A global government to solve and prevent all conflicts? Vegetarianism and yoga to make a more peaceful world order?
No way.
Our last lecturer, a former World Bank employee, had views on restructuring world order that basically required a suspension of rational thinking. I’ve heard the argument before: a single world government would be better suited to mediate conflicts between states. Now, I don’t want to put out the energy of idealists, but we should not assume dictators and autocrats will suddenly start behaving if we give the UN more authority. The practicality of a global government ends as soon as one asks, well, practical questions: how are decisions made? who leads? one state, one vote? votes based on national population? votes on economic strength? what would stop tyrants from consolidating their votes to endanger the security of free nations? etc.
These are not the only reasons, of course. Most importantly, why would the United States ever submit itself to a degradation of its sovereignty? We will act in our interest as would any other country that enjoyed our relative power in the international system.
Of course, I don’t mean to oversimplify the multiple arguments against international institutions and agreements. I am certainly not in the camp of reactionary ideologues and hyper-political extremists who wish to suggest that truly beneficial treaties--those that help us improve our economic interests and get closer to a more peaceful, predictable world order--are somehow harming our national sovereignty. There’s a reason that both Democratic and Republican administrations have sought free trade agreements and arms treaties. However, what our lecturer spoke of is whole different ball game: the idea that world order can be better enforced from some vague idea of a global government is absurd. Free and prosperous (i.e. market economy) states which are responsive to their people’s needs and work toward just societies must not sacrifice their independence to the whims of unstable authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Quite frankly, I just can’t imagine South Korea giving Kim Jong-Il a vote on security issues, or the Saudis letting the Iranians do the same.
In some regards, the UN can be an important arena of discussion and creating the politically beneficial perception of legitimacy on certain actions, but by no means should it be a serious constraint to US security interests, as our lecturer would prefer. The model example I can think of a legitimate American use of the UN is in the run-up to the Gulf War (1990-91, not 2002-2003). UN Article 51 probably gave the US the right to intervene on Kuwait’s behalf without UNSC approval, but George HW Bush and his team thought it wise to seek international validation through diplomacy and the UNSC. That being said, not being able to secure UNSC approval probably would not have stopped Bush 41. (Allow me to note right now my opposition to the way that Bush 43 went to war in Iraq, the belief that it would be easier than he thought, and his disregard of the need for broad allied support--and many more reasons. I’m simply commenting that, in comparing the two cases of seeking international agreement, 41 did a much better job than 43.)
Back to India, though. I generally think that undeveloped and weak countries perceive the UN as an outlet to voice their opposition to more powerful states. What surprises me most about a well educated man giving a lecture in favor of global governance is that India is on the rise. So why would he advocate that India should submit itself to a constraining power? One would think that only declining powers and the weak states would find more benefits in stronger global institutions that could curb rising powers.
Then again, this guy also said that worldwide adoption of vegetarianism and yoga would contribute world peace. That was the point in the lecture when I checked out and realized an active Q&A with this guy was not worth my time. I know other classmates agreed.
(One final note: please don’t count me in the crowd of extremists who actively seek to sabotage institutions like the UN. International organizations do have their purpose and can be a positive force for change in certain areas. Working toward an ideal world is laudable, but depending on unrealistic hyper-idealism that ignores fundamental aspects of national behavior (i.e. pursuing interests) and human nature is just a step too far. That being said, a thorough and apolitical discussion of international institutions cannot take place in just one blog post.)
By Steven S., MPIA
No way.
Our last lecturer, a former World Bank employee, had views on restructuring world order that basically required a suspension of rational thinking. I’ve heard the argument before: a single world government would be better suited to mediate conflicts between states. Now, I don’t want to put out the energy of idealists, but we should not assume dictators and autocrats will suddenly start behaving if we give the UN more authority. The practicality of a global government ends as soon as one asks, well, practical questions: how are decisions made? who leads? one state, one vote? votes based on national population? votes on economic strength? what would stop tyrants from consolidating their votes to endanger the security of free nations? etc.
These are not the only reasons, of course. Most importantly, why would the United States ever submit itself to a degradation of its sovereignty? We will act in our interest as would any other country that enjoyed our relative power in the international system.
Of course, I don’t mean to oversimplify the multiple arguments against international institutions and agreements. I am certainly not in the camp of reactionary ideologues and hyper-political extremists who wish to suggest that truly beneficial treaties--those that help us improve our economic interests and get closer to a more peaceful, predictable world order--are somehow harming our national sovereignty. There’s a reason that both Democratic and Republican administrations have sought free trade agreements and arms treaties. However, what our lecturer spoke of is whole different ball game: the idea that world order can be better enforced from some vague idea of a global government is absurd. Free and prosperous (i.e. market economy) states which are responsive to their people’s needs and work toward just societies must not sacrifice their independence to the whims of unstable authoritarian or totalitarian regimes. Quite frankly, I just can’t imagine South Korea giving Kim Jong-Il a vote on security issues, or the Saudis letting the Iranians do the same.
In some regards, the UN can be an important arena of discussion and creating the politically beneficial perception of legitimacy on certain actions, but by no means should it be a serious constraint to US security interests, as our lecturer would prefer. The model example I can think of a legitimate American use of the UN is in the run-up to the Gulf War (1990-91, not 2002-2003). UN Article 51 probably gave the US the right to intervene on Kuwait’s behalf without UNSC approval, but George HW Bush and his team thought it wise to seek international validation through diplomacy and the UNSC. That being said, not being able to secure UNSC approval probably would not have stopped Bush 41. (Allow me to note right now my opposition to the way that Bush 43 went to war in Iraq, the belief that it would be easier than he thought, and his disregard of the need for broad allied support--and many more reasons. I’m simply commenting that, in comparing the two cases of seeking international agreement, 41 did a much better job than 43.)
Back to India, though. I generally think that undeveloped and weak countries perceive the UN as an outlet to voice their opposition to more powerful states. What surprises me most about a well educated man giving a lecture in favor of global governance is that India is on the rise. So why would he advocate that India should submit itself to a constraining power? One would think that only declining powers and the weak states would find more benefits in stronger global institutions that could curb rising powers.
Then again, this guy also said that worldwide adoption of vegetarianism and yoga would contribute world peace. That was the point in the lecture when I checked out and realized an active Q&A with this guy was not worth my time. I know other classmates agreed.
(One final note: please don’t count me in the crowd of extremists who actively seek to sabotage institutions like the UN. International organizations do have their purpose and can be a positive force for change in certain areas. Working toward an ideal world is laudable, but depending on unrealistic hyper-idealism that ignores fundamental aspects of national behavior (i.e. pursuing interests) and human nature is just a step too far. That being said, a thorough and apolitical discussion of international institutions cannot take place in just one blog post.)
By Steven S., MPIA
No comments:
Post a Comment