The Empathy behind Nuclear Weapons

Throughout the world, there are a handful of countries that possess nuclear weapons, and the countries that don't own them could easily receive them in a matter of days. The reason for their creation stems from a desire to protect one's state and its people. The article "A World Without Nuclear Weapons" by Thomas C. Schelling proposes the idea of a world with less nuclear weapons. A decrease of nuclear weapons sounds practical in theory but would not solve the underlying issues of nuclear weapons. It is a lack of empathy from political leaders that has allowed the creation of nuclear weapons and their current existence. The only way to eradicate the anxiety and possibility mass destruction caused by nuclear weapons is to rid of them all together.

Much of my knowledge of empathy derives from my education and experiences. Empathy, by definition, (dictionary.com) is "The ability to understand and share the feelings of another." Empathy is fully developed once a person reaches adulthood. Although empathy can be learned in a way by parents, teachers and one's environment, it is mostly an internal characteristic that links back to one's core values.

Political leaders across the globe are intelligent, hard workers but they often fail to serve the needs of their citizens. Their position of power is supposed to ensure the safety and well being of citizens. It is a lack of empathy that distances a political leaders concern for citizens. The fact that politicians must make compromising decisions every day does not excuse empath should be a value that is rooted in all decisions made in a state.

Serious problems arise when people of a state are not prioritized. When the idea of war takes precedence over people's lives, it's clear levels of empathy in leadership need to be readjusted. The foreignpolicy.com "The 2015 Fragile States Index" includes disturbing photos of the political protest in Ukraine. These intense protests against Ukraine's corrupt government led the Eastern part of the country into a civil war. Within the photos, anarchy and destruction are shown. In between the photos of the fire, blood, guns, gas masks, militia, and the remnants of a plane destroyed by air missiles are the faces of pained citizens. One photo illustrates a girl anguished, distressed and crying as she stands in a field with her belongings. The death and suffering of these citizens is caused directly by the problem-solving approach of war. This approach lacks empathy because does not consider the individual lives that will be changed from war.

Since the concept of war is long established and people are inherently violent, a world without war is not possible. And while it is obvious banning the production and use of weapons would establish peace, it is unfortunately not that simple. But, since nuclear weapons are fairly new in the overall timeline of the human world, there is a chance to reverse their existence. Thomas Schelling's "A world without nuclear weapons?" elaborates on the idea. The article illustrates the need "to examine the first steps toward a world free of nuclear weapons" (Schelling 124). It starts out stating "Participants were in general agreement that complete and eventual disarmament, or global zero, is the objective" which is a great mindset. (Schelling 124) The idea becomes more feasible when it is taken into account that nuclear weapons have not been used since their original creation in 1945. To achieve absolute progress, all nuclear weapons would need to go. Reducing the number of nuclear weapons would not work. The reduction of weapons may put states more on edge. Change in numbers could stir up unrest about the subject because countries could feel incompetent in comparison. This feeling could then lead to the use of a weapon. So, to start the process a treaty to ban the use of weapons would be necessary.

Action taken to rid of nuclear weapons is possible but must come from a place of empathy. Leaders must truly believe each citizen’s life matters. If a leader believes this, then the leader would consider human life to be more important than any subject that could cause war. Therefore empathy is the key to ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

Sources

Schelling, Thomas C. “A World without Nuclear Weapons?” Daedalus, vol. 138, no. 4, 2009, pp. 124–129., doi:10.1162/daed.2009.138.4.124.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/17/fragile-states-2015-islamic-state-ebola-ukraine-russia-ferguson/

Sovereignty vs Intervention

Zachary Henry            

           A cornerstone of the international system in International politics today is sovereignty. The bedrock principle of sovereignty is a combination of the factual real power and integrity a state has, combined with its recognition as being sovereign and autonomous by others. Yet failed states and states who commit atrocities against their own people seem to shake the idea up. These situations spark great debate whether to respect the sovereignty of foreign nations, or to disregard the non-interference of the international system and intervene into these situations. Intervention takes precedence over sovereignty in International politics.

            State sovereignty is represented by internal and external sovereignty, where internal sovereignty control over matters in that state itself, while external sovereignty is the ability to conduct foreign policy. In most cases of failed states, a violation of human rights is usually prevalent, if not, always prevalent. These failed states almost always have weak internal sovereignty, especially if they are violating human rights. If a state has no internal sovereignty, they no longer have it in fact, therefore it will undermine their external sovereignty when other states don’t recognize it as a state headed by a single government. The state no longer has any sort of sovereignty and no longer is upheld by rules against intervention, nor can it protect itself or its security against others.

            The threat of other states is always looming while states are in anarchy, and especially when human rights are being violated in the weakened state. A loss of sovereignty would usually attract any hungry neighbors or neighbors that want to eliminate the failed state because of the osmosis of problems. In the reference of the Responsibility to Protect, it would bode better for the failed state to be intervened in by a neutral, peacekeeping UN rather than its neighboring states. This intervention clearly is more important than the importance of upholding sovereign law because the survival of the state is much more guaranteed by a such an intervention.

            A reflexive property of the Responsibility to Protect also argues for intervention although it is supportive of the failed state. As much as the R2P has justice to create an intervention by vote in the UN, it also grants the power and determines the right to give aid to any state that feels it cannot protect its people. This right therefore allows a failed state to ask for aid before they violate the other aspects of R2P. If a state does not take full opportunity of this option it is due to no fault but their own, and therefore forfeit their right to call upon the principle of non-interference in the international system.

            For a state to be sovereign they must fulfill their responsibilities to benefit from the rights of being sovereign. Realists believe in Hobbesian politics, people have a social contract with their government to protect and secure them in return for most of their naturally free rights. When these rights are violated, it a breach of that same contract. Liberalists would think rationally about the situation, and they would rather allow cooperation between other states or NGOs to aid them in situations of intervention than to concede a defeat at the hands of a hard power intervention. Constructivists would also be for intervention due to their liking of social norms against violation of rights and protecting the social constructions of which those rights were determined. 

Power and Democracy

Power and Democracy

  Democracy is a form of government that permits citizens to exercise their rights and enjoy the individual freedom to the fullest. It is also a bridge that connects the relationship between countries around the world. The government is a governing body in a democratic world, while the people are watchdogs. Therefore, the government is responsible for legislating laws, and the people act according to the laws. If the government legislates any laws that are illegitimate or laws that violate human rights and individual liberty, the people protest and stand up against them. However, not all countries are in favor of democracy. For instance, amongst the superpower countries such as Russia, China, and the United States, the United States is the only country that has fully developed a democratic government. This is also why the United States is well known as a country that stands in the spirit of democracy and stands against any forms of violations that are against the human rights and individual liberty.

After the World War II, the United States stands as the most powerful country and a country that thrives to promote liberal democracy around the world. According to my understanding, the motive of the United States to promote democracy around the world is not only about gaining power, protection of human rights and creating a peaceful world. But, the most important aim and thrive to nurture its international interest and tackle the rise of international threats that threaten the United States and other countries around the world. To achieve this goal, the United States uses the soft power to create a connection between countries around the world. The strategy to ally with other countries around the world stabilizes to stand still as the most powerful country in the world. The interdependency between countries benefits both the United States and its allies, and it makes the United States to highly influence over international policymaking.  Ikenberry said, “Alliances, partnerships, multilateralism, democracy-these are the tools of U.S. leadership, and they are winning, not losing” (2). It is through these tools that make the United States have a greater number of allies than any country in the world. For instance, Russia has seven allies, China one, but the United States has more than 60 allies around the world. This strategy makes the United States standstill as the most powerful country in the world today. If the United States continues to use this strategy, it will and always be the most powerful country in the world in years to come.

We see that the ally strategy tools works perfectly for obtaining power. The United States is still highly concerned about the rise of power of other countries, and the rise of international threats.  In this scenario, balancing of power is necessary. Therefore, the United States aligned another strategy, “promoting democracy to protect human rights”. To successfully make this strategy work, the United States uses both soft power and hard power but utilizing more hard power. The soft power was used during the Obama administration, such as stopping Iran to develop its nuclear program, and the hard power was used during the war in Iraq, Afghanistan or maybe the war in Syria. It is ambiguous to concisely make a point whether the United States started a war in Iraq is because Saddam Hussein violated human rights, or because the United States feels threatened by Saddam’s regime. Scholars have made their arguments on both sides of the aisle. However, either way, Iraq war is believed to be a good approach because Saddam Hussein was known for his brutality and his aggression against the innocent people. The strategy adopted by the United States is certainly worse because it had failed to smoothen the transition to democracy, and it has failed to protect the innocent lives..

In conclusion, I strongly believe that the motive of the United States to promote liberal democracy around the world through various strategies benefits both its national interest and power. “the spread of liberal democracy throughout the world, beginning in the late 1970s and accelerating after the Cold War, has dramatically strengthened the United States' position" (4) It is also clear that the democratic countries rise, the more they tend to follow towards the United States’ because they see that the United States’s policy is a better approach to protect human rights and the individual liberty.

The Return of Geopolitics

  In recent decades the unipolar system of power the world has experienced since the end of the Cold War has been slowly closing and giving rise to at least a bipolar, if not multipolar era.  While the United States remains ahead of the rest of the world in both power and influence, these once large gaps are beginning to narrow.  Specific states such as China are gaining power and influence in spheres of the world where the United States does not have as firm of a reach, and other states such as the Rwanda have experienced conflicts that consequently destabilized much of the surrounding region.  There are multiple ways of viewing these recent geopolitical events, but overall the realist theory Walter Russell Mead advocates is the most practical when examining facts and predicting future trends.

     Geopolitics refers to the influence that natural geography has on international relations and global politics.  It can be argued both that the world has always had constant geopolitical conflict in addition to the thought that it has waxed and waned in influence over time.  Mead proposes that the world experienced a decline in geopolitics after the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent end of the Cold War, but that in our current global political climate it is beginning to return with the same vigor and polarizing consequences it once had.  States such as China are gaining influence and credibility by utilizing geopolitics while in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is put at a disadvantage due to geographical and political factors beyond their control.  Clearly these recent events back Mead's theory that geopolitics is assuming a prominent role in global affairs once again.

     China has seen a huge boom in economic ability since Deng Xiaoping’s reforms took effect.  Xiaoping developed extensive plans to modernize in four broad areas of Chinese society: agriculture, industry, science and technology, and the military.  These new policies had the distinct aim of allowing China to compete in global markets and reclaim influence in an increasingly interconnected world.  In turn China has increased their sphere of influence and allowed for expanded geopolitical leverage.  Xiaoping’s reforms have since provided a much greater GDP that can then be utilized to encourage neighboring countries to adopt Chinese policy and norms.  China has been able to take on a leadership role in Asia and act as a model of what smaller and weaker eastern states should strive to emulate, undermining the idea that the United States was the model state all countries across the globe should mimic.  This increase in geopolitical influence is not enough to threaten the American grip on world power, but certainly has paved the way for a bipolar system in the future.

  Many modern international conflicts balloon from local conflicts to geopolitical disputes.  The mass genocide of the Tutsi ethnic group in Rwanda had lasting impacts in the region and led to the an extreme destabilization in the region, specifically within the DRC.  When Rwanda was a Belgian mandate the colonizers favored the Tutsi minority ethnic group by allowing them to prosper at much greater levels than their Hutu counterparts.  Once the state gained independence the Hutu majority rebelled against the Tutsi and began violent mass killings of it’s members.  This in turn created an extensive refugee problem across the region as Rwandan Tutsi’s fled their homes into whatever neighboring state was the most accessible.  The situation rapidly escalated within a matter of weeks and the DRC saw the largest influx of migrants with very little time to prepare.  The conflict spilled over into the DRC when Hutu’s were persecuted in Rwanda post-genocide and led to multiple internal wars that affected the entire African region.  This is only one example of how a local dispute gained enough traction to severely damage surrounding states, thereby escalating into an inevitable conflict for countries who could not help put become entangled based purely on geographical location.

     When examining geopolitical impacts on current events, it is clear to see that there are multiple interpretations regarding viewpoints and practical applications of theory.  However, when examining recent world affairs the realist view of returning geopolitics is an extremely convincing argument.  Mead accurately describes how 

Sources Used:

History.com Staff. “The Rwandan Genocide.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 2009, www.history.com/topics/rwandan-genocide.

Muscato, Christopher. “Deng Xiaoping and the Four Modernizations.” Study.com, Study.com, study.com/academy/lesson/deng-xiaoping-and-the-four-modernizations.html.

Shirk, Mark. “Power Politics Lecture.” International Relations. Stonehill College, Easton.

The DRC: A ‘failed state’ or has it been failed?

The DRC: A ‘failed state’ or has it been failed?

The term ‘failed state’ refers to any state that has qualities of weakness, fragility, or instability due to various reasons, including poverty, lack of security, and lack of the implementation of human rights. Often, these ‘failed states’ possess external and/or normative sovereignty but lack internal and/or factual sovereignty (Shirk). Internal sovereignty is defined as having authority over one’s own given territory without any outside authority over this state. Factual sovereignty is the degree in which a state is actually sovereign. Many have categorized the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as a failed state, however I believed that the DRC has been failed. In other words, the DRC did not become a failed state on its own, rather the colonization and intervention of the Belgian colonists brought about this failure.

Prior to the colonization of the Congo, the native people of this region established a vibrant culture, created an effective agricultural system, fashioned and utilized various forms of technology and weaponry, established hunter-gather groups, formed extensive trading networks, and maintained a relatively strong economy and complex political system. Thus, besides the Kongo Civil War, the Congo region was not a place of constant civil war, lack of economic development, social unrest, human rights abuses, or lack of political control. Before Belgian colonization, the Congo region was quite arguably politically, economically, socially, and securely effective. In terms of political effectiveness, the various kingdoms of the Congo region were generally successful and strong. As for economic effectiveness, the people of the Congo region were a part of a very extensive and high-demanding trade network of the Central African system. Additionally, the Congo was arguably socially effective before colonization due to establishment of a primary language and various different tribes. Prior to colonization, the Congo was also considered to be effective in terms of security due to its powerful military and evidence of weaponry.

In the 1870s, Belgium began to colonize the African state of Congo in order to extract mineral resources such as cobalt, copper, and diamonds. With colonization, the Belgian colonists essentially transformed a stable, sovereign state into one that has now become extremely unstable and ‘failed’. Colonization is the sole factor that has led to the failure of the Congo region, causing human rights abusement, civil war, lack of economic development, social unrest, and an overall lack of political control. All non-European states that have been subjected to European colonization have “faced distinctive limits to their sovereignty” (Opello, Rosow). This form of modernization through European colonization generally has negative outcomes, especially when non-European states (such as the DRC) are unable to live up to the advanced standards of the European colonists (Opello, Rosow). Therefore, colonization usually results in the failure of the state that is being colonized, even if this state had been stable and successful prior to colonization. The Democratic Republic of Congo did not fail on its own terms, rather it has been failed by Belgian colonization of the region and the natives of the Congo are forced to live with the negative effects of neo-colonialism.

Works Cited

Opello, Walter C., and Stephen J. Rosow. “The Nation-State and Global Order: A Historical

Introduction to Contemporary Politics.” 1999.

Shirk, Mark. “Failed States Lecture.” International Relations. Stonehill College, Easton. 12

October 2017. Lecture.