Buddhist philosophy denies western concept of sovereignty

By Shelton A. Gunaratne

(April 26, Washington, Sri Lanka Guardian) With regard to the recent debate on sovereignty in The Island newspaper, Kalana Senaratne (The Island, 25 April 2010) wrote, “In fact, the point that I am raising here is in support of Dr. NJ’s overarching submission (which he seems to have clarified in his second article): That ‘the emergence of international human rights law has resulted in a government’s treatment of its own nationals becoming the legitimate concern of the international community. It has also resulted in the individual becoming a subject of international law.’”

Chandrasiri Wijeyewickreme , on the other hand, tries to expose the “expertise” of NJ, who brags about a book (published by Cambridge University Press) that made him (NJ) an authority on international law.

Wijeyewickreme sees NJ as a “Kalu Sudda” who was beholden to the ways of the West with little understanding of the country’s culture and ethos. He sees NJ’s concern with international law as a mere subterfuge to back Western intervention in Sri Lanka’s internal affairs.

Although I do not necessarily agree with Wijeyewickreme’s conclusion, I tend to agree with Wijeyewickreme’s use of the term “Kalu Sudda” to describe NJ’s behavioral characteristics from the days he was a law student on the Peradeniya campus. I often noticed NJ hobnobbing with fellow Kalu Suddas and Kalu Suddis, a snobbish elite known on campus as kulturs, among the famous pillars facing the entrance to the university library. I do not use the term “Kalu Sudda” to vilify him.

Considering his background, I bet that NJ’s attempt to demystify state sovereignty is solely based on what he has been able to absorb from the scholarship of Western political science, UDHR, ICCPR, ICSECR. Western thinking held sway over the United Nations at the time of the adoption of the declaration and the two covenants that defined it.

The ICCPR commits its parties to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial. As of October 2009, the Covenant had 72 signatories and 165 parties. The United States Senate singed the ICCPR in 1992, with five reservations, five understandings, and four declarations.

The ICCPR is part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

The ICESCR commits its parties to work toward the granting of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) to individuals, including labor rights and rights to health, education, and an adequate standard of living. As of December 2008, the Covenant had 160 parties. Although the United States ratified ICESCR in 1979, the U.S. is not bound by it until it is fully ratified.

NJ’s argument that these covenants have become international law thereby limiting state sovereignty is simplistic because powerful Western nations (like the U.S.) have not ratified those rights that clash with their capitalist, democratic, libertarian principles and philosophy. For the same reason, I cannot agree with Senaratne’s agreement with NJ’s reasoning.

The fact of the matter is that NJ’s asseveration that there is no such thing as sovereignty is absolutely correct but the reasons he and Senaratne have given for the absence of state sovereignty is absolutely wrong. “Kalu Suddas” like NJ are unlikely to have ever thought about the connection between the absence of sovereignty and the Eastern philosophical view of the universe.

Buddhist philosophy is very clear: Everything in the universe is interconnected and interdependent. It’s a mega cooperative of interacting networks of varying magnitudes. Quantum physics backs up this view of the universe, where everything is energy (including matter and information). The law of dependent co-origination (paticca samuppada) can explain every phenomenon in the universe. Nothing is/was/could be independent or sovereign. It shows the total ignorance of knowledge in Buddhism when the so-called Buddhist politicians of a country dare to claim that their country is sovereign/independent. Existence is anicca (impermanence), dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) and anatta (no-soul/interdependence)

NJ and Senaratne could have made a better case for their stand through Buddhist philosophy than through the gobbledygook of so-called international law, a Western construct to maintain its hegemony.

(The writer is professor of mass communications emeritus, Minnesota State University Moorhead.)