- It is likely that the most powerful or influential countries of international relations and foreign policy are most affected by war because they are the most frequent actors on the international stage. Ex. the P5+1: US, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany.
- It is likely that those with little engagement with foreign actors are the least affected by war because they have little interest it is outcomes. Ex. Australia, New Zealand.
- It is likely that those countries whose borders or governance are controversial are frequently affected by war. Ex. states of the former Soviet Union, ethic division within the Rwandan genocide.
- It is likely that those countries whose borders are well established and respected by neighbors are not often affected by war. Ex. European Union
However, maybe war doesn't necessarily have to be violent. Instead of armed with guns we can be armed with different ideas and interests that are solved by an abundance of agency and outcomes?
Professor Jackson concludes his lecture with the massive question: Is global integration desirable? I think this is an absolutely easy question to answer and my answer is YES. As an integrated global society with a common purpose we would actually have the ability to pursue the idea that all men are equal. The US bases its laws on this principal but in reality, the US thinks that Americans are more important than other countries' citizens. A system of global governance would - ideally - act to improve the lives of all the humans on this planet. Sure, a system dictated by sovereign territory might preserve a certain type of diversity, but I don't think that erasing our boundaries would devoid our world of diversity. With over 7 billion people on this planet we are inevitably going to hold onto different identities based on our geography, family culture and inspirations for the future. I personally married a Brazilian man and our children will be dual citizens. Of course this doesn't mean my children will be less diverse but rather that they will be more diverse. Their abilities to understand multiple lifestyles (Minnesotans and people from Rio de Janeiro will always have different lifestyles) will give them more agency. More agency means more options and choices which leads to more outcomes. In my opinion, more outcomes means more diversity.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteYou make some really good points in your post. I absolutely agree with you that not all actors are affected by war in the same way. You mentioned that countries like Australia and New Zealand (I would add Switzerland here because they have very little engagement with foreign actors) would not be affected by war as much as the P5+1. I agree with you to a certain extend. However, what about the economic damages? Australia and New Zealand are trading partners of the P5+1. If any of the P5+1 would be affected by war, Australia and New Zealand would sooner or later feel the economic effects of the war.
You are right that countries whose borders are controversial are frequently effected by war. The ethnic division in former Yugoslavia would be another example, as would be the case with Iraq and Kuwait because of their border disputes.
I really like your strong answer to the question if global integration is desirable. I, too, would answer this question with a yes. I agree with you that erasing borders would not devoid our world of its diversity. My kids are both dual citizens, too. I am German, my husband is American (he's from Minnesota, too :)) My kids are exposed to two different lifestyles as well. I speak German to them, I cook German food (well, now that we live in Korea I also cook a lot of Korean food) etc. and here on post they experience everything else American.
I really like how you make the connection of your kids understanding multiple lifestyles and that this gives them more agency! I never thought of it this way.
Thanks for your comment, Christine. Its a fascinating topic to debate back and forth.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting that you brought up Switzerland as a country with little foreign engagement. I thought about them but deliberately left them out as the financial equity people from all over the world give to Swiss banks makes them a very controversial country among international financial institutions. You mentioned economic consequences as a form of IR engagement and I think Switzerland would be classified as highly engaged from that perspective. I chose Australia and New Zealand not because of their lack of trade but rather their physical distance and assumption that this leads to a heightened ability to be self-sufficient. (I wonder if there is some type of index that measures self-sufficiency of countries) In hindsight, maybe North Korea would have been a better example - There is little to no trade, communication and tourism between North Korea and the rest of the world.
Regarding your response to my reflection on global integration, I think you misunderstood my point. It is not the current cultural differences that will preserve a diversity of lifestyles if we all become global citizens. I.e. It is not that you are German and your Husband is American. Rather, it is the geographic differences that will preserve the most distinct culture. I.e. In Rio the summers are 100+ degrees and in Minnesota the winters can be -40 degrees with wind chill. The same life styles cannot flow freely between these two locations. I think most 'cultural' and physical identities as we know them will all blend together to create new distinctions in our various geographic locations. A good example is the numerous Swedish men that were captured during a war with Russia in the 1700s. These men were forced to stay in Russia but eventually were there so long that they put down roots and created families. Once they were free to leave, they no longer desired to go back to Sweden because their families were now Russian. Hence there are now a lot of cultural and physical similarities between Swedish and Russian men.
There are many other lifestyles that depend on geography. Anybody who lives near the Sahara Desert is bound to preserve different elements of diversity compared to someone who lives in Indonesia. As would a family living in the Rocky Mountains compared to the plains of the Dakotas. These differences could potentially be further enforced by the flora and fauna that is suited to that region but this would depend on the food systems this global society would support.
Katherine,
ReplyDeleteinteresting. i would add that often in our post hiroshima world, it is the developing countries that lose form war because that is where war often takes place. Korea (circa 1950), Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Somalia, Libya. This is where the US has had military action.
Professor, yes, I agree completely. However, the agency of actors to enter war has changed significantly in the past century. Waltz discusses this idea in his article by saying that waging war has become the privilege of more poor and weak countries as technology has provided the great powers to develop devastating weapons that lead us into cold wars. Smaller countries can still engage in hot wars as the effects of their interactions are considerably less without access to nuclear weapons.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete