armed camp under the boot of a despot.

Ask some German who lived under Hitler what it felt like to be always awaiting the midnight knock on the door. Sometimes domestic terror by a domestic despot becomes more frightening than any outside force.