Bros before whoever your rule. Mahinda and Gaddafi
All manner of despots invoke the sovereignty argument like it’s something sacred. It’s not. It’s actually bad. To look at what sovereignty is, look at the incoming nuptials of Prince William and Kate. Not them, but their ancestors. William’s ancestors – until World War II – married not for love or even proximity but in incestuous sovereignty. The House of Windsor was then the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, a German house. What unified Europe was not the self-rule but selfish rule by a set of elite families that transcended nationality.
That, to me, is what sovereignty is. The right for the powerful and connected to oppress people and the duty of other powerful and connected people to respect that. Families aren’t related anymore, but there’s a certain wink-wink nod-nod among countries like China and Russia and Libya and even Sri Lanka that practice varying degrees of despotism. It’s like mafia bosses agreeing that one will have Vegas, another Florida and another LA, to do as they well. That’s sovereignty. It’s simply having control of an area, not necessarily having consent of the people there.
It’s not a great buttress to power, and I think people have a power over their own destiny and any ruler only serves as their agent. So, not a fan of sovereignty, nor can I reliably spell it. It sounds like so-ver-ign-ity, but it isn’t, there’s no -ity, it’s just ty. Anyways.