In
class we spoke a lot about institutions and the way in which they bring about a
greater sense of camaraderie among states and how they increase communication and
therefore decrease the likelihood of essentially another world war. I
understand this and I respect this. However, I find it impractical when trying
to mitigate a situation in which one or both of the parties may be something
like a paramilitary group which is not a state in itself but poses a threat to
other states and citizens. With the United Nations, if two countries battle for
an extended period of time with one being unreasonable or the other making
false threats (or fulfilling those threats) they both begin to lose face. They
start to lose legitimacy in the eyes of others. It is in states’ best interest
to avoid any conflict that will make them look petty. This being said, paramilitary
groups like Hezbollah or ISIS don’t have this loss. In fact, with the more
attention they get from organizations, and the more arguments had and the more
they follow through on their threats, the more legitimacy they gain. This undermines, I think, the
foundations for overarching international organizations built to be bigger than
states.
As
of now the UN ‘military’ is a peacekeeping force that lines the border between
things like Cyprus and the Turkish side of Cyprus. With the rise of nuclear
weapons and the increase in prominence of terrorist groups it may be time for
countries to contribute actual armies to make a sort of world army. This would
create horrible problems in regards to compensation, contribution, deployment,
relevance, and if it is at all ethical I know. But I think it is time for a
unified force which has some teeth to be serious discussed. Right now there is
a vicious cycle of those who have the power to help do not have the responsibility
and those who (some say) have the responsibility do not have the means or authority
to rally a group who can actually change things. On the flip side, I don’t know
if becoming hostile will make us seem threatened and backfire instead of what
would be thwarting their efforts.
I
like to think that, ultimately, no single group of people will end the world
and that all of this is unnecessary, that mediation will always work and negotiation
is better than force and none of this will ever have to come to reality but I
think with the rise of technology the possibilities are now greater than the
imagination of what the guidelines surrounding organizations were meant to be.
Hershini,
ReplyDeleteI think that your take on international organizations is really interesting. I especially liked your comment that when organizations give attention to terrorist groups, the terrorist groups gain more legitimacy. I think this is really interesting because we talked a lot in class about how institutions add a lot to international relations. You are bringing up a different view: that organizations can also add a negative element to international relations. Ultimately, I think that your introduction to the idea of legitimacy brings an important lens to the issue. When talking about mutually assured destruction and the use of nuclear weapons as a deterrent, the concept of legitimacy cannot be overlooked; states will take other states more seriously if they consider their threats/use of deterrence as legitimate. If states or organizations do not have this legitimacy, they have much less influence.
Hey Hershini,
ReplyDeleteYou make very convincing point about the U.N. having more "teeth" (great analogy). I agree with part way because if the U.N. did have more military power then wouldn't that make them a global military. As stated in my post, we already have a global finical system, so adding a global military would be one step closer to a global government. In addition, how would the countries contribute man power to join the global military. Would the U.S. have to cut in half their military to support the global military. Similarly, how we afford the extra resources that would come with the U.N.'s new military?
Interesting thought.