CAS BLOG: Theory and Things #2 - Whats with Sovereignty?

A famous juxtaposition from Ernest Hemingway's 1926 novel The Sun Also Rises has
taunted me since I heard the news that American forces swooped into Caracas on Saturday
last.

Here it is:

Question: "How did you go bankrupt?" Answer: "Gradually, then suddenly".

Using any definition, this Trump’s folly has changed a decades-long belief in the sanctity of
International Law, even though it was a near-perfect example of what today is glibly called
‘performance politics’.

My interest in the bankruptcy metaphor is less about the dollars-and-cents end of the
Trump’s caper, than it is in the language used to make sense of the world. To sharpen the
point: the vocabulary we use to manage inter-state relationships doesn’t work anymore.

The exemplar of this is that true golden oldie, “sovereignty,” which is the bedrock of modern
politics and the bed upon which International Law rests.

What has happened?

A second question, which may not be too late for learning, is: what should we do about it?

Romantically, sovereignty’s origins are all too often traced to the battlefield, but its distillation into diplomatic and technical language draws on a blend of ancient philosophy, medieval
struggle, and the constitutional revolutions of the 17th and 18th Centuries.

Sovereignty’s ‘gift’ to the world was the state: the institution which purportedly carries the
aspirations of ‘the nation’ – this was said to be the highest moment of mankind’s creation.

Today, ancient beliefs and manifestations of modernity are constantly at work, creating and
recreating a sense of mutual belonging and trust in the idea of nationalism. So it is that
fundamental Christianity and AI are said to be the lifeblood of Trump’s MAGA movement.

Great ceremonies of state invariably bring citizens face-to-face with the Divine through the
officers of the State – Presidents, Leaders, Speakers, Senators, Congressmen. Each of
these titles is sanctified by a solemn promise to obey a constitution which links leadership
and politics to spiritual authority. By the same token, the average sporting fan is drawn into
the same ritual by standing for the National Anthem – celebrating sovereignty in song.

⁠All this suggests that sovereignty is not a one-night stand but rather a persistent force in
shaping our lives.

But, as Trump is showing, sovereignty is not a stable concept! And this may well be the
fundamental challenge of the age.

Given this, how are we to think about its increased bankruptcy?

We get some perspective by recalling one-time Chinese leader Zhou Enlai’s advice on these
kinds of matters. During President Richard Nixon's 1972 visit to China, Henry Kissinger, or,
some say, a French diplomat, asked him about the impact of the 1789 French Revolution on
the world. Zhou famously replied: “It is too early to say."

However, all the evidence suggests that without the order that sovereignty represents,
recklessness and lawlessness become commonplace.

Hands up those who remember this famous local case? Not many it seems!

So, here’s a quick primer.

In the late 1970s until deep into the 1990s, Southern Africa was paralysed by apartheid’s
destabilisation of the entire sub-continent. Sanctioned by Cold War logic and clandestine
American support, Regional Destabilisation (as it was known) was part civil war, part cross-
border conflict. More than anything else however, it was a war round the idea of sovereignty.

Drawing on the scribblings of anti-Communist scholars, the apartheid state turned and
twisted sovereignty in many directions – even granting ‘sovereign independence’ to four
‘states'.

The American, John McCuen’s book, The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War, taught
successive minority governments that to defeat a revolution, the state must be as "total" and
organised as the revolutionary enemies. This is where the notion of the “Total Onslaught”
came from. Harvard’s Samuel P. Huntington, promoted the idea of "ordered transitions”,
arguing that an authoritarian state was necessary to manage "reform" while suppressing
"chaos." He caught the mood in the final days of the white regime.

According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), about 1.5
million people died from South African-led destabilisation between 1980 and 1988 alone. These actions made it harder to build trust for a shared regional future.

Looking even further back, the centuries-long fight for South Africa’s sovereignty reflects
how adversaries interpreted events through the framework of their own understanding of the state's divide purpose and its link with the people.

So, here’s a little perspective on things sovereign and the slide into conceptual bankruptcy.

Forty-odd years ago, I was the only other person in the room when the same Samuel P.
Huntington met Tom Manthata, one-time General Secretary of AZAPO. Huntington was the
guest of local political scientists, and, in those times, Manthata worked for the SA Council of
Churches.

Since I knew them both at little, my role was obvious…keep them talking.

It was hard work.

Huntington used a vocabulary riddled with Caucasian hubris, military power, and social
control; Manthata spoke from the heart with passion using the rich idioms of Limpopo – the
province from which we both come.

Believe me when I say never were there more agonizing two hours of two people talking
past each other.

*Thanks to Malose Lekganyane for talking through Limpopo idioms with me.

Professor Peter Vale is a senior research fellow at the Centre for the Advancement of
Scholarship, Univeristy of Pretoria, an Honorary Professor in the Humanities and in the Earth
Stewardship Science Research Institute, Nelson Mandela University, and a Visiting
Professor of International Relations, Centro de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Universidade
Federal de Santa Maria, Brazil.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the University of Pretoria.