As america sides with abbas in fighting hamas, it raises more directly a question in our foreign policy dating back to wwII. What do we do when democratically elected govts don’t do good (as we define it)?
In the US we have a constitution that supercedes actions by the people’s representative. This protects against abuse of power as well as mob tyranny.
As the US tries to apply our democratic values around the world we need to acknowledge the need for some sort of worldwide constitution. (Does one exist already?) Perhaps this is created and defended by all major countries and says to countries big and small that certain rights transcend borders.
This is in effect what happens now on an ad hoc basis through the UN. However that body (like the us congress) has proven too political and corrupt to be trusted to defend country and citizen rights on a consistent basis.
Perhaps the US should be working to get a world constitution ratified under which it might be able to better justify seemingly inconsistent acts like supporting abbas over the elected hamas.
This would point to the need for a worldwide supreme court body that could be appealed to for rulings.
Lkikewise, anyone could appeal moves by the US such as authorizing torture or invading iraq. The key difference fromt the un body would be tenured judges making rulings mostly free of political agendas.
We might just move from our current vague world position where we act unilaterally and ask for forgiveness to one with greater justification and far less flexibility.
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile.