So who appointed President Obama World Sheriff*? We did.
• • •
If you take every form of modern mechanical armaments and all types of explosives
away from strong nations, they will fight with fists, stones, and clubs as long as they
cling to their delusions of the divine right of national sovereignty.
—The Urantia Papers
Long before we detonated Little Boy and Fat Man on Japan, The United States of America had willingly volunteered for the leadership role of responsibility for preserving what passes for peace in the world. There are numerous examples of our beneficent volunteerism, often manifested as unilateral (and unwelcome) enforcement of American "values" visited upon other so-called "sovereign" nations, although some were not only welcomed, but were essential to returning the planet to some relative level of peace and prosperity.
Although you've probably tucked it into some little-used box in your memory bank, the execution of Osama bin Laden was one of our more recent welcomed unilateral acts. And it will forever be associated with the current new World Sheriff, Barack Obama.
The French political scientist, Prof. Mattei Dogan, proposed the notion that "traditional authority" has disappeared in the Middle East, with rule-proving exceptions being Islamic Iran, and Saudi Arabia. In was Dogan’s opinion that "rational–legal authority" in the contemporary world has so evolved that its permutations no longer allow it to be limited as a type of legitimate authority. Hold that thought.
In a world where nearly all nations are infected with the virus of national sovereignty, the ethics of executing an "international" murderer like, say, Usama Bin Laden, by the new World Sheriff— sans a trial outside the court of public opinion— appears to be on solid traditional and ethical ground. An act of war was committed against our sovereign nation, and we— under the auspices of our "commander in chief"— acted as a sovereign nation to not only exact ultimate justice on those who attacked us, but also set about protecting ourselves from further aggression; no matter how long it takes and how much it costs us.
Big surprise, there's a few other interpretations of our "rational-legal authority." For instance, Alan Grayson was catching flack recently for his arguments against any kind of U.S. intervention in Syria. He summed it up like this:
First, it’s not our responsibility.
Secondly, whatever we do won’t actually accomplish anything useful.
Third, it’s expensive.
And fourth, it’s dangerous.
Let’s clarify.
First, it’s not only our responsibility, it’s every nation’s responsibility.
Secondly, if we do something on our own, we may not accomplish anything useful, but it's a safe bet we will create even more global animosity towards the U.S.
Third, absolutely yes, bloody expensive.
Fourth, dangerous, and foolish, and criminal.
Here is Grayson’s DontAttackSyria.com petition:
“The Administration is considering intervening in the Syrian civil war. We oppose this. There’s no vital national security involved. We are not the world’s policeman, nor its judge and jury. Our own needs in America are great, and they come first. The death of civilians is always regrettable, and civil war is regrettable, but no Americans have been attacked, and no American allies have been attacked. The British Parliament understandably has voted not to join in any attack. Notably, defense contractor Raytheon’s stock is up 20% in the last 60 days. It seems that nobody wants US intervention in Syria, except the military-industrial complex. I oppose US military intervention in Syria. Join me.”
Ban-Ki-moon, United Nations Secretary-General, had this to say:
“The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and/or when the Security Council approves such action. That is the firm principle of the United Nations.”
Grayson, and others, are right: we “are not the world’s policeman.” But our membership in the United Nations means we are a cosignatory to a document intended to ensure world law and order, and there are
rules, man. . .
So if we act unilaterally, or outside of our obligations to the member nations, how are we different than a rogue nation, committing another war crime? Wait... Is that a U.S. drone I hear overhead?
Isn't it time we start demonstrating we can walk the walk of a nation dedicated to world peace? Yes it is. And that means acting in consort with the decisions of the United Nations, and then helping to see that its legal mandates are carried out. And that also means that ALL nations must share the burdens of global authority, by contributing boots (with people in them), equipment, and money.
It’s also time we abandoned the twin sophistries of national sovereignty and self-determination.
All the nations of the world will finally begin to enjoy real peace when they freely surrender their respective illusory sovereignties into the hands of a truly global government. In that world state the small nations will be as powerful as the great, just as a small state like Rhode Island has its two senators, just the same as a populous state like New York, or a populous and huge state like California.
So. Dogan’s "rational–legal authority" has so evolved that "...its permutations no longer allow it to be limited as a type of legitimate authority." That's true, I think, because there are really only two levels of relative sovereignty in the world: the spiritual free will of the individual human being, and the collective sovereignty of mankind as a whole. All other associations between the level of the individual and the level of the total of mankind are relative, and of value only in so far as they enhance the welfare, well-being, and progress of the individual, and the planetary grand total— man and mankind.
As the number of truly powerful sovereign nations continues to decrease, both the opportunity and the need for a global government has increased. And when there are only a few really sovereign powers left in the world— a few powerful actors playing the role of world sheriff— they will either embark on a life and death struggle for national supremacy, whatever that is— or, by voluntary surrender of certain prerogatives of sovereignty— they will come to create the essential nucleus of super-national power; which will eventually serve as the beginning of the real sovereignty of the brotherhood of all mankind.
* Original image (Heh.)
A different version of this article was published on UrantianSojourn.com