Andre Gunder Frank

On-Line Essays and Other Archives

Table of Contents
Personal and Professional
Research Interests
Publications
ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age
On the New World Order
On-line Essays
IISH Archives
AGF on the Internet
Contact A.G. Frank
Gunder Frank Contributions to Public Discussions on list-servers

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 17:33:12 -0500
From: Patrick Manning
Reply-To: H-NET List for World History
To: H-WORLD@H-NET.MSU.EDU

Subject: on civilization

From: Andre Gunder Frank
University of Nebraska
franka@fiu.edu
**************************************************
Editor's note: this posting and another to follow were delayed in distribution to the list in the course of H-WORLD's recent shift in editors. They are now distributed with apologies to the author. PM
**************************************************

Adam McKeown writes:
"As to Ellison's point that the main problem is getting Islamic, Confucian societies, etc. to accept Western law, I disagree. Culture plays only a minor role. . ."

I disagree too -- the problem is getting Western ''societies,'' beginning with its main -- indeed routine -- violator the USA, to accept Western law.
Adam continues:
"Even the Chinese were treated as "uncivilized" and incompetent in legal matters, unable to enforce true justice. Thus, the need for extraterritoriality and Western control of the Customs Service--the overriding concerns of economic interests are clear here."

The implication is that the US is ''uncivilized'' because of its ''need'' for or at least insistence on extraterretoriality, eg when the US claimed that the International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction over the US - after the US was condemmned by the Court for having mined the commercial harbor in Nicaragua -- during the good ol' civilized days of Olli and the Contras. But then the US also opposed the International Criminal Court, which would also have NO jurisdiction over any American. But then there is NO law whatsoever in the world that the United States regards itself obliged to observe.
The US violates all manner of international law whenever the law does not suit it, and then wants to invoke it when it does. The same with the UN. Nobody in NATO asked the UN to go bomb Yugoslavia, but once the war was over, they all ran to the UN to provide a figleaf for their military occupation of Kosovo. [While the US led NATO was violating every Geneva convention in its war against Yugoslavia -- fought in the name of ''human rights'' to trample on them -- the US suddenly asked to invoke the Geneva convention in protection of its soldiers who had gotten ''lost'' on the wrong side of a border].
While the US/UK are bombing Afghanistan on their own, they are already talking about going to the UN to ask it to manage a post-war government in Afghanistan -- put in place of course by the US/UK.
Has ANYone heard ANYone raise ANY question about the legitimacy of US bombing Afghanistan? In all the hours of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, and from all the members of the US administration, the Senate, the House, the Pentagon, I have heard NO single voice who does not take it for granted, self-evident, and God given that the US government and state has every right to do as it pleases in the world, always of course backed up by its UK lap-dog under the ''guidance'' of Tony Blair. [Not even Congress woman Barbara Lee who cast the only negative vote in Congress against this war did so with a real appeal to international law and institutions].
What kind of ''civilization'' is being defended by abrogating the only civilized institutions and laws we have in the world designed to and at least moderately able to protect us and our civilization from ourselves in a society of laws instead of brutes? The civilized institutions and laws that we have - granted that they are insufficient, but for that to be strengthend, NOT abrogated whenever it suits the strong- is all that stands between us and Hobbes's ''law of the jungle'' war of all against all in which the weak [poor and starving people in Afghanistan?] are at the total mercy of the strong [what is the most powerful country in this sad world?].
If this is not destroying civilization to save it, then destroying villages in Vietnam to save them was not Orwellian war is peace double-speak either. What kind of [Western?] civilization is this that must be ''saved'' by destroying it - indeed denying and/or wantonly neglecting its existence - and the very institutions that would make us civilized -- if we were. But of course if we are not civilized enough to observe, acknowledge and live by the very norms and institutions that would make us civilized, then what ''civilization'' is there to protect and save?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
ANDRE GUNDER FRANK
Senior Fellow Residence World History Center
One Longfellow Place
Northeastern University
Apt. 3411
270 Holmes Hall Boston, MA 02114 USA Boston, MA 02115 USA
Tel: 617-948 2315
Tel: 617 - 373 4060
Fax: 617-948 2316
Web-page:csf.colorado.edu/agfrank/
e-mail:franka@fiu.edu


Table of Contents
Personal and Professional
Research Interests
Publications
ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age
On the New World Order
On-line Essays
IISH Archives
AGF on the Internet