Tuesday August 26, 2003 at 4:57 PM
Asymmetrical Minority Action
Appearing in Politics
Right now, somewhere off the coast of Iceland, three vessels armed with explosive harpoons are on a six week mission to kill 38 Minke whales. The dubious pretense for this expedition involves the need for scientific research into the whale’s eating habits. Apparently, the Icelanders are feeling the pinch from the nutritional needs of the estimated 43,000 Minke whales residing in Icelandic waters.
Iceland’s actions fly in the face of broad protest and criticism from environmentalists and governments around the world; the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany among them. The fact that the hunt is supported by some 75% of Iceland’s 290,000 citizens only adds to the frustration and disappointment.
While you might not immediately connect the slaughter of whales to the U.S. action in Iraq or the gubernatorial circus in California, there is an important thread that ties them together. In each case a small minority — 220,000 Icelanders, 1.6 million Californians, and a few dozen high-level American officials — has been able to exert their will despite the protest, frustration, and resentment of an overwhelming majority. Call it asymmetrical minority action.
In each case, the minority has attempted to justify their actions by invoking the notion of sovereignty even though their actions ultimately had a global impact, be it political, economic, or environmental. It’s hard to imagine how we get from here to there, but our increasingly inter-connected and inter-dependent world clearly requires a reconsideration of the validity, morality, and practicality of our current conceptions of individual autonomy and national sovereignty.
