IN 1823, US President James Monroe addressing the US Congress warned the European colonial powers not to intervene in South America "in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent conditions which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonisation by any European power … We owe it, therefore, to candour and amicable relations existing between the United States and those powers to declare that we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety."
In 1904, President Teddy Roosevelt added a corollary to the Monroe Doctrine by stating that the US could intervene in any Latin American nation guilty of internal or external misconduct. Further on, in 1947, the Rio Pact forming the Organization of American States declared that an attack on any American nation would be considered as an attack on all. This was an attempt to reestablish the Monroe Doctrine through pan-Americanism to prevent the spread of communism in America. Lester Pearson and John Foster Dulles, unconvinced of the ability of the UN to contain Stalinism, forged Nato to safeguard "our cherished freedom," religious faith, and Western political and social system as a counter attraction to communism.
With these limitations put on national sovereignty, one is not reassured by Article 2 of the UN Charter that speaks of "sovereign equality" between the only superpower and the Mauritius, for example, and that all members will refrain from "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." It is true that the threats posed to peace and security in the 21st century have changed character, and would defy the principles laid down by Professor Michael Walzer in his book Just and Unjust War.
These days, the advocates of the doctrine of pre-emption would like to put emphasis, if at all, on Chapter VII of the UN Charter and the principles of the Gareth Evans-chaired International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty that were unanimously adopted by the 1985 UN Summit, assuring the mighty powers that national sovereignty is not illimitable. Though it would be difficult to take up a quarrel with the state's responsibility to prevent and protect its citizens from massive violation of human rights, genocide, famine or anarchy, the Third World is fearful of the developed countries taking advantage of this formula to effect regime change, as was done in Iraq.
Bush Jr's election as president brought with it immense power and influence for the likes of Robert Kagan, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, John Bolton Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Douglas Faith, and many other conservatives who reportedly believe in the absolute and illimitable sovereignty for the US and in the subordination of international laws to the US domestic laws. Joshua Marshall has written that rarely in American history had such a cohesive and distinct group managed to exert so decisive an influence on such a crucial issue as the neo-cons did on Iraq.
Eventually, history will analyse the reasons for the re-election of President Bush, whose popularity now is at the lowest ebb and matches that of President Truman when he left office in 1952. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman believes that inequality on average rises, particularly the top 1% under Republicans and in the bottom 80% income distribution is either stable or falling under Democrats. Krugman would like the bottom 80% of the population to get a bigger portion of the total pie through somewhat progressive taxation, as the Canadians have done, and through deliberate compression of wage differential in accordance with societal demand.
Intricate jugglery will be needed, particularly in the developing countries, to bring about some sort of egalitarianism while maintaining liberal and participatory democracy. A study by Oxford Research Group in June 2006 revealed that security discourse after 9/11, betting on "hard power" to defeat the Taliban and other terrorists, ignored future determinants of global insecurity caused by climate change, competition over resources, marginalisation of the greater part of mankind, and global militarisation.Robert Kaganite neo-cons advocate re-writing of some of the rules and provisions of the UN Charter because of the fear of possible terrorist attacks killing millions of people at a stroke by using WMD and because they feel that the UN Charter outlawing the use of force except in self-defense or used through a multi-lateral institution was written in the context of classic inter-state conflicts waged by standing armies of identifiable soldiers. Added has been the element of Islamic extremism. Historian Bernard Lewis finds several forms of Islamic extremism current at present; the Al-Qaida, the fundamentalism of the Saudi establishment, and institutional revolution of the Iranian ruling hierarchy.
Some analysts have termed sweeping accusations against Saudi Arabia as facile because Islamic revivalism has been caused by the failure of secular nationalism in achieving economic self-sufficiency, widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and almost overwhelming political and cultural hegemony of the West which often has conflicted with Islamic "purists." Many among moderate Islamists find the modern bias towards the West and dependence on Western models of development to be politically inadequate, socially corrosive, and undermining the identity and cultural fabric of Muslim societies.
The West, and more appropriately the United States, has courted the terrorism inflicted upon it despite warnings by the likes of Joseph Nye of Harvard "against the dangers of a foreign policy that combines unilateralism, arrogance and parochialism because, throughout history, coalitions of countries have arisen to balance dominant powers and the search for new state challengers is already underway." Advocacy of a pro-active policy to ensure international security naturally brings in the core debate on the limitation of state sovereignty.
The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) was generally taken as a historical reference point, which gave several attributes to European states which had been contested in the past. Westphalia ensured sovereign independence of states; each state being motivated in its international behaviour by a consistent national interest; and the inter-state system regulated by a balance of power among the principal powers. This was further cemented by the Peace of Utrecht (1712-1713) in which the European rulers understood each other as essentially self-determining actors, none of whom was entitled to dictate to others.
The current global construct adorned with nuclear supremacy, ignoring the rules governing inter-country relations that generally were followed in the past, and preaching that sovereignty be based on the conduct of countries, both with their citizens and with the international community (because globalisation has made all countries interdependent), has brought its woes of financial meltdown to the doorsteps of all.
During the Asian crisis, Mahathir's refusal to accept the IMF prescription saved Malaysia from economic difficulties. This time around, the developing countries would do well to remain vigilant, lest their territorial and economic sovereignty (including natural resources) are threatened by the rich and the powerful, and also follow conservative yet ethically just economic policies to prevent the teeming millions from falling into the black hole of poverty.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.