Rights of the Minority

The right of the minority to defend themselves is a founding principle of the United States government, as is shown through the United States Senate. In the Senate, without 60 votes in favor of a bill, the minority party can deter a vote and ultimately defeat a bill without actually having to vote on that bill. It's an interesting system, as the legislative portion of the US government is divided; in the House of Representatives, the majority reigns supreme, while in the Senate, without the "super majority," the minority can easily control debate. Now, I'm not looking to analyze the US government, but the abilities of the minority to defend themselves in general.

What is a minority? A portion of a particular population that constitutes anything less than 50% of that population; for example, out of 400, 199 is the first minority number. Obviously, there are degrees of majority-minority relationships, but viable minorities (minorities with actual power) would typically have to constitute more than 20-30% of a particular population. In general, if fewer than 20% of a population is part of a minority, it's a fringe minority with some trait that is either very esoteric or idiosyncratic.

Now, why should a minority get the same rights as a majority? After all, they are essentially powerless to fight back against the majority. There are several philosophical precedents on which to make an argument, typically that all humans are deserving of equal treatment because we are all born with equal physiological standards (with some to little variation). There are also historical precedents, i.e. the Civil Rights movement, centuries of slavery, etc. Throughout all of recorded history and up to this moment, we have established that all people, regardless of their social status, are equal (or should be equal) in life, liberty, and rights implicit in life.

So why do we still see rights of minorities suppressed in certain places? From more extreme cases of genocide in Darfur, Rwanda, The Balkan Wars, etc., to more religious or social issues, there are still many instances of rejection of rights to certain minorities.

For example, an instance of this is in the recent revelation of the NYPD going beyond their given powers to spy on Muslim students in multiple schools across multiple states, including schools in New Jersey.

Another example is in China, where the Uyghur population has been suppressed violently because of the Uyghur protests against the Chinese government. Now, while China is not the best example of a country that upholds human rights, it is still necessary to hold them to some sort of standard because they are such a powerful nation.

So why do some countries insist on repressing the minority groups in their countries? A general explanation is a bit hard to elicit, since the reasons often vary on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps some majority groups feel as if they would be oppressed by the minority if the minority were to gain power (such as when Sunni Saddam Hussein ruled over predominantly Shi'a Iraq); perhaps other majority groups feel that being the majority favors them because of the ability to give oneself multiple advantages.

That being said, a minority could come with intangible powers, such as through money or through items (such as weapons, land, etc.). Manipulation then comes into play, which is an entirely different issue that I am much too tired at the moment to write about.

Oftentimes, it is the intangible items that set the two groups apart, whether they are the majority or not. The intangibles are seemingly more important than sheer numbers, as having a greater amount of resources with which to centralize power creates an environment conducive to the will of those with the intangible items.

So, if a minority controls a majority of the intangibles, and the intangibles are later de-powered or have their abilities removed, can the minority continue to feign being a majority? If the reverse is true and the majority controls the intangibles of society and those intangibles are given no value, does the minority realize their new power?

That's all for now,
Das Flüg

Intervention in Libya: The Line

The UN Security Council last week approved the institution of a no-fly zone over Libya in order to “protect civilians” from Colonel Qaddafi’s merciless force of mercenaries. The United States, England, and France, along with members of the Arab League, have offered to lend planes and warships to uphold the no-fly zone. President Barack Obama has stated that the United States will soon take a back seat in the operation, eventually ceding responsibility to either NATO or the European nations, but many have criticized him for the use of force.
Much of the criticism comes from President Obama’s deployment of warships into the Mediterranean in order to comply with the Security Council resolution, as many state that the president does not have the authority to launch strikes without congressional approval. The famous War Powers Resolution, passed under Nixon, states that the President can deploy forces only with approval from congress or if the United States is under direct attack. As the president did not receive approval from congress, the question is whether or not the president overstepped his bounds.
While it is not within presidential powers to deploy forces without congressional approval, the Constitution does not have any provisions mentioning forces under international treatise or an international organization, such as NATO or the UN. The document was originally written to prevent the eventuality of a monarch or a dominating house, such as congress, which is why military powers are divided among the two branches. The document does not lend any credence to international organizations or coalition militaries, which is why, in a case such as this, the Constitution may have to be circumvented.
I am not saying to completely disregard the Constitution; there is no slippery slope here. We must accept the limits and faults of the Constitution and be willing to step into a world where international cooperation is becoming a fact rather than a hypothetical action. If we cannot cooperate willingly and amiably with the world, we set a poor example as the self-proclaimed world leaders. What needs to be done in Libya will be done, and after the necessary amount of time, strategic forces will move under an allied command. There will be no ground troops committed, no American armor fighting Libyan armor, no American soldiers teaching Libyan rebels how to march, nothing; there will be the enforcement of a no-fly zone, and that is it. Those with the delusion of another formal (or informal) war should recognize that this situation, in all of its minute details, is infinitely different.