Dennis Perrin <dperrin at comcast.net> at least pays me the compliment
"one can say you are consistently pro-states rights, opposed to the concept of an international court."
And goes on
"You see things in realpolitick terms"
To which I say I would consider realism in international relations closer to a materialist approach, that idealism and commend EH Carr's writings to you.
Dennis adds
"very Kissinger of you -- indeed, quite reminiscent of the segregationist South's argument against the North's attempts to enforce integration"
To which I say Kissinger at least is transparent, whereas Wilson, Carter and Clinton are not.
As to the charge of supporting the South, I regret that I was not writing at the time of the Civil War so cannot check the record. But I see US states as essentially provinces of one nation, and the similarity between 'states rights' in that context and the right of states [ie nation states] to self determination as a verbal slip rather than serious.
"so you oppose the idea of war crimes trials in a world dominated by the US. If this is the case, then nothing humane can happen internationally until the USG falls, is overthrown, reverts to isolationism, or subscribes to James Heartfield's politics."
No, my objection is not to the US per se. Indeed subscribers to this list will know that I have a more sympathetic attitude to the USG than most. My objection is to a largely imaginary body of so-called international law, which is little more than victor's justice. Imperialist power politics in fact.
International treaties are not binding on future behaviour, as lawyer can tell you. Yugoslavia gave no commitment to submit its leaders to judgement at the Hague (and have only done so under threat). Argentina certainly never surrendered sovereignty to the UK courts.
Dennis writes:
"Till then, the likes of Kissinger, Milosevic, Saddam, Pinochet and Suharto should expect no international action to stem their aggression or punish their crimes since the US runs the joint, therefore any charge would be false and would merely serve Empire."
But this is characteristic of Dennis' mistake. He assumes that the only avenue of justice is action by the international community (a euphemism for the West, but leaving that aside). What he presumes cannot happen is popular justice in these countries themselves, which are dependent upon the benevolence of the West. Of course we know that such benevolence is entirely arbitrary and instrumental.
Furthermore, Dennis assumes that the overriding question facing Bosnians, say, is that of dealing with Milosevic, when today they are denied democratic control over their own communities by the OSCE, which is blocking their elected representatives from government. Coincidentally, the same power that denies democracy to Bosnians today demands action against war criminals of the past, the better to justify its rule in the here and now.
Dennis continues
"In such a sphere we see leftists defend war criminals as an act of anti-imperialism. How the Empire controls our every move and thought"
But since you insist upon forcing political questions into the strait-jacket of judicial process, you should allow the court to decide who is a war criminal without prejudging their sentence.
I on the other hand am not obliged to defend anyone since I do not accept the right of the court to sit in judgement.
And yes, indeed, Empire controls your every move and thought, but not mine.
DP -- James Heartfield The 'Death of the Subject' Explained is available at GBP11.00, plus GBP1.00 p&p from Publications, audacity.org, 8 College Close, Hackney, London, E9 6ER. Make cheques payable to 'Audacity Ltd'