In the realm of debate involving the discussion of the current global order, there are two types of individuals. There are globalists, and there are nationalists. These two groups represent the dominate viewpoints on the condition of the world, and how they believe it should be. Modern globalists espouse a doctrine that claws at the natural progress human society has taken, promoting the abolition of national borders and developing a regulated global market where, they claim, justice will be upheld by an international government. Nationalists, on the other hand, promote the opposite. They support the current system of sovereign nation-states interacting in the global free market seeking the benefit of their domestic populations, and, as Adam Smith clearly explains in his revolutionary work The Wealth of Nations, providing for the overall wellbeing of humankind through the pursuit of self-interest, or in this case national interest.
This debate is a common one. It is discussed daily on media networks across the globe, in the halls of national legislative bodies, in the United Nations, and in everyday households. Globalists and nationalists of all ethnicities, social classes, political affiliations, and religions say they hold the key to a better human condition, and each one claims the other to be the main obstacle to their movement. Which movement is correct? That is not an easy question to answer. The proper question to ask is, which one is more likely to prevail? It is obvious that national governments are not going to lay down their arms and come clamoring to the ideal of universal human unity, and multi-national corporations are not simply going to abandon their tax havens and profit-based business models for the common good of mankind. The globalist ideal is simply not a natural one. All humans are selfish, as are nations. The nation-state evolved naturally, and it will naturally remain by protecting its existence.
Nation-states are living beings, and their life-blood is the ambition of their citizens - each citizen pursuing his or her rational self-interest and interacting through domestic markets. So long as humans are on this earth, sovereign nation-states will exist. No “global governing institution” is going to abolish human instincts, and until you can override the natural mindset of the individual, you cannot override the natural existence of the nation-state.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
If only, If only
The one constant in the world is that people disagree. We disagree on how governments should be run, which religion is the right religion, how the Earth began, and the list goes on. The fact that we do not agree on everything is what brings diversity to the world, which, in my opinion, makes it a better and more interesting place. This is why the current system of territorially sovereign nation-states is working, at least better than our global system has worked historically.
Eradicating borders and blending the world into one continuous country would not solve any of our current issues. Although theoretically, this would be the quintessence of human existence, it is impossible. With the world organized into sovereign territorial nation-states, different beliefs systems, different governments, and different ideas are able co-exist. Clearly, it is not a perfect system. However, it relies on a balance of power that has seemed to function reasonably well in the years of its implementation. The state of European stability in the 1700’s relied on the idea that “once one state seemed to be gaining preeminent power, others would naturally come together to defeat its ambitions” (Nation-State and Global Order, 85). This allows for the preservation of the various cultures throughout the world. Furthermore, it has been a natural process through which we reached this point in history. As of now, this is the system that works appropriately enough.
I believe that we have reached a point where we are civilized enough to tolerate differences of opinions, for the most part. However, this only works when we are separated into areas of our general belief system, our nation-states. The issue comes into play with the acceptance of a contrasting opinion. The United States would never give up its foundational freedoms in order to gain better relations with any of our enemies. Whenever we reach the point where that is possible, then territorially sovereignty may need to go. But I don’t see that happening any time soon.
Eradicating borders and blending the world into one continuous country would not solve any of our current issues. Although theoretically, this would be the quintessence of human existence, it is impossible. With the world organized into sovereign territorial nation-states, different beliefs systems, different governments, and different ideas are able co-exist. Clearly, it is not a perfect system. However, it relies on a balance of power that has seemed to function reasonably well in the years of its implementation. The state of European stability in the 1700’s relied on the idea that “once one state seemed to be gaining preeminent power, others would naturally come together to defeat its ambitions” (Nation-State and Global Order, 85). This allows for the preservation of the various cultures throughout the world. Furthermore, it has been a natural process through which we reached this point in history. As of now, this is the system that works appropriately enough.
I believe that we have reached a point where we are civilized enough to tolerate differences of opinions, for the most part. However, this only works when we are separated into areas of our general belief system, our nation-states. The issue comes into play with the acceptance of a contrasting opinion. The United States would never give up its foundational freedoms in order to gain better relations with any of our enemies. Whenever we reach the point where that is possible, then territorially sovereignty may need to go. But I don’t see that happening any time soon.
Nationalism Vs. the Nation-State
It's sometimes hard to distance myself far enough from the modern nation-state to truly contemplate its relative benefits, because the nation-state is all I have ever grown up with. The United States, Canada, Mexico, and most every modern nation follows the nation-state model. The reason is simple: although obviously the cyclical nature of political forms means that eventually modifications will be applied to the nation-state, it is a better form of government and state organization than the ones the preceded it.
For example, take the city-state. When you think of a city-state, you tend to imagine ancient Greece, with its advanced culture and burgeoning democracy. You then further recall the Peloponnesian War between the city-states, and the years of city-state warfare and jostling for supremacy that followed. You recall the Italian city-states, like Pisa and Venice, and how they annihilated each other. By now, the culture has faded into distant memory. Why did city-states destroy each other?
The answer, of course, is nationalism.
When an entire culture is compacted into one minute, exposed area, Napoleonic complexes are inevitably going to rise up. Nationalism - intense, focused nationalism - is the result of having to defend against threats, real or perceived, on your territory or sovereignty, which is exactly what city-states always had to be on guard against. Whether Athens-Sparta or Pisa-Padua, city-states were so fiercely defensive about their own land that they engaged in preliminary, devastating warfare to stop threats before they stopped. Combine that with the fact that, by definition, a city-state is limited to the resources within its borders, and you have a nation desperate enough to fight to the point of self-destruction to paradoxically try to save its own identity. Too much nationalism is the problem with city-states - and if a city-state or many city-states conglomerate into one cogent nation, that nationalism can be diffused through a much larger, more powerful organ that alleviates the need to be so defensive. For example, when the Italian city-states merged into the nation-state of the Kingdom of Italy, peace took on a much more prominent role in the peninsula.
Ancient Greece, of course, lost its abilities to warmonger when the Roman Empire swallowed it. However, while empires like those of the Romans, Spanish, and English may have been mighty and stable for a time, nation-states succeeded them for a reason. Actually, they didn't SUCCEED empires; they were CARVED OUT of them, and nationalism is again the reason for the paring. Take the English empire as an example. Here you have an empire with a direct "sphere of influence" of the British Isles. It also has myriad extremely far flung holdings - India, Africa, North America - and in many of these places, the inhabitants don't consider themselves British at all, or are feeling salutary neglect/taxation to the point that they are a subclass of Brittery. With such a cultural and geographical gap between home-base and empirical outpost, nationalism takes hold in force. So much nationalism - so much desire to be known as Indian, Zulu, or American instead of the false title of "English" - comes, that independence is the only thing for the natives to do. The empire is thus slowly undone by nationalism, chunks of empire being turned into independent nation-states until England is left with just one nation-state left - England itself. The empire cannot defeat nationalism.
Finally, the tribe is a curious case. Tribes are the opposite of the above - tribes are inferior to nation-states because they possess not enough nationalism. For example, take the classic case of Native American tribes. I just read a great book, Indians & English: Facing Off in Early America, by Karen Kupperman, which focuses on Narragansett and Algonquin Indians. They lived in "tribes" in that they had family and blood ties to land, were loosely allied, and each tribal outshoot had a separate "chief". However, even BEFORE the Europeans came, tribes were beginning to centralize their power...come together...for a unifying government. In short, they were becoming like a nation-state. I postulate that when a tribe centralizes its power enough in order to live in the way, say, the modern Iroquois nation lives - peacefully and securely - that tribe needs to have nationalized enough that they are much more nation-state than tribe; and so the tribe cannot be a valid state at all.
On a final note, in between the 1815 Napoleonic Wars and World War I, Europe went through one hundred years of peace. These were the years that nation-statehood became the norm. This is not a coincidence. Nation-statehood, most off all, keeps nations from constantly warring and ensures their development as autonomous powers in a way no other system can.
For example, take the city-state. When you think of a city-state, you tend to imagine ancient Greece, with its advanced culture and burgeoning democracy. You then further recall the Peloponnesian War between the city-states, and the years of city-state warfare and jostling for supremacy that followed. You recall the Italian city-states, like Pisa and Venice, and how they annihilated each other. By now, the culture has faded into distant memory. Why did city-states destroy each other?
The answer, of course, is nationalism.
When an entire culture is compacted into one minute, exposed area, Napoleonic complexes are inevitably going to rise up. Nationalism - intense, focused nationalism - is the result of having to defend against threats, real or perceived, on your territory or sovereignty, which is exactly what city-states always had to be on guard against. Whether Athens-Sparta or Pisa-Padua, city-states were so fiercely defensive about their own land that they engaged in preliminary, devastating warfare to stop threats before they stopped. Combine that with the fact that, by definition, a city-state is limited to the resources within its borders, and you have a nation desperate enough to fight to the point of self-destruction to paradoxically try to save its own identity. Too much nationalism is the problem with city-states - and if a city-state or many city-states conglomerate into one cogent nation, that nationalism can be diffused through a much larger, more powerful organ that alleviates the need to be so defensive. For example, when the Italian city-states merged into the nation-state of the Kingdom of Italy, peace took on a much more prominent role in the peninsula.
Ancient Greece, of course, lost its abilities to warmonger when the Roman Empire swallowed it. However, while empires like those of the Romans, Spanish, and English may have been mighty and stable for a time, nation-states succeeded them for a reason. Actually, they didn't SUCCEED empires; they were CARVED OUT of them, and nationalism is again the reason for the paring. Take the English empire as an example. Here you have an empire with a direct "sphere of influence" of the British Isles. It also has myriad extremely far flung holdings - India, Africa, North America - and in many of these places, the inhabitants don't consider themselves British at all, or are feeling salutary neglect/taxation to the point that they are a subclass of Brittery. With such a cultural and geographical gap between home-base and empirical outpost, nationalism takes hold in force. So much nationalism - so much desire to be known as Indian, Zulu, or American instead of the false title of "English" - comes, that independence is the only thing for the natives to do. The empire is thus slowly undone by nationalism, chunks of empire being turned into independent nation-states until England is left with just one nation-state left - England itself. The empire cannot defeat nationalism.
Finally, the tribe is a curious case. Tribes are the opposite of the above - tribes are inferior to nation-states because they possess not enough nationalism. For example, take the classic case of Native American tribes. I just read a great book, Indians & English: Facing Off in Early America, by Karen Kupperman, which focuses on Narragansett and Algonquin Indians. They lived in "tribes" in that they had family and blood ties to land, were loosely allied, and each tribal outshoot had a separate "chief". However, even BEFORE the Europeans came, tribes were beginning to centralize their power...come together...for a unifying government. In short, they were becoming like a nation-state. I postulate that when a tribe centralizes its power enough in order to live in the way, say, the modern Iroquois nation lives - peacefully and securely - that tribe needs to have nationalized enough that they are much more nation-state than tribe; and so the tribe cannot be a valid state at all.
On a final note, in between the 1815 Napoleonic Wars and World War I, Europe went through one hundred years of peace. These were the years that nation-statehood became the norm. This is not a coincidence. Nation-statehood, most off all, keeps nations from constantly warring and ensures their development as autonomous powers in a way no other system can.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Reflection #1
This past week’s trip to PEPFAR and learning about how HIV/AIDS affects not only this small portion of our country gave me very fluctuating feelings throughout the day. The shift was basically between distraught and impressed. Impressed because the two women we met were using personal initiative to fight for a cause that has been deemed incurable, and distraught because of the shocking statistics, and my own initial ignorance towards the matter. Although countless people (especially college aged students) have heard the safe-sex, or even abstinence only speech, I was distraught by how little I had originally known about countless options that are available and the many efforts that are being made to prevent and treat HIV/AIDS. It was not frustrating because of my own personal lack of information per se, but more because the whole point of the first presentation was to inform and educate. I do not consider myself to be naive or ignorant about the subject, but it really put the situation into perspective. Since many HIV/AIDS victims could have prevented the disease by just being informed or educated, and I, a college student who has heard this speech multiple times didn’t know about programs such as needle exchange, maybe society’s attitude towards sex and drugs is getting in the way of saving lives. Instead of worrying about taboo situations, we should address the problems for what they really are and work towards solving the problem instead of letting someone else deal with it as we judge the victims.
I’ve seen this situation firsthand by going to high school in Knoxville, TN where, handing out condoms in the hallways at school would be attacked by churches and parents alike when in fact it is places like this here the education is lacking the most, and the condoms could have potentially save a life. On a more positive note, I was truly excited to hear a college students talk so informatively about the disease in our own community and I was glad to hear about the PEPFAR speaker’s experience with AIDS vistims and how it affected her so much that she know works for this specific organization. I certainly believe that education is key to preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. While there is no real “cure,” it is organizations and people like this who have been inspired to do something now, rather than later, and to think globally, yet act locally.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
How Exactly Did Soccer Explain the World?
Time to discuss Foer’s How Soccer Explains the World. During the World Politics’ class discussion, it was difficult to decipher if we reached any consensus whatsoever about his “unlikely theory of globalization.” So I would like to use this reflective blog to bring up the points in the book that I found most interesting.
I believe that his use of soccer as a means of presenting his argument was an original idea that established his pros and cons about globalization in a simple and coherent manner. It is important to note that the fact that he organized the book from the negative to the positive, proves that overall he is pro-globalization. If his purpose were to convince us that globalization is the bane of the world, as we know it, then he would not have finished it off with the stories of the Iranian football revolution.
However, his argument was not that simple, especially with the use of soccer as a metaphor for globalization. Foer obviously resents the anti-soccer sentiment rampant throughout the U.S. and he argues that this issue derives from America’s superiority complex. On the last page he admits that this country is unique in its experiences, however “it is not exceptionally immune to globalization” (248) He attempts to humble America through the idea that we fight about globalization “just like everyone else” presented in the book (248). We are affected by globalization and soccer as much as we try to deny it.
I believe that his use of soccer as a means of presenting his argument was an original idea that established his pros and cons about globalization in a simple and coherent manner. It is important to note that the fact that he organized the book from the negative to the positive, proves that overall he is pro-globalization. If his purpose were to convince us that globalization is the bane of the world, as we know it, then he would not have finished it off with the stories of the Iranian football revolution.
However, his argument was not that simple, especially with the use of soccer as a metaphor for globalization. Foer obviously resents the anti-soccer sentiment rampant throughout the U.S. and he argues that this issue derives from America’s superiority complex. On the last page he admits that this country is unique in its experiences, however “it is not exceptionally immune to globalization” (248) He attempts to humble America through the idea that we fight about globalization “just like everyone else” presented in the book (248). We are affected by globalization and soccer as much as we try to deny it.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Personal Growth, Nietzsche, and I
In reading Cavington's excellently written post below, the most striking point to me was the one that men are primarily driven by profit-and-acceptance based incentives. I would be inclined to disagree with this statement, in deference to the points first cogently espoused by Friedrich Nietzsche in his book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra". Though I am not the world's biggest Nietzsche fan by any means (I'm more of a Kant kind of guy), Nietzsche's theory of the will to power is one that has made an impact on my life and (I'm sure) on the lives of others.
Basically, Nietzsche's theory rejects the earlier view (posited by Schopenhauer) that all living things are motivated by a "will to live". Nietzsche saw how many men acted in self-serving ways, by doing as Cavington describes: using society to vault ahead, exerting dominance over others to get what is desired. But the deeper Nietzsche dug, the more he found that was good: artists and musicians devoting their lives to craft that would earn them neither fortune or fame; soldiers and medics diving back into battle, hopelessly outnumbered, knowing the fight was lost but unwilling to give in. Nietzsche realized that mankind possesses a will to exert POWER over its surroundings. Power can mean many things. It could, of course, indicate corporeal or monetary power. For many, however, it comes down to intellectual power (have I perfected my craft?). For some, the will to power comes out in an inexorable drive to self-improve, because the only way a man can appear truly powerful to himself is to become as well-rounded and excellent as he can be. The man in touch with his will to power will never be satisfied, except when he is working and improving - and isn't that exactly what society should encourage?
I mention this because without my discovery of my own will to power, I would not be at American University, pecking out this blog. There was a time in my life where I felt drained of ambition and of strength, when I felt no self-drive at all. Through discovery of Nietzsche's theory, I have found new life. Where I had coasted on natural talent in music and academics, now I work every day to get better. Where I had lost self-respect, I now step forward every day knowing that not only am I a better man than I was the day before, but that measures that I myself have taken have lead to this change. I am who I want to be, and there is no better feeling in the world.
Basically, Nietzsche's theory rejects the earlier view (posited by Schopenhauer) that all living things are motivated by a "will to live". Nietzsche saw how many men acted in self-serving ways, by doing as Cavington describes: using society to vault ahead, exerting dominance over others to get what is desired. But the deeper Nietzsche dug, the more he found that was good: artists and musicians devoting their lives to craft that would earn them neither fortune or fame; soldiers and medics diving back into battle, hopelessly outnumbered, knowing the fight was lost but unwilling to give in. Nietzsche realized that mankind possesses a will to exert POWER over its surroundings. Power can mean many things. It could, of course, indicate corporeal or monetary power. For many, however, it comes down to intellectual power (have I perfected my craft?). For some, the will to power comes out in an inexorable drive to self-improve, because the only way a man can appear truly powerful to himself is to become as well-rounded and excellent as he can be. The man in touch with his will to power will never be satisfied, except when he is working and improving - and isn't that exactly what society should encourage?
I mention this because without my discovery of my own will to power, I would not be at American University, pecking out this blog. There was a time in my life where I felt drained of ambition and of strength, when I felt no self-drive at all. Through discovery of Nietzsche's theory, I have found new life. Where I had coasted on natural talent in music and academics, now I work every day to get better. Where I had lost self-respect, I now step forward every day knowing that not only am I a better man than I was the day before, but that measures that I myself have taken have lead to this change. I am who I want to be, and there is no better feeling in the world.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Driving Force of the Modern Man
Mankind is generally driven by two major forces: 1) The desire of an individual to subscribe to a group or social movement that he can identify with, and 2) then profit-based incentive. From this statement one can draw the following two assumptions about the modern world: 1) the resurgence of nationalist fervor is an inevitable reactionary-consequence of rapid globalization, and 2) mankind's naturally instilled seflishness and drive for profit will constantly preserve, in the least, a small free market in all societies (i.e.the huge black market that developed in the late Soviet Union).
So, if human society continues on a course of forced globalization, what could be a likely result? For one, mankind can expect to see a surge of ultra-nationalism among the major national powers of this era - a perfect example of this can be seen currently in the Russian Federation with the formation of violent youth gangs based on ethno-national lines, the National Fronts in both France and Great Britain, and the growth of the Tea Party in the United States. On another note, trans-national corporations based in many of these superpower states can only be expected to become more powerful and spread their wings even wider.
When combined, the surge of ultra-nationalism and the rapid growth of corporations can be a powerful duo in the international arena. This combination could lead to a situation similar to that of the pre-World War I era with international business functioning as a form of neo-imperialism, for lack of a better term.Yes, this could quite possibly be an explosive system, although man needs to realize that despite how hard we try to become a "global community" under the single identity of "humankind," nationalism and the free market cannot be squandered under the ideal of globalism.
The modern capitalist nation-state will not die.
So, if human society continues on a course of forced globalization, what could be a likely result? For one, mankind can expect to see a surge of ultra-nationalism among the major national powers of this era - a perfect example of this can be seen currently in the Russian Federation with the formation of violent youth gangs based on ethno-national lines, the National Fronts in both France and Great Britain, and the growth of the Tea Party in the United States. On another note, trans-national corporations based in many of these superpower states can only be expected to become more powerful and spread their wings even wider.
When combined, the surge of ultra-nationalism and the rapid growth of corporations can be a powerful duo in the international arena. This combination could lead to a situation similar to that of the pre-World War I era with international business functioning as a form of neo-imperialism, for lack of a better term.Yes, this could quite possibly be an explosive system, although man needs to realize that despite how hard we try to become a "global community" under the single identity of "humankind," nationalism and the free market cannot be squandered under the ideal of globalism.
The modern capitalist nation-state will not die.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
When The Best Defense is No Offense
If you ask anyone, they'll tell you that while I am personally a realist, I am ideologically an optimist. However, there is one prospect on which I have misplaced my rose-tinted glasses, and that is on the trite, cliche, and utterly relevant issue of peace in the Middle East. I therefore submit that the most vital issue the world faces today is Israel's nuclear weapons, because if they are not reduced in number or eliminated, the volatile nature of the Middle East and the vulnerable nature of Israel's location will eventually result in a nuclear holocaust.
This, of course, is not a fresh issue. That said, the issue takes on new legs now that Israel's Ancient Enemies (read: Iran) have made inroads on Israel's WMD turf. It's never really LOST its legs, given that the basic nature of Israel has not changed in half a century: it's a tiny nation-state with a Napoleonic complex which will do anything to survive, surrounded by hostile countries that will do anything to see it gone. On Israel's part, "do anything to survive" could include a preemptive strike of 100-300 nuclear weapons (Jane's Defense Weekly, 2010); Kenneth Brower suggests Israel controls 400 warheads ("A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East," Jane's Intelligence Review, Special Report no. 14, 14-15). Yes, Israel may have 400 nuclear missiles.
Israel is the size of New Hampshire.
Imagine a war-torn New Hampshire, desperate, needing to strike in order to prevent being consumed by voracious New York and Pennsylvania, which would like nothing more than to crush New Hampshire out of existence. This New Hampshire has 400 nuclear missiles. Raise your hand if the prospect scares you - not so much for any of the states in question, but for the nation as a whole.
(My hand is raised.)
If Israel feels as if it is being compromised, it may unleash the "Samson option" a massive retaliatory strike involving all of its missiles. However, more worrisome is not how Israel might respond to threat, but when - according to GlobalSecurity.org, Israel's size and myriad enemies means that a preemptive nuclear attack is now considered the nation-state's best DEFENSE against any potential attack ("Strategic Options", Globalsecurity.org). That's right, potential.
It is important to note that I am not suggesting that Israel should somehow not have the right to defend itself from enemies. From the start, Israel was placed in an unusual and precarious position, and it has had to fight for its life since inception. However, this position has made Israel into something of a reactionary state; it mobilized nuclear arms during the 1993 Gulf War and during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example. This may have been a necessary adaption - without this hardnosed approach, perhaps Israel would not exist today - but eventually Israel will be pushed a bit too hard. In a world where a single lost world may mean elimination, and as belligerents get ever-closer to matching Israel's military might, missiles will eventually fall.
It is up to the global community - especially the United States, which gave more foreign aid to Israel between 1976 and 2004 than to any other nation - to work with Israel into first admitting and then reducing its nuclear capacity. Really, nuclear weapons should be eliminated altogether, but that's for another post. There are some who will say that the USA should not meddle in the affairs of other nations; however, this is not some mere foreign trifle. We are not in a huff about an economic sanction, or even a humans rights record. The problem we face is the potential for the world as we know it. Eventually, an explosive conflict will occur in the Middle East, and although Israel may have just cause to resort to nuclear force, it would be better for everyone else if they didn't have that option to fall back on. And for those who doubt that Israel would ever go that far, I leave you with this quote by Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld (Hirst, 'The Gun and the Olive Branch", 2003):
"I consider it all hopeless at this point...We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under...Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Gulp.
This, of course, is not a fresh issue. That said, the issue takes on new legs now that Israel's Ancient Enemies (read: Iran) have made inroads on Israel's WMD turf. It's never really LOST its legs, given that the basic nature of Israel has not changed in half a century: it's a tiny nation-state with a Napoleonic complex which will do anything to survive, surrounded by hostile countries that will do anything to see it gone. On Israel's part, "do anything to survive" could include a preemptive strike of 100-300 nuclear weapons (Jane's Defense Weekly, 2010); Kenneth Brower suggests Israel controls 400 warheads ("A Propensity for Conflict: Potential Scenarios and Outcomes of War in the Middle East," Jane's Intelligence Review, Special Report no. 14, 14-15). Yes, Israel may have 400 nuclear missiles.
Israel is the size of New Hampshire.
Imagine a war-torn New Hampshire, desperate, needing to strike in order to prevent being consumed by voracious New York and Pennsylvania, which would like nothing more than to crush New Hampshire out of existence. This New Hampshire has 400 nuclear missiles. Raise your hand if the prospect scares you - not so much for any of the states in question, but for the nation as a whole.
(My hand is raised.)
If Israel feels as if it is being compromised, it may unleash the "Samson option" a massive retaliatory strike involving all of its missiles. However, more worrisome is not how Israel might respond to threat, but when - according to GlobalSecurity.org, Israel's size and myriad enemies means that a preemptive nuclear attack is now considered the nation-state's best DEFENSE against any potential attack ("Strategic Options", Globalsecurity.org). That's right, potential.
It is important to note that I am not suggesting that Israel should somehow not have the right to defend itself from enemies. From the start, Israel was placed in an unusual and precarious position, and it has had to fight for its life since inception. However, this position has made Israel into something of a reactionary state; it mobilized nuclear arms during the 1993 Gulf War and during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, for example. This may have been a necessary adaption - without this hardnosed approach, perhaps Israel would not exist today - but eventually Israel will be pushed a bit too hard. In a world where a single lost world may mean elimination, and as belligerents get ever-closer to matching Israel's military might, missiles will eventually fall.
It is up to the global community - especially the United States, which gave more foreign aid to Israel between 1976 and 2004 than to any other nation - to work with Israel into first admitting and then reducing its nuclear capacity. Really, nuclear weapons should be eliminated altogether, but that's for another post. There are some who will say that the USA should not meddle in the affairs of other nations; however, this is not some mere foreign trifle. We are not in a huff about an economic sanction, or even a humans rights record. The problem we face is the potential for the world as we know it. Eventually, an explosive conflict will occur in the Middle East, and although Israel may have just cause to resort to nuclear force, it would be better for everyone else if they didn't have that option to fall back on. And for those who doubt that Israel would ever go that far, I leave you with this quote by Israeli military historian Martin Van Creveld (Hirst, 'The Gun and the Olive Branch", 2003):
"I consider it all hopeless at this point...We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen, before Israel goes under...Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Gulp.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Blog #1: God Bless America and No Place Else...?
In regards to World Politics, and the way nations compete and coexist in an infinitely changing environment, I believe interdependence is the most important issue. It is critical in the understanding of how the world has and will continue to function in an organized manner. Interdependence consists of the way countries and even individual leaders interact and adjust to cater to the needs of other global citizens, and more importantly the needs of their own people. History shows that in times of need such as war, famine, or disaster, nations are often unable to recover alone. Institutions such as the United Nations (UN) have even been implemented to organize this interdependence in order to make it more efficient. Although the UN has been successful in many efforts and accomplished such tasks as promoting democracy in over 42 countries including South Africa and Cambodia, and even working with other organizations such as UNICEF to help develop smaller nation states, the organization still struggles with human rights issues all across the globe.
Similarly, interdependence can result in both positive and negative effects. This can most clearly be seen in times of great challenge and change. Allies and enemies are an example of the two ends of this spectrum. For example, the alliance between Britain and the United States during World War II was significant for both countries, and both were successful because of the partnership. Conversely, when interdependence fails and nations cannot coexist peacefully, enemies are formed. Interdependence also plays a key role in economics. For example, China is dependent on the US for buying its goods and the US is dependent on China for providing these goods for an expected price. Trade offs such as these have existed since the time of the Mesopotamians, and continue to be an integral part of the interdependence of countries today. Through these symbiotic relationships, nations can create networks to better solve the problems often addressed through world politics.
Why are we still killing each other?
With the infinite number of issues that the world faces today, it is difficult to identify a single topic as its most pressing dilemma. Therefore, I believe it prudent to dig into the basics of society, for progress is unattainable without covering the fundamentals. The most rudimentary aspect of society, and I mean rudimentary when I say this, is that humans exist. Hence, without humans, there is no society. Accordingly, the question at hand is why do we continue to kill each other?
Obviously, my position is that the most important issue in world politics today is that of human rights. Even after all that we have achieved, people in Darfur continue to be massacred in their own homes for the seventh consecutive year. Congolese women face the risk of rape by rebel groups during their systematic raid of Eastern Congo (Lederer, Canadian Press). Homosexual couples are denied marriage rights, based solely on their difference in sexual orientation. All these human rights violations, and the many more that exist, prove our lack of progress in the world. I don’t believe we can have complete pride in our other accomplishments as a global society because we must first establish human rights as an international commonality. With that, we will be able to reach out to all parts of the world and improve as a whole.
With industrialization, modernization, and globalization we learned how to utilize our resources, become more efficient, and interact with the world around us. I am not denying that these are improvements to society. But while we still lack the ability to have a universal sense of respect for one another, is there any way we can completely industrialize, modernize, or globalize? The answer is no.Monday, August 23, 2010
America: The Safehouse of Sovereignty
When asked the question, "What is the most important issue in world politics today?", the average American citizen would simply reiterate would he or she heard from common mass media sources: Western aid to unindustrialized societies, the AIDS/HIV epidemic, the War on Poverty/Drugs/Terrorism, etc. Although, many Americans fail realize the true, "umbrella" issue at hand - the slow, yet steady, death of national sovereignty. This issue does not pertain solely to the United States, but to all nations. Essentially, this issue can be conceptualized by one example, the creation of international law. International law serves one purpose, to submit each nation and their populations to the regulation and authority of a collevtive, international governing body. Such bodies include, but are not limited to the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the G8 Summit, the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice, etc.
Without question, the death of national sovereignty can be attributed to exponential rise in support of the modern globalist movement since the 1990's. Although, the first globalist movement began at the end of World War I with President Wilson pursuing the formation of the League of Nations, it has gone far beyond the orignal intentions of the extended use of diplomacy over armed conflict, and international economic interdependence through the abolition of trade barriers and global free trade (The American Pagent, Bailey). The movement has evolved and taken on a more "Orwellian" slant by the support of essentially a single world government and the institution of global "fair" trade (Profit over People, Chomsky).
What this boils down to is the underlying, subconscious objective of the modern globalist movement, the eventual elimination of the nation-state through the creeping regulation and intervention of world governing organizations. This could possibly result in the complete disapperance of the free enterprise system and the elimination of individual rights (The Virtue of Selfishness; Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand). This also clearly defines the pretense of anomisity toward the United Statesheld by many globalist-minded intellectuals - our clear resistence to growing globalist attempts to subvert our sovereign rights as a free and independent state, such as the refusal of the United States to sign the Rome Statute and recognize the jurisdiction of both the ICC and the ICJ (Failed States, Chomsky). Not to mention other bold actions the U.S. has taken that has reminded the world, and many angry globalists, that the idea of the sovereign nation is not dead: containment of Communism from 1950 to 1991, the defeat of the former U.S.S.R. through shear domestic military production power, refusal to adopt the globally popular European model of the the welfare state, the continuation of the War on Terror alone, etc. (The American Pageant, Bailey). Simply put, the United States is the vanguard, if not the last strong hold, of national sovereignty, and we exemplify this through the preservation of American interests.
Without question, the death of national sovereignty can be attributed to exponential rise in support of the modern globalist movement since the 1990's. Although, the first globalist movement began at the end of World War I with President Wilson pursuing the formation of the League of Nations, it has gone far beyond the orignal intentions of the extended use of diplomacy over armed conflict, and international economic interdependence through the abolition of trade barriers and global free trade (The American Pagent, Bailey). The movement has evolved and taken on a more "Orwellian" slant by the support of essentially a single world government and the institution of global "fair" trade (Profit over People, Chomsky).
What this boils down to is the underlying, subconscious objective of the modern globalist movement, the eventual elimination of the nation-state through the creeping regulation and intervention of world governing organizations. This could possibly result in the complete disapperance of the free enterprise system and the elimination of individual rights (The Virtue of Selfishness; Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand). This also clearly defines the pretense of anomisity toward the United Statesheld by many globalist-minded intellectuals - our clear resistence to growing globalist attempts to subvert our sovereign rights as a free and independent state, such as the refusal of the United States to sign the Rome Statute and recognize the jurisdiction of both the ICC and the ICJ (Failed States, Chomsky). Not to mention other bold actions the U.S. has taken that has reminded the world, and many angry globalists, that the idea of the sovereign nation is not dead: containment of Communism from 1950 to 1991, the defeat of the former U.S.S.R. through shear domestic military production power, refusal to adopt the globally popular European model of the the welfare state, the continuation of the War on Terror alone, etc. (The American Pageant, Bailey). Simply put, the United States is the vanguard, if not the last strong hold, of national sovereignty, and we exemplify this through the preservation of American interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)