Should the world be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states?

Perhaps we should first rephrase the question: is the nation-state the best option for organizing the world? I think it is not. Territorial nation-states imply first that the land actually belongs to someone or another, second that there needs to be boundaries between people. I believe this encourages discrimination between people and a "better than you" attitude among people. Which nation is better than the other? Does it really matter?

I think instead that the world should be organized into tribes. Tribes, in my opinion, are more people-centered and not territory-centered. They are more peaceful as a result. The land belongs to nobody, and people can live wherever they want with the only rule that they do not infringe on the other peoples' same right. People can disagree, but it doesn't turn into big wars with heavy losses. It would be easier for people to develop their foreign policy positively instead of having all these prejudices against people who have the land they may want. Overall, I think if the world switches back to the seemingly primitive tribal system, the world would be a better place.

A Case for the Organization of Nation-States

Political history is one of the richest areas of study because it allows us to examine different political entities and their effectiveness on the global stage. Opello and Rosow’s The Nation-State and Global Order offers us insight into the transformation of government through tribes, city-states, empires, and eventually this “nation-state” that we recognize in the modern world today. After a swift review of our world’s history lessons, we are left with an important question: should the world be organized as a collection of sovereign territorial nation-states? I say yes.In order to sift through why, I broke down the definition given to us. In more or less words, Opello and  Rosow define a nation state as:

1. “A distinct geographically defined territory over which it exercises jurisdiction that:

a. has sovereignty over its territory exclusive of outside interference by other entities;

b. has a government made up of public offices and roles that control and administer the territory and population.”

 In the globalized world we now inhabit, the accepted presence of this nation-state is the logical compromise between local and imperial rule. On the one hand, history shows us that the once prosperous Roman empire could only extend its authority so far until it exhausted its resources and could no longer incorporate all its peoples under one umbrella. On the other hand, small city-states or local entities such as Native American tribes are too small to provide necessary protection and services for the modern individual.  Thus, the nation-state can be seen as the Aristotelian “golden mean” of government structures, a compromise of two quantitative extremes.

            

An issue that truly challenges the sovereignty of the nation-state is this principle of non-intervention. In current affairs, we can see countless contentious “hot issues” where non-intervention does not seem ethically appropriate. This is where the presence of international law and entities like the United Nations play an irreplaceable role. For example, the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan forced other nation-states to use tools like economic sanctions and no fly zones to pressure the Sudanese government to stop their abhorrent acts. Moving into greyer area, Western nation-states, especially the U.S., feel called to intervene with the deprivation of women’s rights in Arab countries like Afghanistan. The principle of non-intervention stops us from forcing our own moral and political values on others unilaterally. Even when the organization of nation-states and the central principle of non-intervention seem to tug on our moral consciences, we know that practically this is the best viable option for our modern political system.  The nation-state, and its relationship with developing international law and entities, is our era’s contribution, as Opello and Rosow remind us, to the perpetual trial and error experiment that is political history. 

"Should the world be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states?"

The world should be divided up into sovereign territorial nation-states. This is so because it seems the most suited for keeping long time peace. “The Nation-State and Global Order” describes a nation state as “distinct geographically defined territory over which it exercises jurisdiction: second, has sovereignty over its territory, which means that its jurisdiction is theoretically exclusive of outside interference by other nation-states or entities; third it has a government made up of public offices and roles that control and administer the territory and population subject to the state’s jurisdiction.” This is how people want to be governed, they don’t want opposing forces coming in and telling them what to do and what to think.

There are a few exceptions of city-states such as Singapore and the Vatican. City-states might work but we wouldn’t be as technologically advanced as we are today. It would be harder to establish relations with other city-states because there would be so many, making it difficult for scientists to communicate and share ideas to create anything such as medicine or faster ways of travel, in a nation-state system they would be from other parts of the world but this wouldn’t matter. There are also a few exceptions for tribes like the Kurds who live in the mountains in Turkey, Iraq and Iran. If we had tribes I think they would eventually ally with each other creating larger tribes and in a sense city-states and/or nation states, but life with in a tribe would be much harder, we wouldn’t have any of the amenities we have today. Empires in these days would mean total war with the advanced military technology we possess. The last true empire was the Japanese Empire and they didn’t last as long as a traditional empire.

As history has shown us empires are always trying to expand by taking over any land they haven’t been to yet. They don’t recognize any country, city-state or tribe that is not their own and will go to war with one if it does not succumb to it. If the world was split up into empires today, the world would most likely end because of the weapon technology that today’s countries possess. It would only work if we decide to create a boundary, but that’s not the mentality of an empire. We would be at war until there was one empire standing; empires also usually impose their ideals on the people they conquer which no one likes. City-states would probably be run by warlords and have constant skirmishes, every now and then a few might come together forming a small kingdom, then fall apart much like early European ones in Christendom. Tribes would eventually ally with each other and form confederations like the “Iroquois Federation” for protection.

In conclusion being divided up into sovereign territorial nation-states is best for our world. People don’t want ideals forced on them from an empire or to live without the amenities we have today. It seems that even if we weren’t nation-states we would become them, empires would crumble into city-states and tribes who would form nation-states because it is the best and easiest way to govern.

Follow-up to Globalization & Sports Discussion

The Washington Post today, August 30th, featured a very poignant article on globalization that expands on our discussion of Foer's book last week. This front-page article discusses baseball, America's traditional pastime, and its growing influence in China. Check it out if you have time. I think it offers another interesting perspective on the strong connection between international sports and globalization.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/29/AR2010082903892.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

Reflection: Week One

Through further examination of the issues of globalization and nationalism in our class on Thursday, I came to fully appreciate the unique power of Franklin Foer’s How Soccer Explains the World. When I first began the book, I was surprised that a book subtitled “an unlikely theory of globalization” did not clearly state an opinion on the matter. However, after the class discussion, it became apparent that the vagueness of the thesis purposefully provoked debate about the pros and cons of globalization. The author uses a simple sport, soccer, as a metaphor to explain the much more complicated idea of globalization. Through his book, Foer allows readers to assess the everyday effects of globalization and nationalism in a way they can easily understand.

This week, I had discussions in various classes that allowed me to further study this topic of globalization, specifically the cross-sections of different cultures. In Cross-Cultural Communication with Professor Chin, my class examined the miscommunications that can occur when individuals in different cultures are forced to interact. I was introduced to the idea of “cultural schema,” in other words the cultural glasses with which we view the world. In listening to these outside discussions, I remembered the stories of players like Edward in Foer’s book who adapted to life in Ukraine by modifying his “cultural schema.” Through this, it became clear that international sporting events can be the perfect platform to experience the grand “clash of civilizations,” as described by Samuel Huntington. In an increasingly globalized society, it takes Foer and other bright minds to remind us of the glasses that limit our perception of political and social interaction in the world around us. Thank god someone thinks to remind us that we were wearing glasses after all.

Reflection - Week One

Two very shocking and upsetting things were brought to my attention this week:

1) AIDS is a big problem here and this country is the only large-scale contributor towards its prevention worldwide.

2) Americans are not as passionate about national sports teams and our place in the international community as the rest of the world.

Hearing the AIDS presentation made me feel a little sad, embarrassed, and frustrated. Sad because of how the world is not doing enough to help the poor people living with HIV/ AIDS. Why not? Who cares what their situation is? These are real people here, with a real disease that isn't just going to go away. On that note, I felt a bit embarrassed that I never really paid attention to this issue before for many of the same reasons people are not contributing money. I judged the people with the disease, people I don't know personally nor cared to. I judged people based on the little I knew. Finally, I was frustrated with myself and with those other judgmental people. The world should take a better stand in fighting HIV/ AIDS in the future. If only the world were more open-minded and accepting of other cultures and ways of life, we could probably come up with effective solutions to stop the spread of HIV/ AIDS across the globe.

The other thing I learned this week that frustrated me was America's apathy towards the world. We don't pay much attention to participation with other countries in sporting events and tend to hold a better-than-you attitude toward other countries. When Thomas mentioned our melting pot of a country, I was thinking about the difference between a "melting pot" and a "cultural mosaic" culture. Yes, we are a melting pot. We have all the other cultures of this nation mixed into ours. This does not mean, as Thomas said, that "America is globalization." If we were a cultural mosaic, one could argue that we are. If we just pieced all of our different cultures together, each keeping their individuality (as a mosaic suggests), then we could say we are globalization. But we have to care about other cultures, not just be so intent on making everyone else like us. We also have to branch out and be social with other nations through things like sporting events outside the Olympics. How do we do this? How do we get our country to be more of a mosaic? I believe this starts with us. This generation of college students must initiate the acceptance of other cultures. One day, we will be the ones in policy making positions. If we gain the acceptance of others now, we will be able to ensure others will later.

Reflection on first week of class:

I think that it’s absolutely crazy that we are the only country that is really trying to help AIDS victims around the world. I don’t know whether these other countries are helping themselves first or if they are just being selfish. If other wealthy nations like England, France or China would donate as much as we do then we would be able to treat a lot more people and have more money to fund the finding of a cure and/or a possible vaccine. If we are going to be the only country that is trying to help then it seems a little useless, I’m not trying to sound cruel but if we could help out with problems we have in our country now instead of helping AIDS/HIV victims in other countries then we probably should, but if other countries also decide to chip in then we could help the AIDS/HIV victims.

Also when everyone in class was talking about how Americans only come together for sporting events that we care about like the Olympics, I was raising my hand but didn’t get the ball, I was trying to say that the world basketball championships are going on as we were speaking, in fact America was playing Lithuania at that very moment. They started Friday I believe. Basketball is arguably the second most popular sport in the country and the world cup of it is on T.V. I haven’t heard any one mention it, the games aren’t on big name networks like espn, they are mostly on NBA T.V which if you don’t have an above average cable package then you won’t get. The main reason a lot of people don’t know its going on is because we don’t have our big name players like Kobe Bryant, Lebron James, or Dwayne Wade playing in it, this is because of insurance and injury issues on their new contracts this season, they all would like to play but as we said in class American sports is more of city vs. city rather than America vs. other countries, which in my mind is more exciting.

Iran and its conquest for nuclear weapons

                The biggest issue in world politics is Iran. They support and harbor terrorism giving Hezbollah Hezbollah UAV's which were used against the Israelis in 2006 and Al-Queda armor piercing rounds that rip apart our military vehicles in Iraq, they want to destroy one of our closest allies Israel, and are developing Nuclear weapons. If they destroy our ally in Israel we lose a front line on the Middle East, they have provided us wih a lot of vital information. Israel has almost always supported us and has openly acknowledged that they have our back when not many countries do. Iran is also facing internal problems with their leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who supposedly rigged an election to keep himself in power, openly denies the Holocaust when there is all the proof in the world that it happened, I was in Poland, I was in Auschwitz, it happened. The country also has hardly any rights for women which brings up the issue of an Iranian women who was charged with adultery after her husband died and was sentenced to death by stoning now that those charges were lifted due to international pressure the government is now charging her with murder of her husband They are gearing up their nuclear program getting nuclear material from Russia just this past week along with revealing new weapon of war also this past week, a bomber drone that can fly 620 miles (that range can attack most of our bases in Iraq). They are just ignoring United Nations sanctions and refuses to let international inspectors come in and see what exactly they’ve got going on in their nuclear plants that they say “are for nuclear energy”.

               Iran is a serious problem they may not have many natural resources but they do have arguably the most value in oil and they have a lot of oil which they could by other natural resources with. If Israel was to try a military strike on Iran’s biggest threat being its nuclear facility they would end up killing a bunch of Russian technicians, this would be bad because Russia is on the P5+1 and wants them to be tougher on Iran. Iran may say that their nuclear facilities are made for electrical power but they are enriching their uranium which is what you do when you want to make a nuclear bomb, so you be the judge with that. The latest list of sanctions bans countries from things they wouldn’t normally do like sell them aircraft or other military vehicles but it only recommends countries to not align themselves financially or inspect Iranian ships coming in and leaving their ports along with many more.

               If Iran is to be dealt with diplomatically which is the way we all hope happens, because their people don’t want their government, they’ve been protesting in the streets then we need to have much harder sanctions on them that for example we wouldn’t allow them to sell their oil which would choke them financially and they would have to allow us in to see their nuclear “power plants”. If that can’t happen then I agree with our government’s statement that all options are on the table which could include a military strike on their facilities.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100813/ap_on_hi_te/iran_nuclear_10

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2010/08/22/nr.walsh.iran.arms.cnn?iref=allsearch

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/us-jet-shoots-d/



By: Alex H.

The Hydra: Violent Religious Extremism

The biggest issue in world politics today is naturally the most complex to tackle.  Violent religious extremism, in the form of Islamic militants, violent Zionists, or the KKK, is one of the greatest challenges the international community will have to face in the 21^st century. The use of religion as a political tool in veiled land and economic disputes in the Middle East and elsewhere threatens the security of citizens everywhere. Religiously affiliated terrorist groups (for example, Al Qaeda) continue to fuel the cultural myth of “the clash of civilizations,” a construct that will hamper international relations between the West and East until it is discredited.  In order to solve this universal problem, the international community must examine its roots in poverty, unemployment, and a deprived education system.  Terrorism in the Middle East is perhaps the most poignant and recognized example of the multifaceted nature of this political animal.

                                                     (Athenian red-figure vase, ca.475 BC, Palermo, Sicily)
 “Religious” terrorist networks in the Middle East have often been equated to the ancient Greek monster Hydra. According to Greek mythology, Hydra was a nearly invincible monster with seven heads. When attacked, each head would grow back two fold. The United States may hunt down existing Islamic militants in Afghanistan, however, the more fighters killed, the more that spring up in their place. This is why a unilateral military strategy for combating terrorism will not suffice. While other global issues can be dealt with in political or economic negotiations, religious extremism is a component of culture that will take generations to drain. As the ancient Greek myth of Hydra informs us, the best way to attack the monster of terrorism would be to burn its roots, or in other words nullify the next generation of potential recruits. In order to break this endless cycle, the world must provide the next generation of so-called “third world” citizens a less violent, healthier and more prosperous path in life.  To tackle the roots of violent religious extremism, sovereign nations, in conjunction with the international community, would need to focus funding on improving education for both men and women, increase employment opportunities, and implement social programs for youth.  In this way, counterterrorism can be viewed as a complex area of social work.

                                                 Hydra (9/30/01, Black &White World, page 9.)
    Because of its intricate nature, violent religious extremism holds the gauntlet for major issues facing the global community in this century. With increased globalization, internet communication, and the proliferation of dangerous nuclear weapons, violent religious extremism has raised the stakes for national security around the world. Just as Hercules killed the Hydra by scorching its necks before the heads grew back, the international community must imagine creative solutions to burn the roots of this persistent threat to international security.

By: Aubrey Rose

Authors Note: Historically, the Greek myth of Hydra has been equated to complex issues in society. While I have never read an in-depth comparison of terrorism and the Hydra, I cannot claim this as my own metaphor. While I have no specific article to cite, I want to offer the disclaimer that this metaphor has been used before and I do not claim it as my original creation.