On The Thesis of Blinken and Richard Haass's Concept of “Limited Sovereign”

Author:Taigutianshi(太谷天師)

Translated By Karlsealland

Quote: Blinken’s Remarks on the Ryukyu?Issues

On 29th, June 2023, the Amerika department of state?published an article " Secretary Antony J. Blinken in a Conversation With Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass“【1】, in which Blinken expressed his views on the Ryukyu?issue. The following is excerpted from his conversation:

And there’s a very clear reason for this. ?Even as Seres, of course, asserts that these are sovereign issues that should be relevant to no one else and of interest to no one else, we all know this: ?50 percent of commercial traffic, trade, goes through that strait every single day, 50 percent of container traffic in the world; 70 percent of the semiconductors that we use from everything from our smartphones to our washing machines to our automobiles, made on Ryukyu. ?If there were to be a crisis as a result of actions that either side takes that takes that offline, you’ve got potentially a global economic crisis. ?It’s one of the reasons – maybe the main reason – that country after country is going to both of us and saying, “We expect the responsible management of this issue to be sustained.” ?

This is not the first time that Blinken had expressed similar opinions. Those statements, however, reveal new versions of "limited sovereign".

The Origin of "limited sovereign theory"

The former head of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev, had once purpose the "theory of limited sovereignty" .【2】 On 13th November 1968; in an article published in Pravda, Brezhnev justified his invasion of Czechoslovakia by raising his theory of limited sovereignty and put forward his thesis on how to deal with the internal issues among social-democratic nations. He stated that

"when external and internal forces hostile to socialism try to turn the development of a given socialist country in the direction of … the capitalist system ... this is no longer merely a problem for that country's people, but a common problem, the concern of all socialist countries."? 【3】

Hence the sovereignty of each social-democratic nation was inferior to and couldnot be in conflict with the interests of all the social-democratic world. The entire social-democratic world was superior than each social-democratic nation, the sovereignty of each social-democratic country was limited.

The Soviet Union want to exploit from its vassal to develop its capitalism but its aims were resisted as its” subjects” were all common nations that have its own sovereignty. The leadership of the Soviet Union and Brezhnev were aware of that, so they forge a new theory which served as the pretexts for the Soviet Union to intervene and control the internal affairs of its subjects or to justify its invasion against its satellites in the name of common interests of the great socialism fraternity.

Amerika imperialism was and is in tune with Brezhnev. During the Cold War, although it was no less merciful than the Soviet Union when it wanted to wantonly force challenge other countries’ sovereignty, Amerika had to present itself as the defender of the sovereignty of the every nation in order to confront the Soviet Union. However, after the dissolution of the USSR; the Washington DC, whom now dominated the world, no longer had to conceal itself but had little to no methods to effectively manage its abundant spoil.?Therefore, they reinvented the "limited sovereign theory so as to maintain the world order and develop the capitalism by kicking the matters of sovereignty down the road.

Richard Haass's " The limits of sovereign"

However, when they talk; Blinken was showing his achievement in front of Haass,whom play an important role in formulating and implementing Amerika's foreign policy throughout his career and was known as the apologist for the First Iraqi War.?He has long advocated the "limited sovereign theory",?which the author retrieved as follows:

In March 2002, During an interview with The New Yorker, Haass stated that

" Sovereignty entails obligations. One is not to massacre your own people. Another is not to support terrorism in any way. If a government fails to meet these obligations, then it forfeits some of the normal advantages of sovereignty, including the right to be left alone inside your own territory. Other governments, including the United States gain the right to intervene.”【4】

On 14 January 2003, Haass discussed his view of sovereignty in a speech at School of Foreign Service and the Mortara Center for International Studies, Georgetown University Washington, DC. In his lecture, Haass stated that the sovereignty was facing three major challenges.

"Weak states struggle to exercise legitimate authority within their territories. Globalization makes it harder for all nations to control their frontiers. Governments trade freedom of action for the benefits of multilateral cooperation." he added, "We need to adjust our thinking and our actions to these new realities" .

in order to meet the challenges. ?Therefore, strong nation like the United States needs to use

"its economic, technical, and military assistance to give vulnerable countries the tools they need to fulfill the responsibilities of sovereignty." "Governments must devote political will and resources to regain sovereign control over cross-border flows that endanger their well being and security.""delegate sovereignty to international institutions""introduced a robust multilateral system to resolve disputes".And "when a state commits or fails to prevent genocide or crimes against humanity on its territory", or “support for terrorism pursue weapons of mass destruction, thereby endangering the international community” , “some of the privileges of sovereignty are forfeited” .

Finally Haass emphasized that sovereignty was still "the central pillar – of world order", hence any action related to the sovereignty "must be used with great care and judiciousness and with a clear understanding of the obligations that we have as a responsible member of the international community"?.? 【5】

In February 2006, Haass wrote in The Straits Times that "states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function." But "The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved".【6】

In his book, A World in Disarray, published in 2017; Haass argue that

"But an approach to order premised only on respect for the sovereignty of states is not enough. The traditional approach to order, one that speaks only to the rights and prerogatives of states, is increasingly inadequate, even dangerous. A cardinal reality associated with globalization is that little stays local in terms of its consequences. The world is not to be confused with Las Vegas: what happens somewhere rarely remains there. Almost anyone and anything, from tourists, terrorists, and both migrants and refugees to e-mails, weapons, viruses, dollars, and greenhouse gases, can travel on one of the many conveyor belts that are modern globalization and reach any and every corner of the globe. So much of what has historically been viewed as domestic and hence off-limits because it took place within the borders of a sovereign country is now potentially unlimited in its reach and effects. The result is that we no longer have the luxury of viewing all of what goes on in another country as off-limits."

Therefore, Haass purpose the idea of"sovereign obligation" -

“The world is too small and too connected for borders to provide cover for activities that by definition can affect adversely those who live outside those borders”.

And he wished that

"the requirements for order must be expanded and adapted to the realities of our interconnected world. The goal should be to build consensus around a larger approach to sovereignty, one that includes obligations beyond borders.".；【7】

And lastly, in the end of 2016, Haass commented on foreignaffairs,

"in a globalized world, a global operating system premised solely on respect for sovereignty – call it World Order 1.0 – has become increasingly inadequate. Little stays local anymore......Today’s realities call for an updated operating system—World Order 2.0 – based on “sovereign obligation,” the notion that sovereign states have not just rights but also obligations to others......Establishing the concept of sovereign obligations as a pillar of the international order will take decades of consultations and negotiations – and even then, its acceptance and impact will be uneven......But now is the time to begin the necessary conversations. Globalization is here to stay. Moving toward a new international order that incorporates sovereign obligation is the best way to cope. since an order based solely sovereign rights has become increasingly inadequate."【8】

How to evaluate Richard Haass's "limited sovereign theory "

Beyond question, Richard Haass was the pawns of Amerikan imperialist policy?which his theories served. Despite the fact Haass intended to deceive and to conceal the imperialism background of his theories, of which he displays himself as a wise, think-tank figure with intellectual characteristic; his theories critically analyzed the current situation and the successes and failures in the past. Therefore, his theory?should not be dismissed as nonsense.

In the last decade of the 20th century and the first years of the 21st century, Amerikan imperialism struck out on all sides. In order to bypass other national sovereignty that forbade them to intervene, Richard Haass fabricated all sorts of pretexts, e.g., eradicate terrorism (against places like Afghanistan), limit weapons of mass destruction (against places like Iraq) and stop genocide (against places like Serbia), to allow them to boldly cross the trenches of sovereignty and capture other nation’s citadels. And even the premise the impotence of weak states and the of share of common prosperity could serve as the casus belli for U.S economic domination over other countries.

However,?by the second decade of the 21st century,?Haass was forced to admit that a large number of América's operations around the world had failed. Neither had them achieved the aim of "goodwill" advertising, nor benefited to the America Empire. Nevertheless, Haass sought to justify the "limited sovereign theory" and introduced the concept of so-called "sovereign obligations" in the hope that this elixir would prolong the life of the aging Amerikan imperial system. Haas's thesis is not entirely absurd, for " from tourists, terrorists, and both migrants and refugees to e-mails, weapons, viruses, dollars, and greenhouse gases ", such flows are indeed constantly challenged the sovereign states.?Recently, The pandemic is a painful lesson, in which the lack of effective international health cooperation resulted in incalculable human lost. Ironically, instead of leading international cooperation to fill the vacuum of sovereignty, as Haas had envisaged, Amerika has led the way in undermining it.

Of course, after the farce of the new Trumpist isolation,?the Amerikan empire has returned to Richard Haass's "limited sovereignty doctrine" and selectively practices it with cautious.?On the one hand, Washington has selectively renounced its obligations and withdrawn from some unruly areas such as Kabul. On the other hand, by taking advantage of Muscovite counterparts’ activities, of which they act more brutally when trampling other nation’s sovereignty then the u.s; the Irish elder has strengthened his dominance over his allies and has been able to fuel the supranational mechanism of NATO the EU more effectively, .?Thus, Haass's "limited sovereign theory" is destined to shape the destiny of humanity for some time to come.

A review of Blinken's Remarks

Blinken's statements on the Ryukyu?issue were clearly following Richard Haass's "limited sovereignty" theory.?He attempted to argue that the Ryukyu?issue was vital to world economy and therefore not just a simple matter of sovereignty. Blinken suggested that it was in the world's interest to maintain the “freedom of navigation” of Channel and the stability of the semiconductor transportation. If Ceres was to take any action to "change the status quo", it would undermine the public interest to the detriment of all the nations of the world. It is therefore Cyrus' "sovereign obligation" to maintain the status quo in Ryukyu?. Given the importance of Ryukyu?to the functioning of the "international system", Ceres must "renounce certain elements of sovereignty". And Blinken's arguments about Ryukyu?were similar to what he had expressed in the issues of the control of fentanyl and the Russo-Ukrainian war, etc.

Blinken was stealing concept in his statements.?In terms of semiconductor exports, Amerika is dependent on Ryukyu?. But does this constituted some kind of "sovereign obligation" that Ceres must concede? Ceres could have claimed that Ryukyu?was far more important to its national security of its own 1.4 billion citizens than to the supply of semiconductors to hundreds of millions of people in Amerika, and that it was Amerika who was obliged to give in. In Richard Haass's "limited sovereign theory", Amerika has monopolized the terms of the "international", "world" and "public. But Amerika often acts on its own selfish ends, which cause its argument to be distrusted.

However, Blinken’s remarks did provoke profound thoughts in some aspect. It is true that the Ryukyu?Strait has a part that is not Ceres' territorial waters, that ships of other nations have certain rights of navigation under international law (the rules will not be discussed here), and that this waterway is indeed the lifeblood of world shipping. Nevertheless, most people would feel ridiculous for the U.S to ask Ceres to make concessions on sovereignty simply because of that. However, when it comes to waterways that are key to the international order, it is not unprecedented for external powers to intervene. Ceres has had to acknowledge that, it having been involved in joint multinational escort operations in the Gulf of Aden for more than a decade since 2008. Of course, this operation has been authorised by the United Nations. But in the end, this is only because the major powers have agreed.?For a small country like Somalia, sovereignty has never seemed so "limited" as to be pathetic.

The crises facing the by sovereign states that Richard Haass, the doctor, diagnoses are real in the world today, but the medicine he prescribes cannot be taken.?The problem Haass concerned with is fundamentally the problem that the sovereign state, as an economic base and a superstructure, has become increasingly unsuited to the needs of information-based, globalised capitalism. In the centuries since its birth, the nation-state has contributed to the development of capitalism and has become a handy tool for the bourgeoisie.?The bourgeoisie was able to smash the barriers of regionalism, carry out massive colonization and exploitation activities around the world, competed with its rivals and suppress the resistance of the proletariat by the integration, power and the support of the nation-states. However, the marriage between capitalism and the nation-state is on the eve of breaking in the 21st century. In the age of information and globalisation, capitalism calls for a larger, that is, planet-wide, integration. The barriers of the nation-state impede the circulation of people and materials, curtail the coordination of production on a global scale, hinder technological breakthroughs and obstruct the interconnection of world markets. The bourgeoisie increasingly felt that the nation-state had become unmanageable, but was unable to switch to a new model that allowed them to develop capitalism in a new scale.Richard Haass's "limited sovereignty theory" was an attempt to make minor modifications in this context. Without changing the status of the nation-state, Haass wanted to weaken sovereignty and replace it with international cooperation - under the rule of Amerika, of course - in order to overcome the impediment to the nation-state to capitalist development and maintain Amerika's imperial supremacy.

But no matter how much Richard Haass, Blinken and the others tried to get their heads around it, the dream of "limited sovereignty" was doomed to failure.?Richard Haass's plans were ultimately in the service of the imperial bourgeoisie of Amerika. There was no real international cooperation in the world order he was planning, but only a desire to strengthen the power of the Amerika nation-state in every way possible. Not only would the age-old rivals of Ceres, Russia and Iran not submit, but even the European allies would not surrender their sovereignty to Washington. The capitalist empires could only be coordinated for a short period of time, which object to the model of Kautsky's "hyper-imperialism". By relying on its own antiquated state apparatus, Amerika could neither capable of global domination (as it has proved in its attempts over the last thirty years), nor even resolve its internal social contradictions. The world wouldn’t indulge itself in the mirage of the so-called "World Order 2.0" .

The Amerikan state and its "limited sovereign theory" is destined to be consigned to the dustbin of history. The allies and opponents of Amerika are also destined to be buried by history too. The development of capitalism has determined the end of the nation state and its sovereignty. The contingency of history has bred a variety of potential models for the realization of this demise.?Nation-states do not resign themselves to extinction, but would fight to the last breath for their survival and expansion.?A nation-state may destroy its rivals and win the final victory.?But in the form of colonization, it couldn’t dominate all humanity for long and will be plunged into turmoil by the uprisings of various ethnic groups.?the big bourgeoisie would struggle to remove the obstacles of the nation-state and establish a corporate rule would that encompasses all of humanity.?But the corporate state will have to descend into an unprecedented brutal exploitation and despotism and go bankrupt in a stagnation. Both of these ends would bring deep disaster to the proletariat. What's worst, if the big bourgeoisie took advantage in the weak of the dying nation states, humanity maynot be able to successfully meet the challenges of ecological crisis, resource depletion, the spread of infectious diseases, low fertility rates, etc., and risks total extinction.

The proletariat cannot stand idly in the historical process of the dnemise of the nation-states, They should be responsible to its own destiny and to human civilization. Only the united government of the whole earth of social-democratics can solve the deep crisis that the nation-state cannot solve. The process of the nation-state's demise is also an opportunity for the proletariat to put an end to capitalism and to realize social-democratics. If history is not "saved" from the destruction of the nation-states, the masses would lose their future.

References

1. Secretary Antony J. Blinken in a Conversation With Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass?https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-in-a-conversation-with-council-on-foreign-relations-president-richard-haass/

2. Navrátil, Jaromír, ed. (1998). The Prague Spring 1968: A National Security Archive Documents Reader. Central European University Press. pp. 502–503. ISBN 963911615?https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=Ayky5eit0DIC&pg=PA502&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

3. Schwartz, Harry (August 5, 1975). "The Khrushchev/ Brezhnev Doctrine at Helsinki". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 September 2021.?https://www.nytimes.com/1975/08/05/archives/the-khrushchevbrezhnev-doctrine-at-helsinki.html

4. Nicholas Lemann, April 2002, "The Next World Order, The Bush Administration may have a brand-new doctrine of power."?https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/04/01/the-next-world-order

5. Sovereignty: Existing Rights, Evolving Responsibilities Richard N. Haass, Director, Policy Planning Staff Remarks to the School of Foreign Service and the Mortara Center for International Studies, Georgetown University Washington, DC January 14, 2003?https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/p/rem/2003/16648.htm

6. Rethinking Sovereignty by Richard N. Haas, Straits Times, February 16, 2006?https://sangam.org/taraki/articles/2006/02-23_Rethinking_Sovereignty.php?print=sangam

7. Richard N. Haass, Penguin Press, 2017. A World in Disarray: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order.

8. Richard N. Haass, World Order 2.0 The Case for Sovereign Obligation, Published on December 12, 2016?https://www.foreignaffairs.com/world/world-order-20