Brown 7 – Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science (Chris, “The International Political Thought of Carl Schmitt: Terror, Liberal War, and the Crisis of Global Order” 2007, Fellow in International Relations at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and also teaches Inter- national Relations at the University ‘L’Orientale’ in Naples, Italy p. 60-61)
The line of argument here is immediately, if superficially, familiar: Just War justifies escalation, feeds self-righteousness, legitimizes war – this is very much the contemporary critique of Just War thinking as presented, from different perspectives, by Booth and other critics. There is, however, an important difference; Schmitt does not dodge the Henny Youngman question. He is quite clear that there is an alternative normative and conceptual framework against which Just War thinking ought to be judged, and much of The Nomos of the Earth is devoted to defending this alternative and bemoaning its delegitimation by the sea-going Anglo-Saxons, who promote a conception of world order that has had the effect of reinstating the medievalism and extremism of the Just War. This alternative framework emerges from the development of the sovereign, territorial state in Europe, which involved a spatial disposition of the Continent that undermined the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church and the Empire. The political order is no longer committed to the preservation of God’s Order in the world, and the staving off of the reign of the Antichrist, but instead is based on Reason of State.4 The European princes create among themselves a jus publicum Europaeum, a secular legal order under which they recognize each other’s rights and interests, within Europe (the proviso here is crucial). Beyond the line, in the extra-European world, Europeans engage in large-scale appropriations of land, respecting neither the rights of the locals nor each other’s rights, but within Europe a different modus vivendi is possible. In the extra-European world appalling atrocities occur which would not happen, or at least ought not to happen, in Europe.5 As between European rulers within Europe, war became ‘bracketed’ – rationalized and humanized. Rather than a divine punishment, war became an act of state. Whereas in the medieval order the enemy must necessarily be seen as unjust (the alternative being that one was, oneself, unjust – clearly an intolerable prospect), the new humanitarian approach to war involved the possibility of the recognition of the other as a justus hostis, an enemy but a legitimate enemy, not someone who deserves to be annihilated, but someone in whom one can recognize oneself, always a good basis for a degree of restraint. This, for Schmitt, is the great achievement of the age, and the ultimate justification for – glory of, even – the sovereign state. [An] international legal order, based on the liquidation of civil war and on the bracketing of war (in that it transformed war into a duel between Euro- pean states), actually had legitimated a realm of relative reason. The equality of sovereigns made them equally legal partners in war, and prevented military methods of annihilation. (Schmitt 2003: 142) The new thinking about war also opened up the possibility of neutrality as a legal status; since war was no longer justified in accordance with a theological judgement based on notions of good and evil, it became possible for third parties to stand aside if their interests were not engaged. Equally, the ordinary subjects of belligerent rulers need not feel obliged to become emotionally engaged in the fray. War becomes a matter for sovereigns and their servants, civil and military; the kind of wider involvement that might be appropriate to a war between good and evil becomes strictly optional.6 Thus was established what Schmitt clearly regarded as a kind of golden age in European international relations, a golden age that would be sabotaged in the twentieth century by the United States, with the reluctant, ambiguous, assistance of the United Kingdom – two maritime powers whose commitment to the jus publicum Europaeum was highly qualified in the case of the UK, non-existent in the case of the US.
And, their 1ac obscures the only way that we should be fighting – follow US or DIE
Van Gerven Oei and Staal 2k8(Vincent, Jonas, dutch artists and theorists Introduction to Follow us or Die)
In recent years, the People has crept back into broad daylight. It seems proud once again, self-confident, and it contaminates towns and cities. Proudly, it looks upon the trail of filth it leaves behind on squares, streets and porticos, on the underground, buses and trains, in parks, museums and libraries. It knows it is heard, it feels empowered in its right to speak. Its screams are deafening. It drives away the last breaths of clean airwith its lamentations, sullies the last vestiges of lucid thought, pollutes the rest of civilizationwith its mindless urge to express itself Amidst these hordes of creatures that leave heaps of feces in their wake, a foul noise is brewing, a sickening sound.
It is the sound of “independent” media channels, gorging on conspiracy theories about government involvement in assaults, desperately latching onto the latest war zone or the next environmental disaster, intimidating their audience into doing the Good and the Ethical for the last humpback whale, which, in all of its ponderous ignorance, creates the illusion that they have right on their side. “Alternative” news channels, fed by a ceaseless stream of “concerned” griping, which results in little more than individuals chained to trees planted on toxic waste dumps, waving banners on a deflating plastic boat to obstruct poor Polynesian fishermen, or marching in “fuck the police” demonstrations and guerrilla concerts, in which there is little to no dividing line left between broadcasting news, propaganda and support of institutionalized monstrosities which have been lumped together under the name of the “Good Cause”, where to the People, this filth, this excrement of civilization, which now thinks it has a voice and therefore a right to exercise it, which has become convinced of the importance of its slothful and gratuitous lusts, its loathsome, uniform thoughts and the rumblings of its insatiable belly. The only truth that remains is its truth: that of glowing ambilightTV screens, of dolled up, spoiled pets, kitschy birds and drooling lapdogs. And the intelligentsia listens. The intelligentsia ratifies the banal mating calls of the uniform masses, whose thoughts and words are like an endless succession of the television game shows they watch, the hotlines they call, the lottery tickets they buy: all while knowing that they are merely replaceable cogs in the machine, cogs of a simplicity, of an exchangeability, of an overwhelming stupidity. And now the intelligentsia is afraid of taking any responsibility, afraid to force a standard, a model upon these mindless masses. And thus an army of parasites is ready to actually claim power, aid, instead of fighting them, our intelligentsia issues awards in the hope of involving them in the “enlightened” field of arts, where our cultural heritage is reduced to rubble by young radicals and replaced by patheticJb/klore. Civilization has become a punching bag for the scum of the earth, for whose stupidity the intelligentsia has taken responsibility.