Constitutions and constitutions: What makes a state?

Author’s note: Please let me first apologize to my readers for disappearing for so long (for personal reasons). I am back now!

Disclaimer: I am not an expert on the Middle East (I’m much more familiar with East Asia and Russia). If you see anything incorrect, PLEASE CORRECT ME!!!!!!!!

Several weeks ago, Palestine became recognized by the United Nations as a state with “observer” status. On the face of it, I applaud this as a step in the right direction (I have always supported a two-state solution, for reasons I will explain below). The question is the impact it will have on Palestinian-Israeli relations. And I don’t just mean between their governments; I also mean between their peoples.

What’s the big deal about becoming a state?

To properly answer this question, let’s look at what a state actually is. Again, this is a HUGE topic. There are many theories and ideas behind what states are. We’ve touched a bit upon this before, but let’s delve into it a bit further. It will be an extremely simplified explanation, but it will be sufficient.

Think about the word “state”. Think of all the ways we use it. As examples: “state of being”, “to state something”, “in a state”. They all have slightly different connotations, but the thread that connects them is the fact that it has to do with two main ideas: circumstance and affirmation of existence. The second one is key.

We’ve gone into how states became important to international affairs (I refer you to the discussion we had on the treaty of Westphalia). We talked about autonomy, authority, and legitimacy as they apply to the state.

The state is equal parts external recognition and self-recognition. No one will externally recognize a state that does not recognize itself; in such cases the state doesn’t actually exist. A state creates itself through self-recognition and is sustained by external recognition. Because of this, self-recognition does not suffice in the modern state of international relations.

A quick illustration of this from the past: When the Confederate State of America (the South) emerged during the American Civil War, it gained little recognition from outsiders, but it certainly recognized itself as a state by means of secession. I am convinced that if there had been more external recognition, the United States today would be a very different place and, as a resident of the state of Florida, I would be living in the Confederate States (assuming, of course, that my family would have moved down here regardless). I do believe the South would have won. (For the record, I am glad they did not.)

So a state is essentially a self- and externally-recognized group of people, usually all living in the same geographic territory (note I said “usually”), with one or more common characteristics: same culture, same religion, same language, shared history, etc.

And of course, “recognition” refers to the conferring of autonomy and legitimacy. External recognition gives the state the right to participate in international affairs as an equal to all other states. (As a note, recognition of a state, as diplomatic jargon, means that one state sends diplomats and other officials to another state (the state being recognized) to establish relations. To withdraw one’s diplomatic officials means to withdraw recognition; this is precisely what the U.S. has done with Iran, for example, although much of the rest of the world still recognizes it.)

Now, for a people like the Palestinians seeking to have their own state, becoming recognized, even partially, is a huge step up. Now they have much more of a voice in the UN, incomplete though it is at this point. They can seek redress on an international level — as an equal. Having a state also provides a guarantee of cultural, historical, and intellectual security; it elevates the importance of both in the scheme of all cultures and knowledge and also gives the state resources to preserve all of them.

Now of course, there are many difficulties in giving recognition. Who determines who can be a state? How do you determine who deserves to become a state? What are the implications of granting statehood to a seceding group within another state? The answers to these questions are almost always different according to each case, but it is important to ponder.

Constituting a state

Once a state is recognized, it must have a record of how it will operate — lay the foundation for a government and legal system. Sound familiar? Yes, I’m referring to a constitution!

If you ever get the opportunity, there are some fascinating writings on constitutional theory. Constitutional Theory was the last advanced seminar I took in my undergraduate years (not too long ago!) It was a difficult course — the ideas were very abstract — but it was also one of the most fascinating courses I ever took. It delved into ideas such as how constitutions are the signal of self-birth (“self-recognition”, as I use it) and exploring the differences between the constitution and the reality that emerged from implementing that constitution.

The latter is something we in the U.S. are seeing a lot of debate about, even though no one seems to explicitly state it in those terms. Take the debate on the Second Amendment of the Constitution. (For those who do not know, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution is known as “the Bill of Rights”. These are essentially rules on what the U.S. government can and cannot do — mostly what they cannot do. The Bill of Rights can be found here, along with the other amendments.) Look at the text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

On the face of it, this amendment states that the U.S. government must allow the people to be able to own and possess arms (mainly guns, among other weapons). But I bold-faced the phrase “well regulated” for good reason. This is a phrase that I think is necessary but at the same time is also problematic. What does “well regulated” mean? What kinds of regulations should be in place?

This demonstrates the difficulty in implementing any constitution. On the one hand, a constitution must have some flexibility to account for changing times. On the other hand, this ambiguity also causes people to spend their time and energy debating about how it should be implemented. This is what I am referring to when I talk about the difference between the world created by a constitution and the reality that has stemmed from it.

A Tale of Two States: Palestine and Israel

I am not going to pretend that I understand the intricacies of Middle Eastern politics, because I don’t. I am at least somewhat familiar with many of the involved parties and many current events, but the motivations — the inner politics — are not always clear to me. Much of it is culturally and/or religious in nature, I suspect. I’m working on learning more about the current systems so I can understand and properly discuss topics related to the Middle East.

But one thing I do have a solidly-grounded opinion on is a two-state solution. I am glad that Palestine has been at the very least partially recognized. It evens the playing field at the negotiating tables. I admit that a small part of me did worry that the recognition would give Palestine an incentive to not negotiate, but I see that is far from the case. There are many reasons for Palestine and Israel to negotiate; in fact, there are too many reasons for them not to.

I am also interested to see how it will change relations between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Most of what I have heard of late relates to the settlement issues. For anyone unfamiliar, a huge bone of contention between both peoples/governments is the building of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. The problem is that this fight goes back in history. The area upon which Israel/Palestine is located has a history of peoples forcing each other off. Jews settled the land once — who knows what people lived there before them — only to be forced off by others. Now the Jews — I specify “Jews” and not “Israelis” because not all Israelis are Jews — have come to reclaim it; the state of Israel was established, much to the chagrin of those who were living there — mostly Muslims. Understandably so, as it changed the dynamic of their way of life.

I’ve heard the argument that the land once belonged to the Jews, so it is Jewish land. But you know, I do not feel that justifies forcing people out of their homes. Not even remotely. (Let me be clear: I believe there should be a state of Israel — I have been there and it is a beautiful country, filled with good people — but I am not a fan of the current Israeli government.)

Before Palestine was recognized, I imagine it was much harder for the Palestinians to have their voices truly heard by the international community. Becoming a state and being recognized makes all the difference; now they do not have to fight over Israel to be heard.

But let us not forget that Israel has its own difficulties, despite being a recognized state; I cannot pretend that it has nothing to do with religion. One issue that comes to mind for me is that many U.S. presidents have either put off visiting in an official capacity or avoided it altogether. Bush did not visit until his 7th year in office. Obama is only now planning a visit this spring. I am not entirely sure why, but my suspicions are that it has to do with the difficulty in dealing with the oil-producing Middle Eastern countries that are not Israel supporters. Many countries do not engage in relations with Israel on the basis of religion; several states, like Sudan, will not allow anyone with an Israeli passport, or even anyone with an Israeli visa stamped into their passport, into their territory. It is one thing if you do not deal with a country because you do not like their policies/politics; it is another to do it on the basis of religion. Sure, it is arguable that several of these countries feel that Israel persecutes Muslims. But the problem with that is that it is hypocritical — Israel has shrunk greatly in size due to forced negotiations after violent conflicts with the surrounding Muslim states, most of which were started by said Muslim states.

We can’t play the game of which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg here. This is an issue that goes back too far in history to really know for sure.

The bottom line is that neither side has clean hands. The problems surrounding Israel and Palestine in general are religious by nature; Israel was (in no small part) founded as a safe haven for Jews after World War II. That makes the situation volatile. This is the main reason I believe a two-state solution is the most viable and holds the most promise for long-term stability.

EDIT 2/7/2013

My friend, who has a much better understanding of the Israel/Palestine situation than I do, just wrote this in response to this blog post:

just one comment: the misnomer that Israel came about as a result of the Shoah [Holocaust] is not a good understanding of the history. Had their not been a Shoah, Israel would still have come to be. In fact, the Shoah hurt the cause of the establishment of the State of Israel and had Germany held out a few months longer, who knows what would have happened? Also, I would be very careful before bringing up the ancient and more recent past. What has been lost in the discourse is that Jews didn’t constitute a single ethnic identity until the Diaspora happened. There had always been plenty of conversions (some by force, others by choice), and in general, a good deal of intermarriage between the peoples who lived here. And in the more recent past, the majority of people who constitute the Palestinian identity are just as recent to the region, many of whom ironically, came as cheap labor during the 2nd and 3rd aliyot. Also a lot of Balkan ancestry as well because the Ottomans brought them to Israel, much like the Circassians.

In the end…

I would like to make note that the UN does make an effort to make the voices of minority and/or indigenous peoples heard in light of the fact that creating a state for every group of people on Earth is not feasible; too many states would make the whole system impossible to work through, causing it to fall apart. But I worry that such efforts are not enough and that cultures are disappearing under the radar. If there was a way to strengthen the voices of even the smallest groups, precious knowledge could be preserved.

Education and the truth: Greater than the sum of your parts

Author’s note: My apologies for the lack of posts lately. The past two weeks have been insane, what with Hurricane Sandy (D.C. got a lucky break, didn’t have much damage) and with my work. 

I pray for the people who have been affected by the storm.

This will be a shorter post than normal.

With the election in just days, tensions are high. People are fighting with each other on why their candidate is the best and why they’re stupid for supporting one of the other guys (remember, there are other candidates besides Obama and Romney). Ignorance is being slung as an insult. “Fact checking” is going on galore!

I’m sitting here and watching people argue in person and on the internet. I can’t believe the stuff that I am reading. There are so many people who are ignorant on the nature of the issues and unaware of the consequences. Notice I didn’t say all! And I am NOT saying I know everything. I don’t. That’s actually why I’m writing this post.

I feel like much of the ignorance out there in the world is due to a lack of solid education. Education has been described as making yourself greater than the sum of your parts.

What the hell does that mean?

I’m not completely sure myself, but my interpretation is this: Education is just as much about what you don’t know as what you know. Education gives you the tools to learn how to figure out what you don’t know and to give you ways to find out. Remember when you were a kid in math class always checking the answers in the back of the book when the problem was too hard? Life doesn’t have an answer index. Education is far more than academics. It’s about how to live.

The problem with ignorance is that it is often carried by those who think they know what they are talking about and therefore refuse to listen to others, let alone learn from them.

It is up to us to use our education to learn the truth about what is going on in the world. But when you don’t like what you find, it’s easy to be in denial. It’s hard to change your beliefs, even when presented with evidence directly contradicting your preconceived notions. There is always skepticism that the evidence being presented is faulty or fake. And then of course, when we find evidence that seems to support our beliefs, our beliefs are that much stronger.

It is frankly disturbing what people will put out there and what people will believe.

When you  graduate from high school or college, you feel you know a lot. I sure felt I did. But as time has gone on, I’ve come to realize how much I don’t know. So I have made it my job, as the occasion arises, to find out what I need to know to proceed with my life. This means talking to people who have been through that experience before or who are otherwise more informed on the subject than I. Then I use all of the information to make a decision or a judgment call.

Here’s the thing. I try my hardest not to take everything exactly at face value. Everything you read or hear or watch has a bias; while you may not know how far that bias goes, recognizing that it’s there will take you a long way. This is what is called “keeping an open mind”.

This is why I openly recognize and acknowledge that my arguments aren’t always perfect or that my ideas don’t necessarily come without consequences. But if I were perfect, I wouldn’t be human. But I am human, and therefore imperfect.

The bottom line is that I am urging everyone to educate themselves on the issues out there as much as possible. Learn about what you don’t know. Even if you can’t learn about every subject in the world, at least learn to recognize and admit when you don’t know it. And teach yourself to sift through what’s true, not true, and partially true. With that, you can make better judgment calls and decisions.

Remember, your actions always have consequences for others. What you do doesn’t merely affect you, but those around you as well.

Free your mind! It’s amazing what it will do.