Un papel de anarquía
Anarchy and the World of Tomorrow
Life and the world we live in is perpetually in change. We might not see that change in effect directly tomorrow but then again, time to us is felt differently than is seen across the whole of existence. The system in which our world operates in today is not the system that was around centuries ago nor is the system that will still be operable centuries from now. This, too, is not to say that all the world over is a part of this system but rather just a portion. There is a process of globalization that is going to continue to change the face of the planet. Regardless, the world is defined today by states working in an anarchic system with no supreme ruler or group dictating how everything should be. A level of order, however, is comprised but order is not dominant to all the world as yet. The matter at hand is where will Earth be in the near future. Will the United States help spread democracy to Iraq and perhaps other parts of the world from there? Will China rise to a major economic power and shift the world? In ten years from now, for instance, it may still be a world of anarchic behavior but the world may be that much closer to developing a world of order and diplomacy.
Anarchy is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as an absence of a ruler, an absence of government, and an absence of order. With no bounds or authoritative figures, a world of anarchy and chaos would clearly exist. A world of total anarchy, too, would comprise of a consistent state of fighting and Darwinian approach of “survival of the fittest.” However, in the sphere of international politics, which can still be a world designed for only the strongest to survive, it is not anarchy that is seen in contemporary times, but rather an anarchic system of states. International politics refers to the system which exists across the globe with “politics among entities with no ruler above them” (Nye 3) and thus anarchic. The anarchic plane that states exist upon is composed of states, as Nye declares, which are cohesive to some degree but with no ruling government or sovereignty overseeing them.
In other words, at the top organizational levels of the world, there are numerous constructs which might or might not be diplomatic with each other, but there at least is not a mere few sovereigns or ruling bodies controlling the entire world. A state in this system acts freely on its own device and what it is capable of doing. Thomas Hobbes, the renowned philosopher of seventeenth-century England, nurtured an idea of “state of nature” in his essay entitled Leviathan in describing the anarchic system found in international politics. The natural state of man can parallel to the anarchic system of states. A state can choose to war over land or people, or be peaceful, proactive and progressive or any other number of combined actions in order to survive. There is no higher force governing what a state does or does not do. In an anarchic system, “you can do what you want to, whenever you want to ..there's no one to stop you,” as put by musician Elliot Smith. While the actions of a state are important, it is not quite as important as just how it exists within the world system to survive. As is, existence is survival in life.
An anarchic system consists of a relative breakdown of communication or complete nonexistence of communication between existing states. Regional empires, such as Persia and China (Nye 3), have come and gone but on the basis that they ruled not their region but the whole world, only that is what they thought because of the lack of communication and distance to other states of their time. These regional empires, of course, and their unawareness of foreign lands were more common many centuries ago before the globe expanded. Now it is impossible for an empire to build and believe that it rules the world. When there is a lack of communication, there becomes a dearth of knowledge and understanding. Not knowing that there are other states or empires outside of one state's world, the idea of international politics and diplomacy is needless. But with the knowledge of the globe that we now have today, we cannot merely go about our business without consideration of other states. A sense of order, control and diplomacy ought to be had and as time develops the world, it may achieve much more order than what is here in the world today.
Order has a sense of control, dignity and community, whether local or global. With control comes respect and dignity in the world community. Nowadays, character can generally be valued over pure strength as one nation cannot overcome the world combined to control it all. Therefore that is pointless. Alternative means must take place, and through order this may be viable (Nye 250). Look at the example of the European Union and how the EU is striving for greater unity. It is not to take over the world, but to live in a system worth something more than mere power. Look, also at the example of Japan after World War II to today and China at the beginning of the 21st century. Their belief and value in economic power is far superior to any anarchic idea of thrusting muscle to achieve some power and influence.
In this day, a state ought to worry about backlash from other states in accordance with what violent tendencies are had. For example, parts of the world think very negatively of the United States over its war in Iraq. This may create much distrust toward the United States and potentially, if it got bad enough, more and more states could begin to distrust the state and its practices to a point where not any state in the rest of the world, give or take a few, would consider trade or other dealings with the United States. This could cause economic and social collapse and the state would decay internally. In this day and age, this hypothetical forecast is more probable than a world takeover by the United States.
One entity not spoken of yet is the effect that nonstate actors such as terrorist groups or internal rebellions have on the world (Nye 2). There will always be nonstate actors working at will. Look at how Usama Bin Laden took his jihad to the United States by the events that happened on 9/11 or the embassy bombings in 1998. Acts as such change and shape the world and how states deal with the world outside of the borders, and even within. The United States declared war on Al Qaeda, what else could they do? But look nowadays at what the warring states versus rebels situation is doing to the rest of the world: anti-American sentiment, decrease of popularity for President Bush which implicates to lack of confidence in what the state is doing, senseless death in the Middle East, government spending for military force which takes away from funding for domestic purposes like education and poverty, etc. These nonstate entities can cause just as much as recognized states and it is these that eventually will be all that blocks so-called order for the whole of the world. But the direction is still there.
World governments are afraid to go to war in this day and age due to the costs and other potential losses and cutbacks caused by war. With rising military costs for the war comes a decrease in a state's budget for other aspects of its society like education. Lack of funding for such could lead to an unstable social future for a state, meaning potential collapse. The outside view of a state going to war can also be a negative one, which as stated prior can cause much animosity toward the state. The potential loss just from the negative attitude that a state has against it could cause for ruin. The idea is to survive and “risking it” is risky business for which a state to bargain.
Plus, a state can find other means to fight against another state it otherwise would go to war with. It can set up sanctions to which if effective and persuasive enough, can cause the sanctioned state to fall back and work to fix whatever the problem was that lead to the sanctions by the other state. A state could also theoretically work diplomatically with a feuding state to settle petty quarreling. After all, is it not the case that all quarreling is petty? With a sense of morality, politics could be much more humane.
The world is maturing globally into a domesticated nature. Not everywhere, of course, but in lots of places. Through domestication comes a sense of bonding and connection with one another on a global scale. These bonds made, through economic means such as bank transactions across boundaries or via international trade, or through media relations such as with advertising, or the strongest way to connect with someone else around the globe: communication via the Internet. These means of communication and interaction help share and exchange values and beliefs which shape individuals, those of which that make up the populations of states. If a state develops a positive relationship with another state, then a need for anarchic ways of dealing with that state becomes obsolete. Thus, a sense of order is stored between the two states. Then those two states share order with other states, and so on and so forth. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before it wraps the world progressively and fruitfully.
As it is naive to think that the world could change for what some would call “the better,” is there reason to believe that there is a shift from Hobbes' perception of reality to a more communicative, peaceful world? While a natural state in which man may live is primitive at certain levels, the potential for a sense of purpose and morality still exists. The matter is with convincing a neighbor, whether near or far, to understand what it means to be diplomatic and not violent or troublesome. In an anarchic system, it seems that people from different states do not get to come together in a way in which those involved could really connect and do such a thing. One can realize that someone in California thinks just like someone in Nepal, but the lack of connection creates a meaningless connection. But with the development of the world in many ways, including virtually or electronically, these two individuals could find each other and otherwise develop this sense of peace and sharing with neighbors.
And so, is there an ever-increasing developing sense of global community? Yes, there is. While there always will exist certain differences to keep people unique and divided, a level of bonding and connecting is occurring throughout parts of the world due to exchange in the economic, physical, political and social sense. Economically, states have trade ties with each other that cause people to interact and develop relationships that potentially are civil. The physical and social exchanges can also be seen as economic, for instance, as jobs in the United States go overseas in which people need to relocate. Also, in the educational sector, students from all around the world travel to distant lands to study and meet local people, undoubtedly creating bonds that will be maintained throughout life. In the political sense, states interact diplomatically in order to strengthen ties to other states and to strengthen its own state. Different states around the world can see it is best to work proactively in a global community rather than be feuding and selfish in trying to get only what it wants and only thinking of itself. Having a voice is far greater than having mere power, as power does last.
As the world grows increasingly smaller with respect to technological advances and international trade, among other things, will there be a shift in international law with regards to enforcement? When states are distant both physically and socially, differences will keep two states from sharing and existing under the same standards of life. Since there is no international police at the moment, there is no enforcement against states or entities within a state against those that break laws set up by another state (4). The United Nations ideally was meant for such overseeing, but because not many nations are readily available to go to war as part of some far off fight or the very least want to financially support a means at which to police the world, the UN has wavered at times to be as effective as it could be in a world ready for it. But as time goes on, perhaps the world will develop toward a globally domestic place. At that point, it may be seen that there does develop a form of international policing so as to keep order in all parts of the world.
As ties increase between states and those ties grow stronger, will there be a level of domestic monopoly seen at the international level? Already it is seen that there is a notion of domesticism going on around the world with different people in different places getting together and sharing ideas and developing a sense of trust and connection. When these connections are made and grow stronger, the parties will not want to break the bonds made and so would not resort to force or violence to settle a dispute. Likewise, states want to have a conflict-resolution strategy in which problems can be settled civilly and righteously and not through war or forceful means. If many states agree to join a united group like the United Nations, then in this would develop a governing force that could have a monopoly of force on the world when a state or nonstate actor began to cause trouble. This monopoly on force is comparable to domestic political systems in which the government has absolute control over force to control society as well as the validation to do so.
Lastly, globalization is a process in which there is an interdependence developed among worldwide networks (186). The states of the world over the course of time develop bonds with other states for reasons previously discussed. The interdependence causes a need-based sense of trust among states for survival, potentially causing for true trust and true moralization within the communities of the states and the global community. Through this process of globalization, is there going to be a design of global domesticism? Could this global domesticism be on the horizon? Time will tell.
To conclude, potentially the world is either headed toward complete disaster and destruction or it is headed toward a level of order like of no other time before. More and more of us are realizing the detriment of war, and without war to go about a state's business, diplomacy becomes more valuable and appropriate. The point is that there is no certainty in tomorrow. What is seen or heard as reality today can be drastically different tomorrow. Through global development, perhaps someday there will be a conformity across state borders that is not seen today. This day may not be for centuries, but then maybe it could be in ten years. Unless the world keeps hold of its violent tendencies and destroys itself, which is another viable outcome in the future.
Works Referenced
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed. M-W, 2003.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. Understanding International Conflicts: an Introducation to Theory and History. 4th ed. New York: Longman, 2003.
Smith, Elliot. “Ballad of Big Nothing.” Either/Or. Kill Rock Stars, 1997.
Life and the world we live in is perpetually in change. We might not see that change in effect directly tomorrow but then again, time to us is felt differently than is seen across the whole of existence. The system in which our world operates in today is not the system that was around centuries ago nor is the system that will still be operable centuries from now. This, too, is not to say that all the world over is a part of this system but rather just a portion. There is a process of globalization that is going to continue to change the face of the planet. Regardless, the world is defined today by states working in an anarchic system with no supreme ruler or group dictating how everything should be. A level of order, however, is comprised but order is not dominant to all the world as yet. The matter at hand is where will Earth be in the near future. Will the United States help spread democracy to Iraq and perhaps other parts of the world from there? Will China rise to a major economic power and shift the world? In ten years from now, for instance, it may still be a world of anarchic behavior but the world may be that much closer to developing a world of order and diplomacy.
Anarchy is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as an absence of a ruler, an absence of government, and an absence of order. With no bounds or authoritative figures, a world of anarchy and chaos would clearly exist. A world of total anarchy, too, would comprise of a consistent state of fighting and Darwinian approach of “survival of the fittest.” However, in the sphere of international politics, which can still be a world designed for only the strongest to survive, it is not anarchy that is seen in contemporary times, but rather an anarchic system of states. International politics refers to the system which exists across the globe with “politics among entities with no ruler above them” (Nye 3) and thus anarchic. The anarchic plane that states exist upon is composed of states, as Nye declares, which are cohesive to some degree but with no ruling government or sovereignty overseeing them.
In other words, at the top organizational levels of the world, there are numerous constructs which might or might not be diplomatic with each other, but there at least is not a mere few sovereigns or ruling bodies controlling the entire world. A state in this system acts freely on its own device and what it is capable of doing. Thomas Hobbes, the renowned philosopher of seventeenth-century England, nurtured an idea of “state of nature” in his essay entitled Leviathan in describing the anarchic system found in international politics. The natural state of man can parallel to the anarchic system of states. A state can choose to war over land or people, or be peaceful, proactive and progressive or any other number of combined actions in order to survive. There is no higher force governing what a state does or does not do. In an anarchic system, “you can do what you want to, whenever you want to ..there's no one to stop you,” as put by musician Elliot Smith. While the actions of a state are important, it is not quite as important as just how it exists within the world system to survive. As is, existence is survival in life.
An anarchic system consists of a relative breakdown of communication or complete nonexistence of communication between existing states. Regional empires, such as Persia and China (Nye 3), have come and gone but on the basis that they ruled not their region but the whole world, only that is what they thought because of the lack of communication and distance to other states of their time. These regional empires, of course, and their unawareness of foreign lands were more common many centuries ago before the globe expanded. Now it is impossible for an empire to build and believe that it rules the world. When there is a lack of communication, there becomes a dearth of knowledge and understanding. Not knowing that there are other states or empires outside of one state's world, the idea of international politics and diplomacy is needless. But with the knowledge of the globe that we now have today, we cannot merely go about our business without consideration of other states. A sense of order, control and diplomacy ought to be had and as time develops the world, it may achieve much more order than what is here in the world today.
Order has a sense of control, dignity and community, whether local or global. With control comes respect and dignity in the world community. Nowadays, character can generally be valued over pure strength as one nation cannot overcome the world combined to control it all. Therefore that is pointless. Alternative means must take place, and through order this may be viable (Nye 250). Look at the example of the European Union and how the EU is striving for greater unity. It is not to take over the world, but to live in a system worth something more than mere power. Look, also at the example of Japan after World War II to today and China at the beginning of the 21st century. Their belief and value in economic power is far superior to any anarchic idea of thrusting muscle to achieve some power and influence.
In this day, a state ought to worry about backlash from other states in accordance with what violent tendencies are had. For example, parts of the world think very negatively of the United States over its war in Iraq. This may create much distrust toward the United States and potentially, if it got bad enough, more and more states could begin to distrust the state and its practices to a point where not any state in the rest of the world, give or take a few, would consider trade or other dealings with the United States. This could cause economic and social collapse and the state would decay internally. In this day and age, this hypothetical forecast is more probable than a world takeover by the United States.
One entity not spoken of yet is the effect that nonstate actors such as terrorist groups or internal rebellions have on the world (Nye 2). There will always be nonstate actors working at will. Look at how Usama Bin Laden took his jihad to the United States by the events that happened on 9/11 or the embassy bombings in 1998. Acts as such change and shape the world and how states deal with the world outside of the borders, and even within. The United States declared war on Al Qaeda, what else could they do? But look nowadays at what the warring states versus rebels situation is doing to the rest of the world: anti-American sentiment, decrease of popularity for President Bush which implicates to lack of confidence in what the state is doing, senseless death in the Middle East, government spending for military force which takes away from funding for domestic purposes like education and poverty, etc. These nonstate entities can cause just as much as recognized states and it is these that eventually will be all that blocks so-called order for the whole of the world. But the direction is still there.
World governments are afraid to go to war in this day and age due to the costs and other potential losses and cutbacks caused by war. With rising military costs for the war comes a decrease in a state's budget for other aspects of its society like education. Lack of funding for such could lead to an unstable social future for a state, meaning potential collapse. The outside view of a state going to war can also be a negative one, which as stated prior can cause much animosity toward the state. The potential loss just from the negative attitude that a state has against it could cause for ruin. The idea is to survive and “risking it” is risky business for which a state to bargain.
Plus, a state can find other means to fight against another state it otherwise would go to war with. It can set up sanctions to which if effective and persuasive enough, can cause the sanctioned state to fall back and work to fix whatever the problem was that lead to the sanctions by the other state. A state could also theoretically work diplomatically with a feuding state to settle petty quarreling. After all, is it not the case that all quarreling is petty? With a sense of morality, politics could be much more humane.
The world is maturing globally into a domesticated nature. Not everywhere, of course, but in lots of places. Through domestication comes a sense of bonding and connection with one another on a global scale. These bonds made, through economic means such as bank transactions across boundaries or via international trade, or through media relations such as with advertising, or the strongest way to connect with someone else around the globe: communication via the Internet. These means of communication and interaction help share and exchange values and beliefs which shape individuals, those of which that make up the populations of states. If a state develops a positive relationship with another state, then a need for anarchic ways of dealing with that state becomes obsolete. Thus, a sense of order is stored between the two states. Then those two states share order with other states, and so on and so forth. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before it wraps the world progressively and fruitfully.
As it is naive to think that the world could change for what some would call “the better,” is there reason to believe that there is a shift from Hobbes' perception of reality to a more communicative, peaceful world? While a natural state in which man may live is primitive at certain levels, the potential for a sense of purpose and morality still exists. The matter is with convincing a neighbor, whether near or far, to understand what it means to be diplomatic and not violent or troublesome. In an anarchic system, it seems that people from different states do not get to come together in a way in which those involved could really connect and do such a thing. One can realize that someone in California thinks just like someone in Nepal, but the lack of connection creates a meaningless connection. But with the development of the world in many ways, including virtually or electronically, these two individuals could find each other and otherwise develop this sense of peace and sharing with neighbors.
And so, is there an ever-increasing developing sense of global community? Yes, there is. While there always will exist certain differences to keep people unique and divided, a level of bonding and connecting is occurring throughout parts of the world due to exchange in the economic, physical, political and social sense. Economically, states have trade ties with each other that cause people to interact and develop relationships that potentially are civil. The physical and social exchanges can also be seen as economic, for instance, as jobs in the United States go overseas in which people need to relocate. Also, in the educational sector, students from all around the world travel to distant lands to study and meet local people, undoubtedly creating bonds that will be maintained throughout life. In the political sense, states interact diplomatically in order to strengthen ties to other states and to strengthen its own state. Different states around the world can see it is best to work proactively in a global community rather than be feuding and selfish in trying to get only what it wants and only thinking of itself. Having a voice is far greater than having mere power, as power does last.
As the world grows increasingly smaller with respect to technological advances and international trade, among other things, will there be a shift in international law with regards to enforcement? When states are distant both physically and socially, differences will keep two states from sharing and existing under the same standards of life. Since there is no international police at the moment, there is no enforcement against states or entities within a state against those that break laws set up by another state (4). The United Nations ideally was meant for such overseeing, but because not many nations are readily available to go to war as part of some far off fight or the very least want to financially support a means at which to police the world, the UN has wavered at times to be as effective as it could be in a world ready for it. But as time goes on, perhaps the world will develop toward a globally domestic place. At that point, it may be seen that there does develop a form of international policing so as to keep order in all parts of the world.
As ties increase between states and those ties grow stronger, will there be a level of domestic monopoly seen at the international level? Already it is seen that there is a notion of domesticism going on around the world with different people in different places getting together and sharing ideas and developing a sense of trust and connection. When these connections are made and grow stronger, the parties will not want to break the bonds made and so would not resort to force or violence to settle a dispute. Likewise, states want to have a conflict-resolution strategy in which problems can be settled civilly and righteously and not through war or forceful means. If many states agree to join a united group like the United Nations, then in this would develop a governing force that could have a monopoly of force on the world when a state or nonstate actor began to cause trouble. This monopoly on force is comparable to domestic political systems in which the government has absolute control over force to control society as well as the validation to do so.
Lastly, globalization is a process in which there is an interdependence developed among worldwide networks (186). The states of the world over the course of time develop bonds with other states for reasons previously discussed. The interdependence causes a need-based sense of trust among states for survival, potentially causing for true trust and true moralization within the communities of the states and the global community. Through this process of globalization, is there going to be a design of global domesticism? Could this global domesticism be on the horizon? Time will tell.
To conclude, potentially the world is either headed toward complete disaster and destruction or it is headed toward a level of order like of no other time before. More and more of us are realizing the detriment of war, and without war to go about a state's business, diplomacy becomes more valuable and appropriate. The point is that there is no certainty in tomorrow. What is seen or heard as reality today can be drastically different tomorrow. Through global development, perhaps someday there will be a conformity across state borders that is not seen today. This day may not be for centuries, but then maybe it could be in ten years. Unless the world keeps hold of its violent tendencies and destroys itself, which is another viable outcome in the future.
Works Referenced
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed. M-W, 2003.
Nye, Jr., Joseph S. Understanding International Conflicts: an Introducation to Theory and History. 4th ed. New York: Longman, 2003.
Smith, Elliot. “Ballad of Big Nothing.” Either/Or. Kill Rock Stars, 1997.
No comments:
Post a Comment