Chaos in Massive Illegal Crossings into the E.U.: The Case of Ceuta

Even though the default absolutist notion of national sovereignty has consistently undercut global efforts to combat climate change and rid the world of nuclear weapons and even war itself, to disregard territorial sovereignty altogether is also problematic. Interestingly, both extremes treat international relations as a Hobbesian state of nature, and disregarding national sovereignty even extends the state of nature to within a country such that even national government is presumed not to exist. Illegal immigration is a case in point. When sixty thousand North Africans illegally entered Ceuta in the E.U. on July 30, 2026, the utter disrespect for the rule of law as well as the E.U.’s territorial integrity and legitimacy was palpable.

The disregard for governmental sovereignty could be seen visually as videos taken at the time on Ceuta’s Tarajal beach “reveal the chaos that accompanied the crossings, showing large crowds running between the breakwater and the roads around the border area.”[1] Sixty thousand people swimming over to a small city of just 19 square kilometers provides a snapshot of just how easily illegal immigration can spiral into mob-rule. Both Plato and Aristotle situate mob-rule as democratic decadence, and thus, like tyranny, to be avoided. As Hobbes argues in Leviathan, there is a good reason for government, given human nature. His theory differs markedly from Locke’s theory of natural rights, save the right of self-preservation that is inalienable according to Hobbes even though a sovereign has even the exclusive right even to interpret divine writ. For Hobbes, no natural rights exist that would limit the authority of a sovereign. None of these four historical philosophers would claim that illegal immigration between modern nation-states is a natural right. In fact, I suspect the four would be appalled at the utter effrontery in ignoring a country’s territorial sovereignty.

The push-back from North Africa backs up the disregard evinced by the people who illegally crossed into Ceuta. That Morocco had regarded the cities of Ceuta and Melilla as “part of its own territory since its independence from France and Spain in 1956” does not justify the strategy of spinning the illegal crossings as part of a dispute on sovereignty, for the people crossing were not doing so to protest that issue.[2] Neither do the social and economic conditions in Morocco justify disregarding another country’s government as if being unemployed justifies illegally entering another country. “One of Morocco’s most popular news outlets Hespress wrote that ‘the waves of incursions into Ceuta and the attempts to cross that later extended to Melilla have brought back to the fore the debate on the social and economic situation in the areas bordering the two enclaves. . . . What happened once again shines a light on the cities’ connection with their Moroccan environment and the complexities of their historical and sovereignty dossier.’”[3] Dossier? The attempt to primp the statement using misplaced diplomatic language flies in the face of the sheer chaos on the ground in Ceuta on 30 July, 2026. Disagreements on a “dossier” do not justify tens of thousands of illegal crossings in utter disregard for the laws and government of the receiving city, state, and federal union.

The existence of the latter, the European Union, in which Spain, which in turn includes Ceuta, is a state, enabled the North Africans to exploit a vulnerability in the federal system, for states’ rights ideologues (i.e., Euroskeptics) had been successful in blocking a stronger federal role in patrolling the E.U.’s territorial borders. The extant state-centric bricolage of immigration laws could easily be exploited without the Commission being able to fill the gaps. The Schengen Agreement, which allows for the free movement of people within the E.U., is flimsy at best. In the wake of the chaos in Ceuta, “Italy’s Interior Ministry . . . ordered the closure of the [state’s] sea and air borders with Spain, temporarily suspending the Schengen free movement regime” between the two E.U. states.[4] Imagine if Texas were able to close its borders to people coming from California were its government to suddenly open the flood-gates to illegal immigrants coming up from Mexico to California. We don’t have to imagine the government of Texas sending illegal immigrants from that U.S. member-state to Illinois.[5] Were the U.S. border subject only to a Schengen-like agreement between some of the member-states, chaos could be expected not only by interlarding migrants, but also between the states. The refusal of the E.U. state of Italy to accept people arriving from another E.U. state undermines the E.U. itself, and demonstrates just how fragile its state-dominated federal system has was even the case in 2026.

The statement at the time by Antonio Tajani, a state official of Italy, relates the state’s unilateral suspension of Schengen regarding the E.U. state of Spain to shoring up the E.U.’s borders: “The temporary suspension of Schengen with Spain is a necessary choice to safeguard the security of our citizens and defend the European borders.”[6] By “our citizens,” Tanjana was referring to those of the state of Italy, the interests of whom are not necessarily the same as those of E.U. citizens throughout the Union. This difference—between the interests of a part and the whole of which the part is just a part—is precisely why the protection of E.U. borders warranted more federal authority, rather than just the Schengen “patch-work” that could so easily be undone by “necessary” choices by state governments. In the U.S., the federalizing of regulating interstate commerce occurred because states such as New York and New Jersey were penalizing trade from each other by instituting duties under the Articles of Confederation. Whereas that confederation, which lasted from 1981-1789, consisted of fully sovereign countries, the E.U. states are semi-sovereign, just as U.S. states are because both the E.U. and U.S. have enumerated competencies or powers reserved for the federal level. By acting like a confederation with regard to border control, the E.U. played into the hands of Morocco and its citizens who illegally crossed into the E.U., such that E.U. citizens were vulnerable even to the excuse that bad economic conditions in a country outside of the E.U. gives rise to a natural right to enter the E.U. illegally as if no governments existed in Ceuta, Spain, and the E.U. itself even with respect to its borders.

Were unemployment a suitable justification to enter another country illegally, there would be chaos in both the E.U. and U.S. as it would be “open season” from Africa and Central America to cross international borders as if they did not exist. To disregard the laws of another country by entering without its government’s permission is so presumptuous in fact that the underlying mentality alone can be treated as a red-flag. The vulnerability in the E.U.’s state-centric federal system was particularly exposed because the government and state media of Morocco enabled such a mentality by citing a sovereignty dispute and bad domestic social and economic conditions as if these justify illegal immigration. In short, the E.U. should not have had to rely on the Schengen Agreement, which was as of 2026 only between some but not all E.U. states anyway. Even treating the sovereignty dispute as a Moroccan-Spanish concern belies the structural integrity of the E.U. as a federal union in which the E.U.’s borders are properly a matter of concern to the Union rather than just its states.

---

1. Chaima Chihi, “Sovereignty, Sarcasm, Blame: How North Africa Reacted to Ceuta Crisis,” Euronews.com, 31 July, 2026.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Gabriele Barbati and Greta Ruffino, “Italy Suspends Schengen with Spain over Ceuta Migrant Crisis, Closes Air and Sea Borders,” Euronews.com, 31 July, 2026.
5. In fact, Chicago’s O’hare Airport closed its regional-bus transit facility to accommodate the incoming immigrants from Texas.
6. Gabriele Barbati and Greta Ruffino, “Italy Suspends Schengen with Spain over Ceuta Migrant Crisis, Closes Air and Sea Borders,” Euronews.com, 31 July, 2026.

Facing a Hot and Hostile Planet

On October 24, 2024, Tjada McKenna, CEO of Mercy Corps, and formerly in the Obama administration working on global hunger, spoke at Harvard on wars, hunger, and climate change then going on around the world. The pandemic had been a setback. In a world of pandemics, climate change, war, and hunger, there is no us and them. Lest this utopia be taken too realistically, 200,000 more people worldwide were hungry after the pandemic than before it. Since 1946, the highest number of state conflicts was in 2023. It was then that Russia invaded Ukraine and Israel decimated much of Gaza. In 2024, the UN’s high court found both aggressors to be violating international law, but they continued undeterred and with impunity. In the context of an epic crisis of displacement of civilians, with 339 million people globally having to rely on humanitarian assistance in 2024, the impacts of climate change exacerbated hunger and conflict in several states, especially in Africa. I contend that a serious obstacle was systemic, specifically in an antiquated global order relying on an absolutist interpretation of the sovereignty of the nation-state. Even the E.U. was not immune.

In her talk, McKenna said that decades of conflicts on land-access in Africa had been made worse by the impacts of climate change.  By 2024, there had been four failed rainy seasons in Somalia. In northern Kenya, similarly occurring droughts followed by heavier rains causing flooding exacerbated hunger.  Progress against hunger and diseases such as polio had been made prior the pandemic, but even so, 2023-2024 could be characterized as a time of catch-up in terms of global humanitarian aid.

Meanwhile, voters worldwide in 2024 were most concerned then about increasing cost of living around the world. France and Germany decreased the global aid budgets in 2024, though I contend that focusing on E.U. states without considering the humanitarian spending at the federal level had by 2024 become  incomplete as well as antiquainted. Russia, by the way, was paying Moldovan voters and feeding them disinformation so to sabatoge Moldova in gaining statehood in the European Union while political opposition to supporting Ukraine's military was building in the United States. In short, politics was staying pretty close to immediate self-interest.

Therefore, the international system based on nations acting alone in self-interest (i.e., political realism) was not enough to address the global problems of political manipulation, climate and conflict. The U.S. Congress had dedicated $1.1 billion to preventing conflict around the world in 2019, but this was just a drop in the bucket. "A recommitment to international law and the international criminal court worldwide is necessary," she said in closing.

Thus far, I have presented McKenna’s views, albeit with a few caveats from myself. I submit that the talk was not utopian, for McKenna was hardly optimistic concerning countries taking on militaristic aggressors whether unilaterally or through global institutions, such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. “Conditions are right for bad actors,” she said, by which we might think of Putin of Russia and Netanyahu of Israel in going too far with impunity internationally. McKenna said the world order was cracking, especially in terms of accountability. Unabashed optimism would not be appropriate, given the failures globally in 2023 and 2024 to hold Russia and Israel accountable and stop the wholesale and deliberate militaristic attacks against civilians. 

Nor was McKenna at all optimistic on a system based on sovereign nation-states mitigating climate change. A record amount of carbon emissions by humans in 2023 had made a mockery of a global approach that relies on voluntary targets, the very notion of which presupposes the absolutist version of governmental sovereignty being applied to each nation-state. I would simply add to McKenna’s lecture more of an emphasis on the need globally to reform or reconstruct the global order, such that national sovereignty would no longer be the basis, given that inherently global exigencies had already rendered the post World War II world order deficient and obsolete. 

A Nobel Peace Prize Awarded in spite of a Troop Surge

In December of 2009, Barak Obama was the first sitting U.S. president in 90 years and the third ever to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet he did so under the long shadow of the war in Afghanistan, where he was ordering 30,000 more troops into battle.  Could Truman’s decision to drop the A-bomb on Japan be along the same logic because it was meant to preempt the loss of life that would have come had the US invaded Japan?  President Reagan’s peace through strength logic was that a military build-up would forestall or prevent war from breaking out (hence no loss of life would be involved even in the forestalling).   The logic of awarding a surge President with a peace prize seems more dubious.  However, few today would compliment Chamberlain for having appeased Hitler (even though the prime minister was secretly stalling for time to build up the British forces). Perhaps with the dangerous plans presumably being hatched in Afganistan in 2009 against American cities, it could be argued that a surge is preventative of future conflict.  However, such a logic introduces a slippery slope.   In other words, if the ends justify the means, then virtually anything can be justified as means as long as it is tied to the end.  Human beings have a rather creative ability to rationalize their expedient and self-serving actions.  It would be far simpler were the peace prize awarded to someone who clearly opposed war and did something about it without engaging in it himself; even so, there are few like Gandhi in any given generation, and far more leaders wage war in the supposed (or real) interests of peace.  I contend that there are in any year enough people who stand up for peace without engaging in war that the peace prize could be awarded to them. Such a policy would clearly distinguish such role models from the ends justify the means rationalizers rather than enable the latter under a subterfuge of peace.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34358659/ns/politics-white_house/

Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere Outstripping the Planet’s Absorption: A Major Turning-Point

The human species has reached such a size—and with the population of Africa expected in 2017 to double by 2050 from an incredulous and oblivious fertility rate (i.e., as if there were no tomorrow) in spite of life-threatening impacts on that continent already from global warming—that profound changes to the planet can from now on hardly be avoided unless or until nature’s swift hand acts through pestilence, famine, or over-crowding conflict. Making matters worse, we are flying without having bothered to detail a navigation flight-plan, for even homo sapiens’ cognitive wiring has been outstripped by not only our inherent selfishness and preference for instant gratification, but also our sheer presumptuousness. In hindsight, we can say we have acted rashly in having polluted so in the twentieth century—the benefit of hindsight being shown in our shortcomings even in being able to keep tabs on the extent of the damage.

By 2017, human activity was estimated to be adding almost 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the air annually; the atmospheric concentration of the heat-retaining gas had risen by about 43 percent since the Industrial Revolution.[1] In a particularly ominous sign, the “excess carbon dioxide scorching the planet rose at the highest rate on record in 2015 and 2016,” with a “slightly slower but still unusual rate of increase” continuing into 2017.[2] These “telltale indicators” point to the way human activity was already “altering the planet on a major scale.”[3] Lest it be concluded that tightening emission targets is the answer, the amount of the gas being emitted by human activity had largely stopped rising even as the amount that stays in the air was going up faster than ever. Perhaps the oceans were becoming saturated, hence no longer nearly as able to absorb the gas from the air. From decades of research, scientists had established that less than half of the gas emitted by humans was remaining in the atmosphere, and thus warming the planet, because the rest “was being absorbed by the ocean and the land surface, in roughly equal amounts.”[4] Of particular concern, even as humanity had felt entitled to pollute as if there were no tomorrow in the twentieth century, the species could not even ascertain whether or not the amount of gas in the air had finally outstripped the “natural sponges,” such as ocean water and trees. Furthermore, not even scientists had any idea how much methane, which traps heat even more efficiently than carbon dioxide does, was escaping from the melting permafrost in the extreme northern climes such as in Siberia. In short, humanity in its short-sightedness and presumption tends to dismiss the limits in the human ability to know things.

It is as if we were starting out on a long distance road-trip without bothering to check the balance in our bank account, so we are anxious because we cannot calculate exactly how much money for gas will be necessary to reach the destination and return home. To fear being stranded and yet not know how much money is available is obviously irrational, yet it may be part of the human condition. I actually had that dream last night. I had outstripped my own cognition in racking my brain over how much gas I would need, and yet I was presumptuously going to set out on the long-distance trip anyway. No doubt my dream was prompted in part by the highs of 114F on three days last week (followed by days at 108F)—heat neither I nor any of my ancestors from Europe had ever experienced for days on end. Just living in a desert is itself presumptuous from the standpoint of the many centuries of natural selection behind my pale-skinned genetics, whose inherent limitations I should honor. 

I can now understand by experience how global warming could indeed eventually render some parts of the United States uninhabitable for humans. While I do believe that technological advances yet to come may stave off catastrophe (i.e., by extracting huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the air), the limitations of human knowledge on even how the planet has been reacting to our over-reaches gives me some pause. In the end, our presumption—what we feel entitled to in the convenient assumptions we make—may be the seed of our species’ destruction. We may have blood on our own hands, yet presumptuously assume that someone else did it.  

---

1. Justin Gillis, “Carbon in Atmosphere Is Rising, Even as Emissions Stabilize,” The New York Times, June 26, 2017.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

Former Liberian President Gets 50 Years for War Crimes

In the 50 year sentence handed to  former Liberian president Charles Taylor by the Special Court for Sierra Leone meeting at the Hague on May 30, 2012, the world came one step closer to being able to hold dictators accountable for war crime atrocities that go even beyond the violation of basic human rights. In particular, the prosecutor described, "The purposely cruel and savage crimes committed included public executions and amputations of civilians, the display of decapitated heads at checkpoints, the killing and public disembowelment of a civilian whose intestines were then stretched across the road to make a check point, public rapes of women and girls, and people burned alive in their homes.”[1] Insisting that he never knowingly assisted in the crimes, Taylor claimed that what he did “was done with honor.”[2] He maintained that he had been “convinced that unless there was peace in Sierra Leone, Liberia would not be able to move forward.”[3] Nevertheless, that he paid thugs in blood diamonds for the crimes means that he could be held accountable for the misdeeds themselves.

Of particular note, the conviction was the first of a former head of state since WWII. The judge stressed that the “special status of Mr. Taylor as a head of state puts him in a different category of offenders for the purpose of sentencing.”[4] The judge added that the crimes were of the “utmost gravity in terms of scale and brutality. The lives of many more innocent civilians in Sierra Leone were lost or destroyed as a direct result of his actions.”[5] That Taylor did not carry out the atrocities himself, as in raping a daughter while the father is forced to watch, or disemboweling a man so his intestines can be used at a border crossing, does not detract from his culpability. Yet the distance from the crimes themselves enabled Taylor to show (and presumably feel) no remorse as the sentence was being handed down. To be sure, he cannot be forced to recognize the sordidness of his role or feel contrition. Cognitive dissidence and sociopathic blockage of conscience can permanently forestall such a reckoning.

Even if the defendant never “gets the message” on account of his sociopathy, the world came one step closer to telling sitting heads of government around the world that they had better be careful not to violate others’ human rights lest they too find themselves spending decades in a cell. Yet more is needed to make this deterrent a reality. 

Because the court that convicted Taylor is not international, the International Criminal Court (ICC) could not be expected to benefit directly. Governments such as those in the United States that are not members of the International Criminal Court marginalize the court's legitimacy and effectiveness because the court's lack of jurisdiction suggests or implies that public officials can get away with violating human rights. Governments not subject to the ICC should be pressured to join (perhaps even as a condition for continued membership in the UN). Additionally, the ICC needs more power in being able to arrest indicted officials, whether in or out of office, in countries subject to the court.  The United Nations could draw from members' military forces to form a special force that could have access to the territory of any member for the specific purpose to arrest and transfer any former or sitting official indicted by the ICC. Economic and political sanctions would automatically kick in for any member refusing the special force such access. This would not apply to any UN members who are not also members of the ICC, though ideally every member of the UN would also be subject to the ICC. While such a system may seem unrealistic as of 2012, the proposal is at least possible. With the world heading in the right direction with respect to holding violators of human rights accountable, it is advisable that such proposals are explored and discussed lest the momentum be squandered in line with the self-interest of people like Charles Taylor. 

1. Marlise Simons and David Goodman, “Judge Gives Taylor 50 Years for ‘Heinous’ Crimes in War,” The New York Times, May 30, 2012. 

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

The U.S. War Powers Act: The Case of Obama's Decision on Ameican Involvement in Libya

The New York Times describes the War Powers Act of 1973 as follows: “(P)assed in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, [the act] puts limits on the ability of the President to send American troops into combat areas without Congressional approval. Under the act, the President can only send combat troops into battle or into areas where 'imminent' hostilities are likely, for 60 days without either a declaration of war by Congress or a specific Congressional mandate. The President can extend the time the troops are in the combat area for 30 extra days, without Congressional approval, for a total of 90 days.”[1] While the law is beneficial in that it enables the President to act in his capacity as commander in chief when time does not permit a preceding Congressional declaration or more specific resolution (e.g., the U.S. being attacked), the act is not limited to such cases. Therefore, the President can put off Congressional approval even when he could obtain it before sending the troops into battle.  Regardless of the exigency of the military action, Congressional approval is required within 90 days, and this applies even if the President is acting on behalf of the U.S. as a member of the United Nations to enforce a Security Council resolution.

President Obama, on behalf of the U.S., decided that the U.S. military would take part in the international coalition enforcing the Security Council’s resolution allowing members to use all means necessary to protect Libyan civilians from Qaddafi’s government, which had turned on its people. The President did not need to obtain a Congressional declaration or resolution before he did so, even though he could have done so by asking Congress’ House and Senate to convene to debate and vote on the question. Although some thought hearings would have been necessary, that would have been excessive, as the judgment required was beyond simply requiring more information. In any case, a closed briefing for both chambers could have been held before the debates and votes. The President knew of the Security Council’s debate and vote beforehand, so he could have notified Congressional leaders in enough time for them to prepare to convene a day or two afterward. “We should have been called into session yesterday or the day before,” Rep. Nadler said at the time the American involvement in the international enforcement action commenced.[2] Even though the President did not have to take this route, I contend that he would have been on firmer ground democratically had he done so. Had either of the Congressional chambers voted down a resolution authorizing American involvement, I believe the President would have acted illegally in involving the U.S. military in enforcing the U.N. resolution. The U.N. itself cannot activate any military of any of the members.

Because in a republic the legislative representatives should have a role in the decision up front if doing so is possible, the President should have done so in the Libyan case because there was time for it. “I think [the President] has a duty and an obligation to come to Congress,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah.) told The Huffington Post.[3] He continued, “I see no clear and present danger to the United States of America. I just don't. We're in a bit of the fog at the moment as to what the president is trying to ultimately do.” Chaffetz was saying, in effect, that the War Powers Act should only be applied when there is not time for a President to get Congressional approval up front.

Other members of Congress challenged the War Powers Act itself. “In the absence of a credible, direct threat to the United States and its allies or to our valuable national interests, what excuse is there for not seeking congressional approval of military action?” asked Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) in a separate interview. “I think it is wrong and a usurpation of power and the fact that prior presidents have done it is not an excuse.”[4] The usurpation language challenges the constitutionality of the Act. Similarly, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) was circulating a resolution "[e]xpressing the sense of Congress that the President is required to obtain in advance specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces in response to civil unrest in Libya."[5] The measure was supported by Reps. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) and John Conyers (D-Mich.), among others. This resolution directly challenged the War Powers Act, presumably because they thought the President could have obtained Congressional approval before acting.

As it stands, the War Powers Act gives a President 90 days to get Congressional approval. To limit the Act to cases where there is no time to get Congressional approval would ensnare application of the law to judicial interpretation: Was there really a window for Congressional approval? Yet to give the President 90 days regardless of whether he could obtain such approval at the outset enables him to take cover under the letter of the law even when he violates its spirit. The members of Congress who criticized the President for not obtaining Congressional approval before sending troops over the Libya were essentially accusing the President of having done precisely that. Had the President secured Congressional approval beforehand, his hand as commander in chief would have been strengthened because a majority of the American people and states would have been behind him. Had Congress refused, he should not have proceeded with the action; doing so anyway, while expedient, would not have been in line with our republic. So going to Congress first would have been a win-win for the President from a democratic standpoint, although not from that of wanting to take part in the international effort. Sometimes it takes self-discipline for a President to put the republic form above even what he wants to do in a particular case.

1. "How the War Powers Act Works," The New York Times, March 29, 1984.
3. Sam Stein and Amanda Terkel, "Obama's Libya Policy Makes Strange Bedfellows of Congressional Critics," The Huffington Post, March 21, 2011. 
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
2. Ibid.