To the conservative right (which is to say, us “knuckle-dragging Neanderthals”), the nation-state is a Very Good Thing.

To the collectivist left (if you’ll pardon the tautology) it is an abomination from which in their imaginations they have long since moved on (“Forward!” their slogan commands) to International Collectivism under all-powerful, wealth-redistributing, environment-preserving, energy-rationing, contraceptive-distributing, abortion-enforcing, euthanasia-practicing, dissident-eliminating, (Obama-headed?) global governance.

Don’t say “world government”, even though it means the same as “global governance”.

John Bolton, who should be Secretary of State, explains (in a book review* to be found here):

Global governance, the next new thing in trendy international thought, has been typically portrayed as the nearly inevitable evolution upward from the primitive nation-state and its antiquated notions of constitutionalism and popular sovereignty. Not “world government,” wildly unpopular among knuckle-draggers in America, but a rebranded alternative, more nuanced and sophisticated, would creep in on little cat feet before the Neanderthals knew what was up.

American exceptionalism was on its way to the ash heap. Terms like shared and pooled sovereignty were bandied about like new types of cell phones rather than fundamental shifts in the relationship between citizens and state. Multilateral treaties on an astounding array of issues were in prospect — not just the usual subjects of international relations, but matters heretofore quintessentially decided by nation-states: gun control, abortion, the death penalty, among others. …

Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration was surely the high point of global governance’s advance. Here was a president who saw global warming as the threat it was, promising to stop the seas from rising. This self-proclaimed “citizen of the world” rejected U.S. unilateralism, took the United Nations seriously, and understood that European Union-style institutions were the real future. Not only would America have social democracy domestically, but it would join its like-minded confreres worldwide to celebrate global governance’s emerging transcendence. What could go wrong? …

The United States is the main threat to global governance, with its antiquated attachment to its Constitution rather than to multilateral human rights treaties and institutions. …

For Americans, sovereignty is not an abstract concept of international law and politics, nor was it ever rooted in an actual “sovereign” as head of state. … Americans see themselves as personally vested with sovereignty, an ineluctable attribute of citizenship, and they therefore react with appropriate concern when globalistas insist that “pooled” or “shared” sovereignty will actually benefit them. Since most Americans already believe they have too little control over government, the notion of giving up any authority to unfamiliar peoples and governments whose tangible interests likely bear little relation to our own is decidedly unappealing. …

In considering traditional foreign affairs issues, the laws of war, the ICC [International Criminal Court], and the isolation of Israel are all excellent examples of the globalist approach. They seek to exploit both international law and domestic U.S. law to limit, constrain, and intimidate the United States and its political and military leaders from robustly defending our national interests abroad.

One should begin … with skepticism for the very idea of international law ….

Nonetheless, there is no doubt that the proponents of “lawfare” have used this strategy successfully against Israel, and increasingly against the United States. By threatening U.S. officials with prosecution for alleged war crimes or human rights abuses, asserting jurisdiction over them when they travel abroad, for example, the globalistas seek to impose their version of international law over our own constitutional authorities. The American response should be that we recognize no higher earthly authority than the Constitution, which no valid treaty can supersede or diminish. And we certainly do not accept that “customary international law” which we do not voluntarily follow can bind us, especially today’s variety, formed not by actual custom but by leftist academics who hardly have our best interests at heart. …

He concludes with a warning that “the struggle to preserve our constitutional system of liberty and representative government is a great unfolding political war, and the outcome is far from certain.”

First, the political battle over the future of America, by which will be decided whether it will be a thriving capitalist nation or a stagnant socialist region, has to be won by us Neanderthals this coming November. (Likely.)

Then the United States should withdraw from the UN and send it packing from Turtle Bay – to the Antarctic, for instance.  (Unlikely.)

But the UN must be destroyed.

* Sovereignty or Submission:Will Americans Rule Themselves or Be Ruled by Others? by John Fonte, Encounter Books, New York, 2011

From IMED:

David Miliband has stated that the procurement of an arrest warrant for Tzipi Livni will not happen again.

This follows anger from pro-democracy, pro-Israeli groups and the Israeli government itself at this outrageous use of unjustified and perverted ‘legal weapon’.

This is not the first time that anti-Israeli campaigners have attempted to use such a tool:

•                October 2009: Former military chief Moshe Yaalon was forced to cancel a visit to the UK after being warned that he might face arrest.

•                October 2009: An attempt to obtain an arrest warrant for the Defence Minister Ehud Barak failed after the court ruled that he had diplomatic immunity

•                September 2005: An arrest warrant was issued for former IDF head General Doron Almog. He received warning before leaving an aircraft at Heathrow Airport, and was forced to fly straight back to Israel.

While we at IMED of course believe that there is no justification for such a warrant, and that to accuse Israeli leaders of war crimes is tainted with great hypocrisy and irrational hatred; we are more alarmed at the mob’s increasing acquisition of legal powers.

The state of Israel demonstrated great foresight when she declared that she would not be part of the International Criminal Court. Anti-Israeli groups and Governments immediately decried this decision as that of a guilty party. And so what an impeccable decision Israel made in view of recent events.

What fragments of sovereign statehood remains when an international court – answerable to no-one – has jurisdiction over all countries and peoples? And as Israel foresaw, abuse of such power is rife; what could be more important to the State of Israel than that of sovereignty? – it is the fundamental tenet on which she subsists; the guarantee that a Jew can be protected is promised by Israel’s existence. This unchallenged power, that of these deified international law courts, that allows the arrest and trials of persons anywhere, clashes with the very principles of liberty and democracy.

It is eerily reminiscent of the fall of the Roman Republic – a once proud democracy brought to its knees by the sham trials of its leaders – legal executions by the mob, egged on by cruel, ambitious dictators-to-be.

In what sane world can an individual be tried for a crime based on evidence provided by terrorist groups and circulated by the unwitting media? This is what has happened – Hamas weeps crocodile tears for one lost Palestinian child, while forcing another child at gunpoint to carry their weapons.

As Sam Westrop wrote in an earlier IMED post:

Mashaal may visit Britain without worry – despite his personal involvement with countless murders, including the barbaric slaughter of Holocaust survivors – while Barak faces the prospect of arrest.

Here is an excellent article on the subject in the Jerusalem Post:

The latest episode in which, to paraphrase Karl von Clausewitz, law is used as the continuation of war by other means…

Israel’s enemies still come away with a propaganda victory because reports that a high-ranking Israeli was accused of such heinous charges chip away at Israel’s legitimacy. Note that al-Jazeera on Monday headlined the Livni warrant story instead of immediately going live to Gaza for Hamas’s anniversary rally…

The British legal system adheres to “universal jurisdiction” in the matter of war crimes. A magistrates’ court need only be convinced to issue a warrant – based on claims by advocacy groups supporting the Palestinian Arab cause – for an Israeli official to be taken into custody for events that had nothing to do with Britain…

Some suggest Brown and Miliband have purposefully not fulfilled this promise to chastise Israel. Others say they simply lack the political capital to face down their own rabidly pro-Palestinian backbenchers and – just months before national elections – do not want to be dependent on the Tories to pass a law.

Whatever the explanation, this has not been Britain’s finest hour.

We also recommend this article by Joshua Rozenberg in Standpoint magazine:

There is an important safeguard against inappropriate use of the Geneva Conventions Act. English law says that criminal proceedings in respect of alleged offences occurring after August 2001 cannot be instituted without the Attorney General’s consent.

But that safeguard does not extend to arrest. Anyone may obtain a warrant from a magistrate without notice by producing information, substantiated on oath, that a named person is suspected of a serious offence. Broadly speaking, the police must then arrest the person concerned.

Brown and Miliband have both frantically contacted Livni and the Israeli Government, reassuring them that Israeli politicians and representatives are welcome in the UK, but unless the law is changed, Britain will let the law be perverted in the name of a supreme international authority that so cynically claims to uphold the law, while it discharges only injustice.