A Palestinian militant from the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades brandishes his rifle in the West Bank town of Hebron in 2007. (Photo By HAZEM BADER/AFP/Getty Images)
The right to fight
Heather Wilson's 1988 book garnered rave reviews from liberal groups like the International Committee of the Red Cross.
By David Alire Garcia
05/30/2008
| 6 Comments
SANTA FE -- There’s one curious bit of U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson’s impressive biography that she’s never been keen on hyping. You don’t hear about it in her stump speech as she campaigns these days for the hotly contested two-candidate race for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate. And you certainly don’t see any mention of it in her TV ads.
The aforementioned “it” is the prestigious Rhodes scholarship Wilson won in 1982. She was one of only 32 stellar college students selected nationwide each year to enroll free-of-charge at Oxford University for two years of largely self-directed study.
Bill Clinton, also a Rhodes Scholar, never earned a degree during his time at Oxford in the late 1960s. Heather Wilson did.
Specifically, she earned her doctor of philosophy degree in international relations. The culmination of that sky-high academic distinction was the dissertation she researched and wrote. It was later published as a book by Oxford University Press in 1988. Titled “International Law and the Use of Force by National Liberation Movements,” it was the first and last book she ever wrote. It remains in print and widely available for purchase.
The text currently sells for a hefty $85.50 on Amazon.com.
The “product description” hints at what this academic book is all about: “… this book explores the idea that national liberation movements may legitimately resort to the use of force.”
The book’s first sentence alerts the reader that this is a sophisticated, scholarly work: “When Grotius wrote, ‘Public war ought not be waged except by the authority of him who holds the sovereign power,’ he was explaining an idea that was already several hundred years old.”
A sophisticated argument
A quick bit of Internet research reveals that Wilson is referring to Hugo Grotius, the esteemed 17th century Dutch philosopher and founder of international law.
From that bit of trivia, the book goes on to explore how the legal authority to wage war has changed since then. In particular, Wilson focuses on so-called “national liberation movements” and their right to resort to armed conflict in pursuit of their right to “self determination.”
Wilson clearly answers one of the questions she spells out at the onset: “Is the use of force by national liberation movements to secure the right of their peoples to self-determination legitimate?”
Her book’s answer: A strong yes.
Wilson labels the argument in favor of extending the right of armed struggle to national liberation movements "a justification within the bounds of the [U.N.] Charter." And she goes on to elaborate on what she calls "a more fundamental idea: that the denial of self-determination by colonial domination, alien occupation, or racism is so abhorrent that the use of force to eradicate these evils is justified… In other words, wars of national liberation are an exception to the general prohibition of the use of force."
Wilson acknowledges in her book that her inquiry has big consequences: "The idea that national liberation movements may legitimately use force in world politics has profound implications for our conception of international society."
But she defends the idea with emphatic language in the final paragraph of her 209-page book's conclusion:
"The world in which there was nothing distasteful about empire is gone. In its place is a system of over 150 sovereign States"—today there are 192—"in which the principle of self-determination is part of the body of rules governing the relationships among them. In this post-colonial world, the denial of self-determination is generally considered to be a [sic] evil of such magnitude that the use of force to secure it may be justified."
At the time she published the book in 1988, Wilson, then 27, had taken the job as director of Defense Policy and Arms Control of the National Security Council under President George H.W. Bush, yet another impressive accomplishment for the newly-minted Dr. Wilson.
Does she hold the same beliefs today? Perhaps most provocatively, does she still believe that the pursuit of Palestinian self-determination, for example, entitles Palestinians to legally wage war against Israel?
And what about similar groups, like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, or Party of God, and its firebrand leader Sheik Hassan Nazrallah? Does Hezbollah also enjoy the legal right to take up arms?
Through a spokesperson, Wilson declined to comment for this story despite several requests.
But while Wilson wouldn’t explain how her views have – or haven’t – changed over the past 20 years, the Independent did contact several international law experts familiar with Wilson’s book who help flesh out Wilson’s thinking on the use of force, international law and how it all applies to the present day.
The consensus view: Heather Wilson, circa 1988, held a much more liberal view on such matters than her subsequent voting record as a politician.
'Certainly not a Republican position'
Jeremy Levitt, an associate professor of law at Florida International University College of Law and an expert in international law and the use of force, gives a short-hand version of the argument advanced by Wilson’s book.
“That position is certainly not a Republican position,” he says with a laugh. Elaborating, he adds, "What's very clear is that in the book she seemingly takes the position that national liberation movements have rights of self- determination. This raises the question whether she believes whether other self-proclaimed international liberation movements that are unfriendly to the US are entitled to self-determination such as the Palestinians? Should the U.S. recognize Hamas the democratically elected government of Palestine? And by not recognizing Palistine and Hamas, would she be denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination according to her own thesis?"
Levitt makes a point of noting that “one man’s terrorist might be another man’s freedom fighter,” but he suggests that some of the militant groups in the world today that are most hostile to the United States, including those currently operating in Iraq, might welcome Wilson’s conclusions.
"If I were a member of a militarized group, a non-state actor in Iraq fighting what I believe to be foreign occupation, I would take great interest in the writings of a congressperson who supports the notion of a right to self-determination for national liberation movements."
Wilson’s book, Levitt says, "takes a more liberal view than the U.S. government has taken, Democrat or Republican. She's appears to be way out in left field vis-a-vis U.S. foreign policy."
'A really good Ph.D. thesis'
Mary Ellen O’Connell, an international law expert at the University of Notre Dame and author of a widely used casebook on the use of force, knows more than most about Wilson’s work in this area.
“We interacted at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting some years before she was in Congress,” she recalls. “And then I’ve watched her in action on Capitol Hill.” O’Connell praises Wilson’s book: “It’s very good. It’s a really good PhD thesis,” she says. She goes on to explain that in 1977 the Geneva Conventions were amended to include a controversial provision that gave a stronger legal status to national liberation movements and their right to fight for their freedom. A few years later when the U.S. government was considering whether or not to approve the amendments, or protocols, President Ronald Reagan objected.
“I’m sure she wrote her book in response to the controversy and the debate that swirled around President Reagan’s decision,” O’Connell says. “President Reagan said we really like both these protocols, except for what you do with national liberation groups because frankly they’re terrorist groups,” she adds. “So [Wilson] takes up this topic.”
In other words, Wilson examined very seriously the anti-Reagan argument on this issue and comes out awfully sympathetic to it. But that’s not to suggest that the book argues for the right of national liberation movements to fight by using terrorist means.
“I’m confident that there’s no hint that she would condone in any way terrorist tactics,” O’Connell states firmly. And she defends Wilson’s intellectual curiosity even though it entertains controversial conclusions with a swipe at George W. Bush.
“We’ve gotten to a point in the United States where we’ve become so anti-intellectual where everything is a sound bite,” she says. “I think the end of the Bush administration is going to spell the end of exactly that kind of mentality. At least, I hope so.”
While O’Connell defends Wilson’s work as the product of a “mainstream” thinker, she does strongly criticize Wilson for voting to authorize the use of force in Iraq in 2003 as well as her support for a 2006 law that “condemned people to unfair trails, where coerced evidence would be used.” She calls both clear violations of established international law.
“And those people who knew better”—like Wilson—“should have led,” O’Connell says. “It’s very disappointing.”
'Poised to be a very significant voice'
Geoffrey Corn, an associate law professor at South Texas College of Law, was the U.S. Army’s senior expert on the law of war at the Pentagon from 2004 to 2005. He describes the argument Wilson advances in her book as “controversial.”
“I think it’s not consistent with the position that the U.S. took,” he says. Corn offers a colorful example to make his point.
“Try to extend this concept to this hypothetical, as outrageous as it might be. The Mexican ethnic population of New Mexico tries to revolt [arguing] that the government of New Mexico and the government of the United States is really a government of alien domination,” he says. “Imagine that they form an insurgent militia group and they try to attack government entities in New Mexico.” Corn says that if the state or federal government were to capture such a would-be Chicano separatist leader, international law as construed by Wilson would likely protect him from prosecution. “He’d be immune,” he says.
But despite his criticism, Corn also praises Wilson, noting that she’s “a member of our government who’s really taken the time to really understand this law. And that’s really significant given the kind of national security issues that this government faces now and will continue to face.” Corn adds, “She’s poised to be a very significant voice and player in the development of these policies.”
That is, if she can eke out a victory against fellow U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, who has taken to labeling her a liberal in their Republican primary battle. So far, however, he’s hasn’t attacked Wilson’s foreign affairs or national security credentials, often considered to be Wilson's strengths.
Twenty years later
Wilson’s thoughts on the rights of national liberation movements may well be different today than what she wrote two decades ago. Or not. Her refusal to offer an explanation despite repeated requests by the Independent over the past week makes it nearly impossible to tell.
But it is clear that she once wrote in support of “the idea that national liberation movements fighting to secure the right of their peoples to self-determination may legitimately use force as a matter of international law.”
Twenty years later, ten of which she’s spent representing the Albuquerque-based 1st Congressional District in Congress, Wilson’s impressive academic text has never come under the campaign microscope.
In fact, anyone interested in purchasing her book and reading it for themselves won’t even find a meaningful review of it on Amazon. Instead, the solitary online review was submitted by one “A Customer.”
It reads: “I didn't really read it but that's a ok because the author has my name and so I guess I wrote it, and if I wrote it then I obviously read it, and so I am therefore queen of the universe.”
CATEGORIES IN THIS STORY:
© 2008 The New Mexico Independent
Comments:
Posted 05/30/2008 11:30 with
Very interesting story. Well written Mr. Alire; you obviously did your homework.
Posted 05/30/2008 11:52 with
The author shows a limited understanding of Hezbollah. Perhaps David posed Hezbollah as a straw man to test the limit’s of Wilson’s view. But Hezbollah is not a national liberation movement. It is a political party (The Party of God) that has participated in Lebanon’s elections. Lebanon is not a colony of any imperial power.
I don’t see much that’s controversial here. After all, we are nation born out of armed rebellion against an imperial power.
Posted 05/30/2008 12:08 with
Hey Jim Scarantino did you know that Hezbollah first started up during the Lebanese Civil War in the early 1980s as a MILITIA of Shia followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini? That means they’ve been qualified as a national liberation movement.
Posted 05/30/2008 12:20 with
I don’t think so, chemboy. National liberation movement means a movement that takes up arms to throw off colonial rule. The Lebanese Civil War wasn’t about that. Lebanon was not ruled at the time by a foreign power. It fractured along religious and ethnic lines. Since then Hezbollah (this is not a defense, just an observation) has participated in governing Lebanon with its previous enemies.
A more accurate theoretical test case of her theory would be the Tibetans if they took up arms and did not use terror against Chinese civilians.
Posted 05/30/2008 13:31 with
Jim,
Hezbollah is a national liberation movement by their own design of objectives. In its 1985 manifesto Hezbollah listed its three main goals as: 1. Eradication of “Western colonialism” in Lebanon, 2. Bringing those to justice who committed atrocities during the war,
3. Establishing an Islamic government in Lebanon.
Posted 05/30/2008 14:16 with
Very well done here. It absolutely amazes me no one else has found, let alone written about this. And let me just say that finding those quotes/perspectives are what separates the grown ups from the kids in news gathering.
The premise of this thesis is fascinating on a lot of levels. At the time of it’s writing I have no doubt it was right in the sweet spot on this issue. In the refraction of today’s times…and her record as a representative…it makes it more interesting still.
Wilson, as demonstrated here, has a lot of intellectual layers. But over the ten years of her Congressional tenure this has not fully come to the surface. A lot of that may be her personality and comfort zone, but there’s a part of me that feels an opportunity may have been lost by NOT getting this side of her out there earlier in the Senate push. The lost opportunity was not seating the notion that her level of intellect is, in fact, Senatorial.