So the question is "Can the international environment be fundamentally remade?" After the week of arguing for the pros and cons of this statement, I think the answer we've arrived at is a solid... maybe... depending on how one defines the "fundamentally remade" part.
For me, I think that the answer is yes, the international environment can be fundamentally remade. I think it will either be a gradual process as organizations like NATO and the UN and such barter for more power over the states who are members in the organizations, showing how it's beneficial to them to give up that power for greater security, more economic power, etc. Or it'll happen in response to a cataclysmic event - being from Wyoming, my mind automatically goes to the super-volcano under Yellowstone blowing up and covering a good chunk of the world in ash, while plunging the rest of the world into an unnatural winter. Based on how IO's began after world war 2 (in response to a cataclysmic event) I think that the chance of fundamental change happening in our life time is rather small - hence the cynicism. In order to move toward the kind of governance that comes to mind (the Federation from Star Trek) I think that there would have to be a total shift in every country as to how they self-identify. What I mean is, we could no longer say "I'm American" with the kind of emphasis we now do, it would have to shift to "I'm american." We would have to see ourselves as citizens of the world first, Americans second. This kind of shift is probably possible, but does require generations of people traveling the world, understanding world issues, electing leaders who truly have no intention of being the ones to push the nuclear button. I'm writing this from an American standpoint, obviously, but I think it does cross other borders. One of the most enlightening parts of travel is learning that people are people everywhere. Disappointment in cancelled trains sounds the same in Budapest as it does in Paris or New York.
Of course the image I have of an interconnected, understanding world is probably different from yours. Hence the idealist in me. Imagine a world with no war and no poverty. I think we owe it to ourselves and to the future to even try to make that a reality. Yes, there's plenty of other issues, but again, change takes time. As for the issue of sovereignty... I think that every time we get scared or surprised, our reaction is to pull back, to assess the event, collect data, determine our reaction and then re-engage. Every state at this point in time will pull back if they feel that their national identity is being threatened by international organizations or globalization. That's why we tend to go back toward the billiard balls analogy. The thing is, in our interconnected society, as technology reaches the furthest ends of the globe, I think that states will no longer be able to retreat back into an impermeable shell. Like it or not, we're more connected than ever before and international states and organizations are trying to find their ways in a world where there is no precedent and it's scary and they're doing the best they can while making sure that their interests are served. Basically I think that economics and technology will drive globalization and international cooperation more than any other factors. We'll likely end up fighting radical groups within countries rather than countries themselves, which will make warfare totally different from any other point in history (as is happening now). And eventually we will have to figure out if our national identity is more important than having a mutual place to live (good old planet Earth).
So perhaps I lean more toward cynical than idealist... I want good changes, I just have NO idea how they could come about... at least not right now... tune in next week. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment