Should the world be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states?

Sovereignty by definition according to The Nation-State and Global order by Opello and Rosow is interpreted to mean the power of absolute authority within a bounded geographical or territorial space. Or in other words, a state needs to be the primary authoritative power over its territory and the people who live within those boundaries. Sovereignty requires nation-states to address international and external issues. As stated above, a sovereign government has supreme authority over its territory internationally. Whereas externally, recognition of other nation-states states helps to certify those territorial boundaries to prevent conflict from arising over land disputes. Historically speaking, the world was not organized into sovereign territorial nation-states. The religious upheaval of Christianity known as the Reformation in the medieval period lead to the creation of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 this helped spark an effect that established the rise of the modern states today. However, whereas the development of nation-states in Europe took several hundred years to establish, the remaining countries in the world should not be rushed to adopt this path of creating sovereign territorial nation-states in order to keep up with European countries. This type of pressure could possibly result in potential wars and revolutions. The gradual development of these states into organized sovereign territorial nation-states will occur naturally.

The Peace of Westphalia recognized the principle of state sovereignty and established the concept of secure and universally recognized state borders in law. (Opello and Rosow Pg. 79) Without the issue of spiritual authority, states were free to direct religion within their own territory. People around the world thus began to view the state as a dominant form of political change. The adoption of modern states was a slow process in Europe. With the gradual development of states organization began to come progressively easier.

The question of organizing the world into sovereign territorial nation-states should be adopted, but not at the immediate expense of damaging the economy, capital, or organization of other states. It could be debated that newer sovereign territorially nation-states often face significant challenges, such as establishing sovereignty over territories where a multitude of peoples, languages, religions. and cultures may coexist-problems that most European states solved only over the course of centuries and at the cost of many wars, revolutions, and lives. However, although Europe no longer remains as the prominent ruler over the world, the authority that individual nation-states had created left the world with a legacy of these state’s superiority.

The advantages of organizing the world into sovereign territorial nation-states include the creation of embassies and ambassadors to further establish relationships among states. (Opello and Rosow) Historically, a disadvantage to the organization of nation-states was the impact it has on “others” who were classified as non-christen people who were not governed by the same rules of the international society of Europe. Thus, to prevent such conflict the establishment of organized sovereign territorial nation-states is vital to maintain peace.

In conclusion, the development of sovereign territorial nation states created a perfected system of organization, communication, and power among the states of Europe. The answer to the question if the world should be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states is resounding yes because it is necessary for other nation-states and to function, communicate, and live peacefully in an organized fashion.

"Good Fences Make Good Neighbors"

Robert Frost’s Poem, Mending Wall, aptly illustrates the benefits of borders. Frost describes a pair of neighbors who go about repairing the wall between their properties each spring. The repetitive phase throughout the poem is “good fences make good neighbors”. This line can be translated in the context of the poem to mean that although they have a divide between them, the fence itself is what improves their relationship. The fence ensures that the neighbors don’t aggravate each other or intrude on one another’s property. The simple act of mending the wall together constitutes an unspoken agreement of respect of the borders between the two men.

The same principle employed in Mending Wall can be applied to the way in which the world’s countries are divided up. The borders between nations are needed to prevent conflict and improve relations. For example, Russia and the Republic of Georgia’s border are essential to the tentative peace lasting between the two countries for two years. Another instance of the essentiality of borders is between the U.S. and Mexico. With the ongoing debate of immigration constantly in the news and in the minds of individuals, the Mexican-American border has continually become more stringent. Just imagine the problems to be incurred from dissolving that border and having no divide between our two nations.

While borders prevent conflict, they also succeed in sustaining the culture of a particular group of people. Countries have their own languages, foods, traditions, and lifestyles. Borders aid in containing these cultural nuances within the collection of inhabitants sharing commonalities with their fellow citizens. Having separate nation-states enables each individual sovereign territory to set its own laws to be obeyed by its citizens. Without separation, it would be difficult to agree on governing laws for different groups of people with distinct cultural guidelines.

Should the world be organized into sovereign, territorial nation-states?

Think of the world today, a conglomerate of nations, cultures, languages, and much more. As one counts down the list of kingdoms, republics, democratic nations, principalities, and other nation-states, one common theme arises: each nation-state claims, recognized or unrecognized by the United Nations, has or claims to have it’s own sovereign territory and authoritative government. In plain terms, the world is already organized into sovereign, territorial nation-states. However, some sovereign nation-states have small factions within them that desire for their own independence and sovereignty. Over the course of history, many nations have experienced ongoing conflict with these other nations about the boundaries of their own territory. Thus, this system, which has become the means of organization within our Earth, continues to endure conflict. In questioning the future of the organization of our states, I feel that cultural conflict is inevitable therefore; we should continue to evaluate the need to separate states that desire freedom in order to express their own individual cultural identities.

Nation-states around the world desire to retain their sovereignty. Currently, unrecognized territories and autonomous regions around the world consider themselves capable, powerful and feel they have sufficient authority and autonomy over the people and land they claim. Take, for example, the reorganization of the Soviet Union since 1991. Specifically in Azerbaijan, a disputed piece of land called Nagorno-Karabakh considers itself sovereign. Declaring its independence in 1992, the de facto Nagorno-Karabakh Republic remains unrecognized by both Azerbaijan and the international community. Culturally, Karabakh considers itself different from Azerbaijani culture. This difference alone suggests that the people should desire for their own state. Additionally, consider the Basque region along the north coast of Spain. Politically, the Basque Country is an autonomous region of Spain. This indicates that it is capable of handling it’s own government. The Basque lifestyle differs significantly from that of its Spanish brethren. While the media portrays the Basques as militant terrorists, if one looks into the deep Basque desire to be independent, it becomes clear that they simply desire to govern themselves.

As we progress into the future, a continued need will emerge. This continued need shows that people all have their own values and desires to the way their nation-states should be run. If an unrecognized country desires to be independent from the current governing body it stands under, I feel it should. Culturally, it would be to the benefit of each respective nation. Sovereignty can be defined as the combination of capability, power, authority and autonomy. The latter two are inherent with surging cultural feelings and as time progress the former two will inevitably emerge.

World Divided into Sovereign Territorial Nation-states?

As we have seen from the book, The Nation-State and Global Order, there are many types of politico-military rule, but the most widespread and prevalent form in today's world is the nation-state. However, this doesn't necessarily mean that a world organized into sovereign territorial nation-states is right, although we accept it in such a fashion. There are costs and benefits, strengths and weaknesses to all politico-military rules and nation-state is not an exception. Although it has become a dominant form of rule in today's world, the system of a sovereign territorial nation-state contains many problems within it and these problems casts doubt to whether the world should be organized into sovereign territorial nation-states.

One of the biggest problem of a world organized into sovereign territorial nation-states is that each nation-state requires recognition of other sovereign powers, which would be other nation-states in our case. This fact that sovereignty and territoriality, two main pillars of a nation-state, needs recognition of other parties with power, this makes the nation-state system a subjective one. For example, Republic of China, more often referred to as Taiwan, and People's Republic of China both claim that mainland China and island of Taiwan are under their sovereignty and at the same time denies each others claim of sovereignty and territoriality of these lands. Under these circumstances, PRC threatens to cut diplomatic ties with any country that forms a diplomatic tie with Taiwan, and with its power in global stage behind it, PRC is able to successfully promote non-recognition of Taiwan. However, this mutual non-recognition results in a tension that has the potential of a war. Other cases that fall in the similar category is the conflict of North and South Korea, and between Palestine and Israel. The situations shows one flaw that is inherent in a nation-state; conflict is inevitable when one nation-state denies the sovereignty of another nation-state and views them as a illegitimate, and there is no way of preventing these conflicts since recognition of sovereignty and territoriality, as mentioned before, is subjective. Thus, it would be difficult to maintain peace in a world organized into nation-states, unless all nation-states recognized each other, which would be difficult to achieve, when historical feuds fuel these conflicts.

Another weakness of a sovereign territorial nation-state is one of its fundamental aspects; territoriality. This concept can be basically defined as control over a certain area and exercising sovereignty within the limits of the nation-states borders. This fuels ethnic and/or cultural conflicts by either placing two ethnic groups in one territory under one rule or by separating a ethnic group, as was the case in Nigeria for the latter and Rwanda as an example of the first situation.

There are some strengths to adopting a nation-state; power is centralized, the institutions are efficient, when everything is constant except for the type of politico-military rule, and people are united to a sense of national identity. However, despite being the norm of politico-military rule in today's world, nation-statehood carries with it inherent problems. As long as there are historical tensions that lead to non-recognition of nation-statehood, then world organized into nation-state is not only almost impossible, but also full of tensions and most likely, a world full of war over sovereignty and territories.

Reflection Week 1

This week was interesting with the visit to PEPFAR office and the discussion of How Soccer Explains the World. One thing that really stood out to me was the contrast in the image of the United States portrayed by PEPFAR versus the image portrayed in the book How Soccer Explains the World.

In his book, Foer explains the impact of globalization using the metaphor of soccer, and someone pointed out during our discussion that Foer is writing this book from an American perspective, which I agreed to showing the example of Chapter 9. Another thought that I had while reading this book was that Foer seems to point out that globalization actually has the effect of promoting nationalism, which can be seen once again in chapter 9, where Foer explicitly describes a "football revolution" which tends to build a national identity that leads the people in a nationalistic way (Foer pg 217-234). This concept can also be seen once more, although not explained explicitly, in chapter 6, where buying a Nigerian soccer player is considered a "humiliation (Foer pg 157)." This reflects a more nationalistic message that Ukraine could do well without tapping into international labor market. Another example is the Brazilian soccer in chapter 5, where the failure of foreign investors has actually led people to seek for power within the nation rather than from foreigners who are drawn through globalization (Foer pg 115-140).

One interesting aspect of this book is that he seems to have written this book from an American perspective, he doesn't actually vindicate the United State, but seems to criticize the United States for not being the part of the world through soccer and instead are stuck in its own bubble, where they play sport that is not "globalized." This, then, serves as the metaphor for the fact that the United States is resisting the power of globalization, and almost depicts the picture of the United States closing its doors on everyone.

However, during the visit to PEPFAR, I saw that the United States is actually trying to reach out to the world through this AIDS program, which is in stark contrast to the feeling I have received from Foer's book. So is the United States closing its doors culturally, while trying to maintain its global power by reaching out to other nations through these kinds of international program? Integrating the message from PEPFAR and How Soccer Explains the World, I would have to say yes to this question, but would also like to ask the question, why?

Reflection PEPFAR 1

Visiting PEPFAR (President’s Emergency plan For AIDS Relief) this past week was an overwhelming and emotional experience. Before our visit this Wednesday, I would have classified myself as one of the millions of individuals who are not fully aware of the crisis of HIV/AIDS or of the steps that our country has taken as a global leader to combat this terrible disease. What astounded me even more was the statistics in Washington DC - an overwhelming 3 percent of the adult population has been diagnosed with HIV/AIDS according to the Washington DC Department of Health’s HIV/AIDS Administration.

PEPFAR has achieved a number of advancements not only in educating but also treating the people infected with HIV/AIDS. According to the data we received from our presentation, PEPFAR has provided treatment to more than 2 million people, care to more than 10 million, and prevention of mother-to child treatment services during nearly 16 million pregnancies. This possibly was one of the most revolutionary programs created during the presidency of George W Bush. Before this presentation, I was unaware and uneducated about the advances that the United States has accomplished through the establishment of PEPFAR in combating such a terrible disease. This realization has demonstrated to me how the goal to educate the people of United States is still a constant struggle. I believe our local public schools need to become more involved in giving students the education to become informed and involved in preventing the spread of this disease.

The PEPFAR program has succeeded in educating and treating people in order to help to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in a number of countries around the world. With the global success and reputation PEPFAR is gaining, it is important for PEPFAR to continue to remain in direct contact with the doctors, nurses, and educators whom they teach to establish prevention care methods in order to make sure that the millions of dollars the United States has given to these countries (which have little to no healthcare) is properly used and distributed. It is my hope that PEPFAR will not just be a temporary program, but that it would evolve into a global inspiration for other countries to address the issue and foster education methods regarding the spread of HIV/AIDS. Eventually, I would love to see an increase in non-profit groups who raise money to send funds to a specific city or county such as Africa.

One of the reasons why I feel our UC World Politics class chose to visit PEPFAR is to help educate individuals such as myself to become more aware of the global epidemic of HIV/AIDS. In addition, I also understand the local problem that Washington DC itself is battling in order to educate and treat those who need assistance. With the mayoral election this fall, I find it interesting that the two leading candidates, Vincent Gray and Adrian Fently, have not made public announcements regarding what they plan to do - if anything - to address the HIV/AIDS crisis in the district.

Another viewpoint blog (written by Rowland Coleman) is that the United States should provide additional benefit to non-profits who work toward preventing the spread of the disease. This would reduce U.S. funds spent directly towards this global effort. While I do agree with his belief that non-profit organizations should be encouraged to become involved, I feel that, despite the billions of dollars spent on PEPFAR, a federal effort is essential to impact not only the United States, but the world. It is my hope that the United States can be a leader to inspire other international countries, schools, and non-profit groups to use their resources towards the betterment of not just their own society, but our world as a whole

Reflection-Week One

How Soccer Explains the World brought a new perspective to me entirely. Not only did I find it to be a riveting exposé on cultures around the world, using the metaphor of soccer, it also gave our whole floor something common to talk about. As I interpreted it, soccer has the power to equalize people. While they may leave a stadium and regain their identities, when they are watching soccer they become one. Catalonians all united to voice their aggression against the oppressive regime of Generalissimo Franco, the Scottish united to hurl insults at the Irish teams, and many other examples. While this seems to be simply a recap of the book, I think that the metaphor can be applied to another significant situation. How Soccer Explains the World equalized our floor and our community. During the week leading up to classes, everyone spent time reading and preparing for our discussions this past week. Though I cannot speak for everyone, I know that my discussion of the text was not limited to the classroom.

In perusing through the other blog posts, I came across Dayna’s about tolerance in global politics. I wholeheartedly agree that tolerance has become one of the most significant issues within the world today. As the twenty-first century has evolved I feel that global society as a whole has regressed on its level of tolerance. Looking at the xenophobia expressed in America towards not only Muslim-Americans but to most foreigners who do not resemble the ideals of “America”, the word tolerance seems to flash behind my eyes in neon lights. As we saw at PEPFAR, HIV/AIDS became a global epidemic quite quickly. As we move forward in an attempt to grasp a hold on this disease, tolerance will continue to be an important factor in increasing awareness and aid directed towards HIV/AIDS prevention and education. Considering the vast culture divides that span those infected with HIV/AIDS, an incredible amount of tolerance will be required of those who dedicate their time and energy to helping prevent and treat this debilitating disease.

Reflection week 1

Throughout the course of the class discussion on How Soccer Explains the World, the different perspectives my classmates had on the book itself, and the message Foer was conveying impressed me. My eyes were opened to new angles on the underlying theme of the book, and I was able to expand my own understanding of Foer’s view of globalization and the United States.

The last chapter of the book was, in my opinion the most vital to understanding its theme. The way an author chooses to end their work speaks volumes about the message they wish to express, and Foer could potentially have ended How Soccer Explains the World with any number of other chapters about other countries, but he decided to end the book with the United States after describing in detail the nationalism felt in other countries, and expressed through an obsession with soccer. While Foer directs his book at Americans, his tone is rebuking toward his own country. We are the only country to name what the rest of the world calls “football”, “soccer”, and out of the countries Foer focuses on within his book, we have the least interest in soccer, and the most animosity toward the sport itself. It made me think about why America doesn’t buy into soccer to bond with other countries and compete worldwide. As a nation, America chooses to focus instead on baseball, basketball, and football as opposed to the worldwide sport of soccer. One of my classmates brought up the point that when America competes in sports, we really only compete nationally, and only play other countries in the Olympics and the World Cup. This made me think about our motives for closing ourselves off to international sports. It is possibly because we are afraid of being bested at something and losing some of the American pride, But I think Foer suggests the reason is that America has not been globalized along with the majority of the world, and actively resists the encroachment of foreign nations. By keeping our sports within the nation, America feels that we sustain our nationalism, and do not conform to the world’s love of soccer.

After reading his book, I believe Foer condones globalization, because he ties soccer directly to globalization, and his extreme love of soccer is apparent throughout his novel. Foer also emphasizes the positive impact soccer has had on the countries discussed in the book, and how it brings people together in support of their country or their regional team. Although he goes into detail about football hooliganism especially in Great Britain, Foer seems to have a high degree of respect for those who partake in hooliganism in support of their beloved team. The violent crimes committed in the name of soccer are obviously negative, but the joining together My opinion of the book as a whole was that Foer wanted to make a point of comparing America with the rest of the world—subsequently admonishing us for our lack of enthusiasm for the sport of soccer—and make a case for globalization, using soccer as a metaphor for globalization all around the world.

"It's the Economy, Stupid"

Joseph Campbell once stated that “Economics and politics are the governing powers of life today, and that’s why everything is screwy”. There is no escaping the power that the economy has of a city, state, or country has to preserve peace or to be the leading cause of destruction. When examining negotiations between counties, economic relations prevails as one of the single most important factors in the study of world politics today. A weak economy has been responsible for some of history’s most devastating wars and greatest disturbances in maintaining the balance of peace between countries.

One of the leading causes of the conflict of economic interests between countries is that there is no higher power with which to appeal to or with which to discuss conflicts. This simply means that no international governmental hierarchy exits. Whereas in the United States, a local government would appeal to the state government for assistance, and if problems would continue to occur the deciding factor would be ruled be the federal government. The reason why economic conflicts are increasingly difficult is in part due to the fact that a country’s national self interest to preserve a balance of trade overrides international disputes among neighboring countries.

A notable example of the issue of economics in relation to world politics today was the establishment of NATO ( North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in 1955. The primary objective of NATO was to decrease the conflict among countries in regard to international economic relations and to encourage cooperation among the Allies. However, while agreements among NATO members are attainable, the open door policy struggles to maintain secure membership. This is partly due to the fact that NATO membership is available to countries within North America and Europe.

While an institutions such as the United Nations was established to form a preserve peace and help limit conflict, the desires of individual countries to insist on wanting the best for their own countries prevails. In order to stall further economic conflicts and disagreements when studying world politics it is important to examine the form of communication and conflict resolution used between leaders in these disagreements in order to help better understand the errors of the past and to look forward to a much brighter future.

China as a Major Power

China was once one of the poorest countries in the world. However, over the past few years, it has grown into an economic powerhouse and is well on its way in surpassing the United States in become the country with the most powerful economy in the world. The rise of Chinese economy in turn has helped raise China's status in the global political arena and this is an issue that is very important to world politics because the actions taken by China in the future will greatly influence the future political shape of the world.

When China becomes capable of challenging the United States' power and leadership role in the global community, it is certain that there will be a great change in the international community. As a major economic power, both the United States and China would have influence over many of the countries and it is possible that another Cold War might be started where China and the United States will try to divide the globe in half and compete to see who will come out as the ultimate leader of the world. In this case, there would be drastic changes in the relationships between these two major powers and other nations of the world; factions will be formed with these major powers as one of their leaders and economy will be the major weapon to battle the opponents. Another possibility is that China and the United States will cooperate as economic and political partners and try to lead the world in basically the same direction. This is more likely to happen than the first case where China would challenge the United State's power, but it doesn't mean that there won't be any changes to the political shape of the world. Even through cooperation, both China and the United States will have different agendas and different goals that they are pursuing, and these differences will lead to clashes. This would result once again in a battle for the leadership role, and it seems that unless the US and China has the same agenda, conflict between the two major powers, and the consequential changes in world politics is inevitable.

I have mentioned two scenarios that could unfold once China gains power from its economic growth, but there are many more scenarios that could unfold. One common future is that there will be clashes and conflicts, because no two governments have the exact same agenda. Since these clashes will be happening between two major world powers (once China gains enough power), it will inevitably lead to political changes and changes in alliances, and the political world we see today will not be the same once China reaches the height of its powers. This makes the rise of China as one of the most important issues in world politics.

Gap between Latin America's Rich and Poor

It has been said that foreigners look at America with a twinkle in their eyes. Those who live abroad have a gilded view of life in America. Specifically in Latin America, people look at America as their ticket to riches. Living in some of the worst conditions observed by multiple humanitarian organizations, a majority of Latin Americans live below the global poverty line. If one looks back through history, the trend of constant disparity between economic classes becomes apparent. This trend has affected Latin America since the colonial era and its cyclical nature has yet to change. A distinct gap has existed between the wealthiest Latin Americans and the poorest. According an essay published by Terri Lynn Karl, a professor of political science at Stanford University, “A quarter of all national income is received by a mere 5 percent of the population, and the top 10 percent own 40 percent of the wealth.”* This gap is enlarged by the cyclical nature of the high unemployment rates and lackadaisical attitude towards social programs. A large part of this attitude can be attributed to the Latin American social culture. On a trip to Nicaragua this past summer, I witnessed this firsthand. Members of the potential work force view these social programs as charity and are unwilling to accept the help that they are offered. Unfortunately, this attitude continues to widen the divide between poor and rich. Poorer workers continue to be paid less and less, and rich continue benefitting from cheap labor. In short, the economic disparity that occurs among poor and rich citizens has become one of the most significant issues plaguing the world today. As we progress into the future, many nations will continue to be unable to pull themselves out of the mediocrity that they currently exist in. According to the World Bank, five of the nine countries located in Central America all live within the lower-middle income economies, which is defined by a Gross Domestic Product between USD$ 995 and USD$ 3,945. It has become clear that this cycle will continue until the attitudes towards programs benefitting the public become culturally acceptable within the countries that experience economic disparity. *Karl, Terri Lynn. "Economic Inequality and Democratic Instability." Journal of Democracy. National Endowment for Democracy, 2000. Web. 23 Aug. 2010. .

The Solution of Tolerance

The most important issue in World Politics currently is the necessity of tolerance in all aspects of global policy. Whether in regards to religion, race, political ideology, international conflict, or a plethora of other instances, exhibiting acceptance for ways of life and cultures other than our own can aid in solving a variety of current problems.

A prime example of implementing global tolerance is in regards to the proposed mosque near the site of the twin towers. Although the building will primarily serve as a community center for the neighborhood, and religious leaders of many faiths have expressed their support of the structure, the main point brought up in opposition to the building is insensitive to the tragedy of September 11th. To ameliorate the strained relations between America and the Muslim world, exhibiting tolerance for the religion of the Middle East, and thus the United States’ forgiveness of the innocent individuals sharing the same religion as a select group of terrorists is the best method. This minor construction issue has subsequently been transformed into a significant political point, addressed by almost all politicians, both criticized and supported, and far from resolved.

Tolerance can be employed within America, in regards to ground zero, and throughout the world, being utilized by nations in order to mediate conflicts before they become battles. While there is no realistic way to currently extinguish the need for war altogether countries can practice temperance to come to an agreement and compromise before firing bullets.

Although it is an easy concept to grasp, tolerance is more difficult to put into practice then it first seems. World Politics should place more emphasis on this overlooked method of both preventing and mediating conflict amongst nations.