This was in response to an article of 20 June, 2001, in which Roger Scruton lay the blame for the recent thuggery and wanton destruction caused by anarchists and layabouts in Gothenburg, Prague and Seattle (not to mention Quebec, and before that, Vancouver) at the feet of “unaccountable” decision-makers and “nameless Olympians” of various international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and the European Commission. 

So Roger Scruton thinks that “violent protest is probably the only instrument through which” the “steadily disenfranchised” can make their opposition felt.

Well bully for him. 

I might agree with him and pick up my own brick to throw at the closest McDonald's or live target (aka the neighbourhood police officer), if I could find even a trace of accurate information in his article – other than that he spent May 1968 in Paris. But, I'm afraid, the premise, the analysis and the conclusions are suffused with such breathtaking ignorance that I am moved to question even whether the man spent any time on the continent.

Let us begin from the “dictatorial commission”. This is not the place for a seminar on the politics and constitutional mechanisms of the European Union, but it is worth noting some basic facts. The Commission is the executive arm of the Union (the same way that the Canadian civil service serves the Government of Canada). It proposes policies and laws, oversees their implementation, and may challenge member states in court when they do not implement EU laws (here it is different from Canada's civil service). The more routine legislation of the EU, though it originates from the Commission, must have the consent of the European Parliament (freely elected in elections every five years) and must ultimately be approved by the Council of the European Union. The Council, in turn, is composed of political representatives of the democratically-elected governments of the member states of the EU.

The same governments are responsible for negotiating the treaties from which the Union, and therefore the Commission, obtain their authority. Once negotiated, these “constitutional” documents of the Union must be ratified by parliaments, or in referenda, in member states to enter into force. Thus, the ultimate legislative power in the Union — including the power to rewrite the very treaties that underlie the authority of the Commission — rests with the political leadership, and the people, of the Union and not the Commission. 

But there is more, for any action taken by the Commission is subject to scrutiny, not just by the Council, but also by the European Parliament. Indeed, only two years ago, all the Commissioners (equivalent to our Ministers) were forced to resign by the Parliament. And, finally, any decision of the Commission that affects the rights of individuals, in particular their property rights (of which Mr. Scruton is especially fond), may be challenged before European courts.

Unless one operates on the premise that all bureaucracies are “dictatorial”, it is impossible to credit Scruton's characterisation of the European Commission as such with any degree of accuracy.

He is even more off-base – if that were possible – with the World Trade Organisation. 

He argues that the WTO “has put in place the mechanism whereby the United States can penalize any country that tries to protect its local agriculture from U.S. agribusiness.” He goes on to state that “every treaty signed by governments is a diminution of sovereignty, and an erosion of the democratic franchise.”

He is wrong; terribly wrong.

Let us examine the facts. How does the US “penalise” such countries? Does it send the Stealth bombers? Does it attempt assassination by poison darts? No. It denies access to its market. That's right. The US imposes import restrictions in the form of high tariffs on products from countries that are (according to Mr. Scruton) trying to protect their domestic markets.

Wait a second, you might ask. Imposition of tariffs: is that not a basic exercise of sovereignty? The US does not need the WTO to impose high tariffs for any reason. It is not the WTO that sets up the “mechanism” for such “penalties”. Rather, the imposition of tariffs is the basic operation of the sovereign right of nations to give access when they feel like it, for whatever reason they would like to. And so we see that Mr. Scruton's whole premise is wrong: the “penalties” (the high tariffs, protectionist measures, quotas, sanctions) are the norm; they are the aspects of unfettered sovereignty, of democratic franchise unbound by international treaties. The WTO is the legal and institutional framework within which the use of unilateral penalties, including wanton increases in tariffs, is outlawed; the rights and obligations of members negotiated freely and defined; their recourse to economic force as an instrument of national policy curtailed; and their disputes channelled through logical, legal processes, including an instance of appeals. In the WTO, you negotiate away your right to “protect” (up to a point), in return for unfettered access to rich markets such as that of the US. If a country reneges on its end of the bargain, is it the fault of the WTO if the US decides not to continue to give access? If a country breaks a treaty, should its people march into the streets, burn stores and blame “Olympian” bureaucrats for the loss of the benefits they got under that treaty?

Let us remember that, above all, it is the members of the WTO who are ultimately responsible for the negotiation of the treaties that bind them to one another and that define their legal rights. In the course of the last fifty years, the WTO and the GATT before it have gone through eight rounds of negotiations and another round might well be around the corner. In each of these rounds, the members have examined and re-examined their commitments under the treaties and reaffirmed – and indeed expanded – them. Why? For the same reason identified above. Each gives up a little; all benefit in the end. That's how contracts are negotiated; that what the rule of law implies.

At the core of Mr. Scruton's angry diatribe against “international organisations” and his unhealthy praise for street-ripping, store-destroying anarchists and hooligans lies a fundamental misconception of “sovereignty” in an age of ever-increasing international interdependence and co-operation. Sovereignty is not about doing as one pleases (“protect local agriculture”) while demanding that others do as we please (give unfettered access to such “protected” produce). It is about negotiating access rights and the laws within which those rights might be exercised. And this is no more and no less than what the WTO is all about. And sovereignty is not about passing laws in disregard of what our neighbours are doing. It is about working together to arrive at policies of common interests and common benefits. And this is no more and no less than what the European Union is all about.

Now, it is one thing to argue and protest against all this – we are entitled to disagree – but let us at least know what we are talking about. And, to try to undermine international organisations by looting and destroying disinterested local stores does nothing to advance either democracy or sovereignty.