Never was there such a clamor for national sovereignty from both the libertarian left & the right. Suu Kyi & the generals rail about it to prevent any investigation into crimes against the Rohingya; Assad & his coterie of apologists consider it the coup de grace for their defense of counter-revolution; Modi wields it to justify 700,000 soldiers occupying & brutalizing Kashmir; anti-immigration & anti-refugee nationalists & supremacists tout it as the be-all & end-all for keeping Europe & America white (no one claimed you had to be smart to be racist).

Now some libertarian left guy says “National sovereignty is an undervalued asset in today’s world, especially in the international media, where the views of Washington & its allies largely prevail.” If they could get over their hang-up about reading mainstream media they would know about Suu Kyi, Modi, Assad, & the other nationalist idiots & even learn about the Trump wall on the southern US border. Isn’t that all about national sovereignty?

The problem with national sovereignty is that it only goes one way. It is no part of international considerations when it comes to wars. Who gets to define it? In Syria, does national sovereignty adhere to Assad’s dictatorship & the counter-revolution or to the popular revolution of millions against Assad?

Sweatshop economics, which is the neoliberal way of doing business, cannot exist by respecting national sovereignty. So if they can move money around, invest in mining, agribusiness, plunder all over the globe, why can’t those who are dispossessed have unfettered access to go where they can earn a living & make a better life?

National sovereignty is swell. Human rights trump all.