The Post-Westphalian World: Reflections on Trump 2.0's Military Adventurism

The weak are meat, and the strong do eat

(Cloud Atlas)

The international rules based order sets normative expectations, deters transgressions, and manages conflicts. It does so via a host of treaties and institutions mostly introduced soon after WWII, from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to the UN and its many affiliated organisations and treaties (WTO, UNLCOS, ICJ, World Bank, NPT, etc) to private members' clubs like the G7, EU, OECD, and NATO. 

Like all institutional orders, it is maintained by and for the powerful actors in whose interests it was designed, especially the USA, the most powerful of all. This obvious fact is often willfully misinterpreted. 

First, an order instituted by the powerful to protect and advance their own interests need not come at the expense of the less powerful, when compared to a situation without any such order. To the contrary, by constraining all it is often of even more value to the weak - who have no other source of protection - than it is to the strong. Merely because an international order can be judged as lacking compared to some hypothetical ideal ('fairness') does not mean that any rational state would prefer a world without it. 

Eating The Rich Won’t Fix Climate Change

The world’s richest 1% have more purchasing power, and hence more command over what the economy produces than ordinary people. They can afford a more extravagant lifestyle - at the extreme including multiple yachts, mansions, and private jets. 

One may reasonably quibble with the way activists like Oxfam produce their numbers (e.g. in their enthusiasm to generate the most outrageously large numbers, they include the emissions of companies rich people hold shares in). But it is obviously true that the average 1 percenter has a far greater climate impact than the median person in a rich country, let alone the world. What a waste! What a crime against the planet! How can it be allowed to continue?

Oxfam, Guardian readers, an unfortunate number of my academic colleagues, and many others are confusing questions of fairness (whether huge economic inequality can be justified) with questions of harm (whether inequality speeds up climate change). Specifically, it can be true that

1. Per person, rich people do enormously more harm to the climate than ordinary people, and

2. It is unfair that the rich consume such a high share of the world’s economic output

Without it being true that

Redistributing rich people’s wealth would result in less harm to the climate

Incentivising War Crimes: The High Cost of International Humanitarianism

Wars have never been the concern only of their combatants. Other states pay close attention to the geo-political implications and opportunities created by armed conflict, and interfere directly or indirectly when their cynical calculations suggest that would advance their interests.  For example, various countries - the UAE, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Qatar - have been involving themselves in Sudan's ghastly civil war, apparently looking to pick up geopolitical advantages - especially access to Red Sea ports that would allow them to threaten international shipping via the Suez Canal, or to prevent other states from doing so. When extended to material support to favoured factions this increases the resources of the combatants, increasing the ambition of their respective war goals and so extending the war by reducing the scope for a mutually acceptable peace deal.

Such amoral realpolitik in international relations is as old as war itself, together with its unfortunate consequences for human lives. What is somewhat more recent is the rise of international moral concern for the lives of civilians threatened by war, expressed through the increased influence of civil society. At least since the Greeks' 1820's war of independence, states have also been interfering in other people's wars out of humanitarian concerns to reduce civilian suffering.

The problem is that although each individual humanitarian intervention may be sincerely morally motivated - and even sometimes succeed in its goal of reducing suffering - the practise of morally motivated interference would seem actually to increase the amount of civilian suffering due to war. It makes civil wars more likely to start and harder to end, while incentivising crimes against civilians.

Israel’s Crimes Get Too Much Attention

A great many people around the world believe that Israel’s government and military have committed and continue to commit crimes against humanity, the ethics of armed conflict, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide in Gaza since the attacks by Hamas in October 2023. Many also believe that Israel as a state was and remains founded on a colonialist principle of ethnic supremacy and the systematic practice of mass atrocity crimes. Many of these observers conclude, further, that they have a moral duty to respond to these crimes by criticising and directing attention to Israel’s behaviour, and also by calling for intervention by relevant political actors such as their own national governments, but also (international) civil society organisations such as Human Rights Watch, universities, business corporations, and internationally authorised actors like the International Court of Justice and the United Nations Security Council.

The charges against Israel can be and are disputed. I will leave the adjudication of claims about the relevant facts and their legal and ethical implications to others more expert in such matters. For the purposes of this analysis I need only note that many people sincerely believe that these charges are substantially correct. In that case – believing what they do - those criticising Israel and calling for interventions may appear to be responding correctly. Injustice on such a scale would deserve the world’s attention, condemnation, and at least consideration of appropriate external interventions. Nevertheless, the cumulative result of many apparently individually correct actions can be unjust, and this is the case here. This much criticism of Israel is too much - a grave moral failure - insofar as it comes at the cost of neglecting other injustices that also deserve the world’s attention.

My argument comes in two parts. First I will take up the (deontological) principle that mass atrocity crimes straightforwardly deserve the world’s attention and condemnation, and show that directing a disproportionate share of the world’s attention to Israel’s crimes is inconsistent with this principle. Second I will consider the case from an alternative consequentialist principle that the world’s attention should be directed towards cases where it can be most effective at deterring, ending, or ameliorating mass atrocity crimes. Here, again, I conclude that the share of attention directed towards Israel cannot be justified because it necessarily entails neglecting many other ongoing and arguably more ameliorable mass atrocity crimes.

Tiny Countries Should Not Exist

There is no good reason for tiny countries to exist, and we should stop making more of them.

The World Bank classifies 40 countries as 'small states' on the basis of having a population smaller than 1.5 million (though, oddly, this list excludes some rich tiny countries like Luxembourg and Estonia). Some are as small as 11,000 (Tuvalu), and the total population of all of them put together is only 20 million. Nevertheless, each of these countries has full 'sovereignty' - meaning that the organisations recognised as ruling over the populations within these territories have special and equal rights under international law: to exploit the resources that fall within their exclusive economic zone, for example, or to vote on matters of global importance at the United Nations, or to make up their own regulations about corporate taxation and secrecy.

This is absurd, but also far from harmless.

Stop Occupying My University!

Update: Now also on substack

A University Occupation in The Netherlands - via de Volkskrant

Universities in several countries in the Global North have been targeted by activist groups using occupations or the threat of them to coerce these institutions into publicly renouncing any cooperation with Israeli universities and Israel based academics. I am not interested in the politics of university occupations -  and especially not the US politics of them, which is all mixed up with the Republicans' (culture) war on universities. 

I want to focus on the ethics: why some students (and non-students) think they have a moral right - or even a duty - to disrupt universities to force them to do certain things. 

Israel Should Have Fought This War Very Differently, But Thousands Of Innocent Palestinian Civilians Were Always Going To Die

Source: Hotpot.ai 

Human psychology seems to drive us to pick a side in conflicts and then go all in. Hence a disappointing number of those observing the Israel-Hamas war even from a safe and comfortable distance argue not only that one side is in the right, but that it can do no wrong and that the other side is entirely evil. This tribalism also encourages the reduction of sides to 'us' and 'them', despite the fact that wars are always between political organisations, not peoples. 

Objectivity is the attempt to apply the same moral standards in the same way to all sides. In my view the recent ICC indictments of leaders of Hamas and the Israeli government reflect an attempt to do just this. It is obviously true that Hamas started this war, and that it deliberately committed many atrocities against civilians, but that fact doesn't make any and all actions by the Israeli military justified. 

Here I want to focus on a point that many passionate critics of the war seem to be missing. This is the mistaken belief that there was some way for this war not to result in the deaths of thousands of innocent Palestinian civilians. Once Hamas launched its initial attack, it was inevitable that Israel's government would use military means to try to prevent it from doing such things again. Since Hamas is deeply embedded in a heavily populated urban environment, mass civilian casualties were inevitable (and probably expected and intended by Hamas). 

Israel's Crimes Do Not Deserve This Much Attention

This post has been significantly updated and republished here

To Solve The Global Food Crisis We Must First Stop Fixating On Putin

There appears to be a moral panic going around that Putin is engineering a global famine to extort a more favourable outcome to his failed Ukraine invasion. 

This is a delusion with 2 pernicious consequences. First, it grants too much power to a warlord, and thus too much weight to his interests. Second, it distracts us from our own shared global responsibility to prevent food supply disruptions from causing a global tragedy.

No, Poor Countries Shouldn't Try To Make Their Own Covid Vaccines

Source: UNDP

One of the impressive features of humanity's response to Covid was the development of successful vaccines within only 10 months, and the production and distribution of 12 billion doses around the world. One of the worst features was the inequality in the distribution of those vaccine doses.

As of June 2022, only 18% of people in low income countries have received at least one dose compared to a global average of 66% and an average of 72% in high income countries (Our World in Data/UNDP). 

Obviously this contrast looks very unjust. Many people in rich countries have now received a full course of vaccination and multiple booster shots, even if they aren't particularly vulnerable. They also benefit from access to large well-resourced medical systems and thus high survival rates even if they are unlucky enough to be infected. Covid vaccines are clearly not being distributed to where they would do the most good.

One response to this injustice has been to argue that Low Income countries should be enabled to manufacture their own vaccines. Unfortunately, this is one of those ideas that sound nice but don't stand up well to systematic scrutiny (see previously: ideas vs arguments).

Just End Poverty Now: The Case for a Global Basic Income

According to the World Bank’s latest figures, around 800 million people live in utter destitution, on less than $3 per day.* That’s poorer than the average pet cat in the rich world. 

It is easy to agree that this is a terrible thing. It has so far been much harder – even for philosophers – to agree on what should be done about it. Peter Singer, for example, is concerned with identifying the moral obligations this creates for rich people. Thomas Pogge argues that rich world citizens should stop their governments from supporting less than ideally just global institutions. 

This intellectual debate is an unnecessary distraction. We already have all the moral agreement we need to act. Ending extreme poverty is not an intellectual problem but a practical one, and not even a particularly difficult one. We just need to find the people who are poor and give them enough money so that they aren’t poor anymore.