At any one time it is possible to identify throughout the world numerous theatres of war, genocide, oppression, massacre and destruction on a quite horrifying level. The cycle is endless and has long been so. It would be convenient and easy to merely write all this off as the inevitable product of human nature, of greed, of retribution, of bigotry, of power – as if in some way it were an immutable law of nature. Those who perpetrate such horrors would wish it so, as if to justify their actions and provide a veneer of legitimacy, often epitomised by the popular aphorisms like ‘might is right’ or, coincidentally in this anniversary year for both Charles Darwin as well as Tom Paine, ‘survival of the fittest.’

Such sayings have the superficial attraction of definitive and incontrovertible de facto statements. They mask however the deeper question of whether that is how behaviour and events ought to be determined; in other words, does it have to be like that or can we mortals make a difference? I believe we can, as did Tom Paine. There is a moral and intellectual dimension which appears to be unique to humankind and which itself has been subject to an evolutionary process. It may not be readily appreciated that the struggle to establish fundamental concepts of human rights has been a long and hard road, along which many battles have had to be re-fought and many battlegrounds have had to be revisited.

The particular precepts which have gained a steady albeit slow recognition, which have risen up to counter the forces of primeval thinking, derive considerable impetus from Paine’s irrepressible writings. They relate to the fundamental requirement for peaceful coexistence, an unqualified respect for life, liberty and diversity, and the centrality of justice and equality in any society. In the 21st century none of these propositions are particularly astounding and most have found their way into innumerable charters and conventions on human rights. But this overlooks the blood, sweat and tears expended over the course of nearly 400 years, certainly within the context of English history.

Setting out the principles is the easy bit; carrying them out is where it gets complicated. Paine’s enduring contribution to bills of rights and constitutional settlements in France and America is relatively well known. It is however, his extrapolations for the future of international relations which still carry considerable resonance and which provide the lesser known legacy.

Martin Luther King, imbued with the same sentiments as Paine, constantly reminded later generations that there can be ‘no peace without justice’. The problem is whose peace and what justice. Furthermore who carries it out? The potential corruption of subjectivity has to be drained out of these terms in order to distil firstly, the non-negotiable principles and secondly, the means of implementation. Both aspects have to be acted upon at a supra- national level, however laborious and treacherous the exercise.

Historically this has been manifest in inter-state Treaties, the League of Nations, the International Court of Justice at The Hague (ICJ), the Kellogg- Briand Pact, the United Nations, the Nuremberg-Tokyo and subsequent ad hoc war crimes tribunals, the European Convention on Human Rights, the Geneva conventions and latterly the International Criminal Court at The Hague (ICC). Whatever their shortcomings, the objective of all these instruments and mechanisms has been to control and manage inflammatory situations which would otherwise deteriorate into the law of the jungle.

Tom Paine repeatedly warned against the obvious and detrimental effect of war. In a pamphlet entitled Prospects on the Rubicon he wrote: ‘the calamities of war and the miseries it inflicts upon the human species, the thousands and tens of thousands of every age and sex who are rendered wretched by the event, surely there is something in the heart of man that calls upon him to think!’

The source of this calamity he considered to be the result of self – interested expansionist governments. In part two of the Rights of Man he described the war as: ‘the Faro table of governments, and nations the dupes of the games’. (Faro takes its name from a French card game which gambled on the order in which cards appear). Paine suggested this could be avoided by the construction of Republican democracies which would replace the excesses of despotism and oligarchy. In the 18th century this argument ran contrary to the thinking of Thomas Hobbes and others who regarded war as an unavoidable repercussion of the human condition – ‘nasty brutish and short’.

Paine’s vision of democratic republicanism involved a civil society, independent and free thinking, driven by the rewards of self-determination. It was but a small step from this to his belief that the most effective antidote to war was a combination or confederation of independent republican nations and their civil societies. Such a construct of united nations would be capable of regulating the pernicious urge to satisfy ambition by aggression. Although he was credited with coining the phrase the ‘United States of America’ he characterised his new global order as ‘cordial unison’.

It is all too common for the pessimists, the neo-realists, the cynics to deride such idealism. In its place the alternatives which they represent ultimately end in the bankruptcy of de-regulation, the spiral of deprivation and the excesses of retribution. An analogy in the economic arena is the current worldwide recession. If this were to be replicated on the international political stage there would be no end to the inhumanity exemplified by politicians like Pinochet, Mugabe and Bush. As it is, international judicial scrutiny has begun to take effect in the Balkans, Rwanda, Iraq, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Uganda, the Central African Republic and Cambodia.

Now more than ever, there is an urgency to maintain this pressure for regulation and accountability through the organs of international justice rather than the bombs of a B-52. The choices are stark and the need is overwhelming, just as it was for Tom Paine. Either we strive collectively and globally to preserve the fragile tapestry of our environment by peaceful resolution or we relegate our responsibility to the ravages of despots, whether thinly disguised as Democrats or boldly prancing Dictators.

I recently visited the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel. Amidst the desecration and destruction suffered by the Palestinians it was poignant to read the graffiti near the Ayda refugee camp, inscribed upon the Palestinian side of the illegal wall which carves its way right through the heart of the country: ‘Victory attained by violence is equal to defeat – for it is temporary.’

Tags: History, Liberty, Tom Paine

This entry was posted on Sunday, November 22nd, 2009 at 3:18 pm and is filed under British constitution, History, Legal issues, Liberty. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.