Whoah! Pogge really does not hold anything back...

In reference to the Nazi analogy, he states, “Given what they knew about the ongoing war and genocide and their own causal roles, they ought to have thought, and chosen, and then acted differently…And if this is how we think about most Germans in the early 1940s, then this is how we must surely think about ourselves, seeing that we enjoy so much more freedom to inform ourselves and to act politically” (151). Yes, Mike, this definitely got my attention too, very powerful. Although he states, “The point of this parallel is not to raise issues of blame or guilt,” but, that the “common point is thoughtlessness,” (151) this is really a strong parallel to make.
I do agree with his point of thoughtlessness, though. I was really pleased with Chapter 5, because when I read Chapter 4, with regard to the double standard, institutional responsibilities, and international recognition of groups in power, I couldn’t help but wonder how we have allowed such things to occur within our global order. My initial thought hinted at the way we view nations within the international sphere, and a specific question I had, when reading Chapter 4, deals with the role of sovereignty in shaping our existing global economic order. So, I was pleased when I saw that Pogge begins Chapter 5 with a discussion of nationalism.

I was intrigued by his discussion regarding particularistic and universalistic ‘variants’ of nationalism. This comment is probably only valuable to me and Erma, but this distinction is really useful in understanding how the Serbs viewed nationalism in their justification of the genocide on Bosnian people. But on a broader note, this conception of nationalism, especially the distinction between common and lofty nationalism that Pogge makes, is essential, I think, to understanding the double standard argument. Particularly, what I found really thoughtful and interesting, is Pogge’s discussion of the scope of acceptable partiality in terms of the double standard discussed previously in Chapter 4. He states, “How can we despise those who seek to slant the national playing field in favor of themselves and their relatives and yet applaud those who seek to slant the international playing field in favor of themselves and their compatriots?” (130).

The reason that this entire discussion makes me wonder what role sovereignty plays, is because of the way that state sovereignty trumps human rights within the scope of international law. As the sovereignty argument or justification goes, states may overlook problems across the world because they value sovereignty (which may be defined in various ways, but mainly referring to the independence of each state to self-governance in the way it sees fit), and because of this notion, powerful states, although they have the capability, often refuse to meddle in the affairs of other states, despite the fact that some of these other states may be infringing or harming human rights, so as not to overstep the limits drawn by the notion of sovereignty. Most, if not all, states mutually respect sovereignty, then, because the rest of the international community abides by this notion, and because no state wants its own sovereignty disrespected, all states end up playing by the notion of sovereignty (this is similar to Pogge’s point about the “sucker exemption” which he defines as “an agent” not being “morally required to comply with rules when doing so would lead to his being victimized by non-compliers” (133).). So, although Pogge does not specifically mention sovereignty or international law in this chapter, I think it does play a large role in the reason that nationalism is so prioritized over global justice in most peoples’ and government’s thoughts and actions.