state sovereignty is the biggest issue in world politics today and has been for centuries
I am the doctor of philosophy. I have no work in times of peace. It is only when there be a need for a thinker that I have to philosophize. From my interactions with the general lay public, I have encountered conflict. Nothing too grand, as we do not have too many guns as they do in states over the seas, however I have contemplated about this issue we have of conflict within social relations. It is even broadcast in print, from wikipedia to Harvard journals, and it is all over the media, from youtube to fox news. Everyone is having problems with social relations. We can choose to walk away and live in the desert or the mountains, however we need to trade for our addictions of food, drink, drugs, shelter, warmth, and the worst of all, we crave social relations. We all need love from fraternity, family and sexual and holy. From these earthly desires, we have created our own neurosis. From sin, we have a world of conflict. We have seven billion people on this planet and apparently more than half are starving or fighting. For this, we have our collection of nuclear arms. Our problems with each other drove the intelligent to formulate methods of mass destruction and we have been fighting over the last seventy years leaving the south to wallow in their state of desolation. The major problem is that the weapons of mass destruction available to the adversary drives the rational realist to build some arms too. The idealist, even though capitalist, advocates for international bodies to resolve conflict, however as a realist builds military power and trots around the globe exercising power. My thesis is that it is imperative that we have a world federation.
state sovereignty creates conflict on an international scale. We have had centuries upon centuries, if not millennia, of our ancestors having to socialize and trade with their neighbors. This has caused a lot of grief as there would have been a clash of cultures that would have hindered this process of international relations or even as in a smaller community, which was not globalized, mere neighborly relations would have had issues of conflict evident. Firstly, there is obviously the language barrier. It would have taken centuries to overcome the language barrier alone and hence a reliance on slavery. There would have been no other means to share the immense amount of wealth of an enlightened race with the cave dweller, however with the language barrier over, to some degree, there is still racial hatred toward the Imperial powers for a lack of reparations. Language is not the only issue on the table for sovereignty, there is also religion and economic ideals that separate states. These are all aspects of a culture that are considered to be what defines a people as individual. There are several regions across the globe that bicker about their religious and economic preferences, sometimes a mixture of various elements, other times pure racism. In Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese and Tamils have been fighting for a long time for a two state solution. In this region, most of the fighting is done by illiterate people, hence an analysis would not show any in depth cause for the conflict, just a difference in culture. Israel also have been embroiled in conflict for over half a century; once again a difference in culture. Yugoslavia has endured heavy losses; once again a difference in culture. The western states of the former USSR also had some difference in culture which saw a powerful economic machine torn apart. For some odd reason, most people have been unhappy for a foreign power to rule over them. This was not due to the fact that the rulers were oppressors, but in fact simply a lack of infrastructure that science has put in place in modern times. With the lack of technologies such as robotics, telecommunications and nuclear power, it would have been impossible for the English Monarch to impart all the riches of the globe upon the enormous populations of India or Africa. As the Lords, the management, chief of the Indians, lived in castles, while the average Indian and negro battled it out on plantations and mines, it would have looked a little unfair, however with limited skill proliferation, it would have been difficult to do it any other way. The good news is that we are in a position today to eradicate conflict created by state sovereignty, simply by abolishing the westphalia treaty.
the conflict generated by sovereignty dictates a need for grand defense expenditures. As the world divides into greater constituents, the need for security against an increasing number of aggressors arises. It is pure anarchy. In the realist perspective, every state is a threat as they are seeking to expand their territory and resources by invading their neighboring state. This puts fear into every rational leader. It might seem irrational to spend money on more guns and less butter, however this is the way of the realist. Defence of the state is the number one priority of every statesman. With over 200 separate states in the world, there are over 200 militias with weapons. Over 200 potential enemies. This is pure logic; 200 states with no supranational body to resolve conflict is going to cost more than if there were a collective security. These defence pursuits eventually bring upon a fear of weapons of mass destruction. Regardless of the reason for conflict, whether it be economic or religious, state sovereignty induces fear. Rational fear. It doesn’t matter that we have never, first hand, experienced these conflicts, our forefathers have taught us to fear our neighbors. The Jewish father tells his child of the atrocities that their ancestors have had to endure, and likewise, the Arab father denounces the Jews. We are told that we will be attacked by our neighbors and have to be prepared to fight to death. Hence a trade off, and acquisition of armaments. In some cases these arms get so big, because the adversary is so much bigger, the fear of an armageddon is brought upon us. Collective security is the only way we escape the anarchy.
state sovereignty by technological backward states creates poverty evident in the north-south. Looking around the globe today, we can see that some people have soared the skies and started mining on new planets, while other people still scavenge for food on a daily basis. This is sad, however it is evident that some cultures have advanced at a much faster rate than others. This was obvious when the Europeans crossed the seas during the renaissance period. When basic plumbing to ease the unpleasantries of human waste is not present, life can get extremely difficult. Without the science of agriculture, the sowing, irrigation, harvesting, transporting, storing and distributing of grains, people are no more than hunters and gatherers. Not to say that is not a dignified way of life, however with the pains of scavenging on a daily basis, only so much happiness can be derived. Consumerism of the North West may not be the best way of life, however it is nice to be able to go to the mall and have a choice of the riches from the globe at one’s fingers. Most of Africa, south America and Asia are technologically backward, and are not able to manage their affairs effectively. Their leaders do not have the skills to be able to lead their nation and the people do not have the skills to be able to contribute to the economy effectively. The problem is that we have a large population and in order to supply to the demands of this large population, we need the advanced sciences of the north. To add to the inferiority of the south, state sovereignty limits the amount of riches that reaches the average person as tariffs and sanctions are imposed. The xenophobia that has been bred into us creates barriers to trade and international relations. We want all the riches of the world, but we do not want to do business with people from a different culture. State sovereignty imposed by irrational leaders of a poor people drives the problem of poverty into future generations
The battle between the idealism and realism is said to have had its beginnings in Ancient Greece with the greatest of philosophers. The realist assumes that the individual and the state are both selfish and strive to dominate over others. Economically, this is the position of the capitalist, where each individual has to fight for their piece of their bread. The great US of A is a capitalist state who think it is better for the nation to be competitive. Paradoxically, the Americans are the biggest idealists as they advocate for international institutions, democracy and free trade. They are liberals, however it is they who have the military might to compel. It is they who strive for international power at the expense of domestic affairs. People starve and indulge in criminal activities, overwhelming the justice detention system, yet the American government will not alter any of their policies that might knock them off their hegemonic throne. World federation is an issue that the idealists advocate for, while the realists advocate for a larger military force to ensure the power of the state. Sovereignty is key. It is essentially a matter of trust. How is it possible for a state to trust that the world federation will ensure security for an individual state and hence a reluctance to disarm. With adversaries like Russia and USA, it is difficult to reach upon an agreement. These two have been in constant battle for the last sixty years, with diplomatic efforts of the UN at every conflict, yet the world federation of the UN has been powerless as these two giants ignore the UN, build more weapons and take action to expand their territory. As Idealism is about democracy, free trade and international institutions, the Americans have to take the first step and disarm. Someone has to make the first move and show good intentions, however with realities like the Russian invasion of Crimea in recent times, it might make it difficult to surrender all arms in favor of a world federation. The conflict between the east and west has been ripe for seventy years and is not over with the fall of the Berlin wall and dissolution of USSR. This communist - capitalist battle has seen many proxy wars all over the globe as each bloc makes allies to counter-balance the power of the enemy. The problem of world federation is not just about managing conflict, but finding the root of the economic problem in order to deliver a solution that does not instrument a bleak prognosis.
World federation eliminates the problem of state sovereignty where anarchy of the primitive reigns. This is the Hobbesian Jungle. The state of nature, where each state could be considered as an individual in a society of a little over 200 neighbors. Other great philosophers like Locke and Rousseau also advocated for social contract with domestic relations. It was only Kant that extended their idea of social contract between individuals to social contract between states. Even Freud and Einstein discussed a world federation to eliminate the conflict of social relations. It is the only way forward. When our population has reached the gigantic seven billion, we need to organise the demand and supply. There has to be a central body that oversees the conflict of social relations. It is not possible to live in hermitage and shun all social relations, as the yogi would do. We have desires, and although some enlightenment philosophies would advise a limitation of desires, we are not all able to do so. It also brings pleasure to share the riches of the world with family. It is not possible to access all the riches the world has to offer without a world federation, where collective security eliminates the hazards of sovereignty. We need a world federation to manage not only security, but also economic organization. The liberal Americans would like to have a world where we compete for every commodity available, however I would like to advocate for a world government which delivers some basic commodities such as shelter, food, water, health, education, electricity and telecommunications, for free. It might seem like the extreme east-west conflict has not finished yet, with the dictator trashed as evil, and the western idea of capitalism has seen millions living in austerity as the markets have crashed. There has to be a middle road. I envisage a world where we can have free choice in the market and yet have all the citizens of the world with their basic human rights. The solution to the conflict of state sovereignty is a world federation, however we also need an economic solution that can be applied globally.
Ever since Imperialism, we have had the problem of economic distribution. With the dawn of Industrialization, the problem of dividing the riches of production and labor became a real problem. It’s not as simple as breaking up the aggressor into blocs of liberals and realists. This is not an appropriate means of analysis. A liberal can advocate for world federation, democracy and free trade, however can still be a little anxious of the intentions of their neighbors and classed as a realist by building a defence system. The problem of world organisation is an economic problem. We have never in the past been able to design a solution to the economic problem. We have seven billion people to feed and house. That is a difficult task, one that is exacerbated with the xenophobias of nationalism. For some odd reason, the leaders of the world do not think that there is enough to go around for everyone, and hence a reluctance to share and tendency to hoard food and supplies. We need to draw up a solution that can be presented to the world leaders at a peace summit. The solution needs to accommodate the east-west conflict and the present day squabbles about philosophies of the Almighty Lord, as well the issues of the illiterate monkeys of Rwanda and Lanka. Australia is the best country in the world. It has a free market for the capitalist and also hands out a dole check and pensions along with free housing, education and health, to keep the socialist-communist happy. We have a working model that can be applied to the philosophies of the world federation. A provision of basic human rights. The first level of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. We have had over sixty years of conflict between the east and west and we now have to retire our present day leaders, allowing for the next generation to take reign. The old generation have made a mess of their affairs and have no solution to the problems on hand, hence a retirement is essential. Their diplomacy is ineffective. Our technocrats of modern times are literate in the science that is able to deliver an effective peace.
The biggest problem with todays’ world is conflict within social relations. This problem has seen wars for every known generation. I pray to the Almighty that he get into every man and every womans’ heart. I pray that he put in them a desire to live. A desire to wake up in the morning and taste the rich resources of this glorious planet. I pray that he put in the desire for family and fraternity to live with neighbors trading and co-existing. A world with no conflict. I have talked of conflict of the state due to this thesis that there is conflict within social relations. Each state builds arms as the leaders are all realistic. Post Imperialism has seen disparity of grand portions as no society was ready for the rapid digital Industrialization thanks to our rocket engineers and telecommunication engineers. We have soared the skies. We have the power to annihilate. On the positive side, we have the power to supply electricity for seven billion for free! We just need to put everyone on the grid. We have to supply water. We have the technology. Work out where the plumbing for the toilets and taps go, then build a roof on it, a couple of roads and chuck in trains and buses. The people need direction and hence a school, tafe, university, hospital, mall and a factory or two. Everything is fine until someone has a fight. This comes with the mention of money. I hate to add a new concept in the conclusion, however it gives me the opportunity to lure my readers to future posts and the archives. ‘Money is the root of all evil’ Eliminate money and you have the perfect world. One without all the letters of liberalism or communism, judaism and hinduism. Let the literature be of a time of the past … when our ancestors were in battle. The time before the heavens opened up. The time before we were Gods. “Let us make mankind in our image ..”
