Politically Neutral Organizations

In the wake of the devastating tragedies of World War II, the victorious countries decided that in order to maintain a lasting peace, regulating organizations would have to be created. Out of these revelations came organizations such as the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations and the World Bank. These groups generally have the same goals set for them in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference. Without organizations outside the control of any one state government, it would be much harder to keep and maintain world order. These groups are successful at sustaining such an order because it is in a state of anarchy. Therefore, groups outside of any nation or state’s government can successfully control the political and economic world because said groups are politically neutral.

            In our state of anarchy, states compete to earn the status of hegemon. This competition can, as it has in the past, lead to struggles between countries that can damage our current state of relative peace. Although there is certainly not a worldwide ceasefire, there has been this relative peace, in other words, there have not been any more world wars among nations since the creation of such international organizations. Groups such as the United Nations were created to regulate world order and have been successful in doing so. When arguments arise between states, one course of action it to bring in an outside organization to mediate the struggle and help the different groups come to a resolution. An example of this situation is the recent conflict between the United States and Syria. Although there was debate on whether or not the United States should intervene in Syria and either punish them for crossing the “red line” by using chemical weapons or aid those affected by the use of such dangerous weapons, the final result was a compromise between nations that was mediated by the United Nations. The compromise came between the United States and Russia, an ally of Syria who did not want the United States to intervene in the country, and asked that the Syrian government hand over all chemical weapons to the United Nations to be safely destroyed. The Syrian government obliged, giving all chemical weapons to the United Nations where they were safely destroyed. This compromise would have been extremely difficult to reach had the United Nations, as a politically neutral organization, not helped create it. Had the world not been in a state of anarchy, a higher government supposedly would have dealt with conflicts such as this one, however, it is unlikely such a government would remain politically neutral. Anarchy is what allows conflicts such as these to arise, and international organizations are what prevent such conflicts from destroying our relative peace.

            In the case of the United States-Syria struggle, the United Nations proved to be extremely helpful in having all parties generate a compromise that would help solve the conflict. The anarchic system allows for such conflicts to come between states that are struggling for more power and organizations such as the United Nations, who are politically neutral, preventing said conflicts from destroying relative peace among the world order. If the world were not in anarchy, there is a possibility that a compromise would not have been reached between states because more players would have been looking for more self-gain.

The Failure of International Organizations

           In the era of globalization, economic, political, and social aspects of different states are able to connect faster than ever could have been imagined. The homogenization of markets and consumers across the globe due to global economic schemes has led many to believe that globalization is a roaring success of the twenty first century, but I would argue that these successes are lackluster and artificial. Despite the alleged “cooperation” between varieties of states under the guise of globalization, the fact remains that states will never be truly connected due to the inherent state of anarchy which defines the state system. States today are allied and partners in trade, but the innate sense of independence of each state upholds will never truly allow for a functioning international organization.

            While I fully concede that international organizations offer the ideal alignment of states and may provide grounds for state communication and understanding, what is ideal is not always realistic. States may play well together on the international playground when their goals are in accordance, but when the interests of individual states diverge and tension emerges, international organizations do little to act as a buffer or facilitate a compromise. From a realist point of view, each state acts in its own interest, to preserve and perpetuate their goals and successes. These goals are not tossed aside when a country aligns itself with a multi-state body such as the United Nations, and as a result, the core of these corporations may consist of many conflicting viewpoints and aspirations.

            One instance of this breakdown of multinational organization occurred very recently; in the wake of the Syrian use of chemical weapons, many state leaders found it necessary to intervene. Military intervention was proposed in order to respond to the breach of international law, and while many states supported this idea, Russia did not due to a strong alliance with Syria on account of the fact that Syria houses a Russian naval base. Due to the proportionally large amount of power which Russia possesses in the United Nations, they were able to veto any international attempt to right the wrongs of Syria. A terse standoff was reached within the United Nations as state interests conflicted, and in spite of this, the United States proposed acting in Syria on their own accord. Domestic politics aside, the willingness of the United States to act unilaterally truly portrays the fallible nature of international organizations. They are convenient for the states involved until the action they wish to see is not accomplished, and then the legitimacy and effectiveness of the international organization crumbles.

            While there is no denying that our increasingly connected world has an ability to foster relations between populations and economies, this is due to the fact that state interests are being met, not because state cooperation is on the rise. Though in theory international organizations are entirely plausible, and encourage communication and cooperation between states, the reality of the situation is that states seek to serve their self interests. The independent desires of each and every state cannot be met through one organization, and as a result these international organizations will never truly live up to their expectations. 

Legitimacy vs. Power

            Power is not something that is just automatically given to a person or organization, but rather it is developed through association with established sources of strength and legitimacy. Ian Hurd makes this same argument in his article, “Legitimacy, Power and the Symbolic life of the UN Security Council”. Hurd argues that it is through a state’s association with legitimate organizations and their behavior within the international system that they gain the respect of other actors and that symbols are in fact a source of power themselves. The United Nations Security Council is not an exception from this need for legitimacy and according to Hurd, “In the absence of legitimacy, the council would have to rely on outright coercion as it’s only instrument of power and would therefore cease to exist” (Hurd 2002). In an anarchic system, states are constantly yearning to gain any form of power but perhaps they are after the wrong thing. Perhaps the most valuable quality for a state to obtain is not raw power but rather legitimacy.

            Keeping this theory in mind, one can make the argument that power in fact does not exist without the appropriate amount of legitimacy associated with it. Hurd claims that power through association is equivalent to raw power, and even states with a minimal amount of influence in organizations are granted with respect and power in the international system. For example, Hurd states, “Even if the real increase in decision or influence due to winning a non-permanent seat is minimal, the jump in status is huge” (Hurd). Thus, in terms of the anarchic international system, legitimacy is power itself. Thinking logically, what does a strong military and large amount of capital mean to a nation that has absolutely no influence or respect among other nations in the world order? Legitimacy simply acts as the medium through which power can be distributed over nations. In a nutshell, legitimacy is the difference between a nation with the capability to become a world power and a nation that already is a world power. Considering that current international system is one of anarchic nature, states are constantly competing with each other for power and influence over one another. However, a state’s only true source of power over others is the respect and perhaps fear from its fellow actors in the system. Take the United States for example, we had the capital and military power necessary to be considered a world power, however we were not viewed as one until after WWII. Our involvement in the United Nations, an organization credited with supporting the allied powers in WWII, along with the military power displayed by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan legitimized the United States as a nation of force capable of world power. The lack of a single global hegemon provides for a system built upon a basis of competition among players, one that can only be won via the legitimacy to back up the raw power that a nation possesses.

A Necessary Intervention

A Necessary Intervention

When mass atrocities occur in today’s world, humanitarianism is often vital to the situation in order to promote human welfare.  In Syria, a large group of people is facing mass destruction during a deadly civil war and intervention is necessary to stop this injustice and human suffering. In a case as extreme as this, it is the United States’ moral obligation to provide aid to the innocent suffering civilians in Syria, and do whatever is necessary to end the mass killing in the region.

            Military force should never be the first option in any case similar to this, however in Syria, it may be essential. In opposition, Ed Husain claims that military intervention is ill conceived, counter productive, and likely to increase, instead of reduce, killing of innocent cvilians.  I don’t believe this is particularly true, as the killings will only increase if we just become bystanders waiting for things to pan out, while innocent people are getting gassed to death and murdered by chemical weapons. We must not intervene to show our power in the Middle East or for our own self- interest, however it is necessary that we aid the refugees immediately and ensure that the mass killings and injustice come to an end. As mentioned by Shadi Hamid in his article, no one is arguing for an Iraqi- style invasion with thousands of boots on the ground, as this will only make matters worse.  However, it is critical to establish safe zones to ensure humanitarian assistance and safety for the civilians.

 It is the United States’ moral duty to protect innocent lives that are threatened every day by the deadly civil war taking place in Syria and it is essential that we do everything in our power to end this.  I don’t understand how we can consider sitting back and watching the mass murdering of tons of people by a dictator. If the problem doesn’t “resolve itself”, how many more people have to die before we decide to step in and take action. While the support of other countries would greatly contribute to the resolution of the problem, we can’t rely on others to step in and do what must be done.  A joint coalition of nations to aid the people of Syria may be the best option, but if this is not a conceivable plan, then the United States must take it upon themselves to step in and end the mass suffering.  Right now, American intervention is the best way to put an end to the crimes against humanity and suffering in Syria.

Integration of a Power

For years, the United States government and public have speculated about China’s likely rise as a global power in the near future. The thought of the United States losing its status as the lone superpower often brings contempt towards the rising state. As G. John Ikenberry argues in his article The Rise of China and the Future of the West. Can the Liberal System Survive?, the United States can ultimately decide the outcome of China’s inevitable rise in one of two ways: push the state away, offering no aid and expecting their demise or integrate them into the Western Order. In order for the United States to remain powerful, they should aid this power. Helping China rise and incorporating the state into the western world will either give the United States the chance to take a back seat or continue to be most powerful if integration fails.

            Giving aid and support to China as a rising superpower and integrating them into the Western Order will presumably end in the United States becoming the second most powerful state in the order. As Ikenberry states, “the rise of China does not have to trigger a wrenching hegemonic transition” because China faces “a Western-centered system that is open, integrated, and rule-based, with wide and deep political foundations,” (Ikenberry). China’s rise will not result in global tragedy as the rise of states in the past has because the politics of today’s international world have changed. If the United States allows China to surpass them within the Western Order, they will simply be second in line of an order that will continue to deeply depend on them due to location. Though it is possible for China to become more powerful than the United States within the Western Order, the United States will always have some power over the western world due to their location; they are in the west while China is in the east. This will allow the United States to take a step back from international disorder. In recent history, the United States has usually been expected to deal with problems that arise within less stable states simply because they are seen as the leader. An example of such a situation is the recent struggle with Syria. Most states can agree that there are problems in Syria and that intervention or other aid is needed to bring the country to order. However, the United States remains seemingly unwilling to enter such a situation and other states continue to look to them to do something. All in all, letting China take over as a superpower could allow the United States to focus on problems at home.

            Attempting to integrate China into the Western Order is the best option for the United States when dealing with this rising power. The attempt could fail, resulting in the United States remaining the sole superpower. However, the attempt could also be a success; China could become the most powerful state in the Western Order. If this were to happen, the United States would be able to take a back seat when dealing with international problems. Although the façade of the United States as a force fighting for good would remain, they could allow China to rise as a superpower and become such a force as well. Additionally, the United States would not lose complete superpower status because of their location. The majority of states in the Western Order are, in fact, located in the west. Therefore, the United States could still remain a regional power due to location since China is located in the east. Having China become a superpower will not be detrimental to the United States and could even help the state focus on the interests of its government and citizens.

The Rise of China

The Rise of China

The United States’ combination of military power and wealth grants it hegemony in the current international system. However, a new hegemon could be emerging before our eyes as China’s economy continues to grow at a rapid pace. According to John Ikenberry, “The United States’ ‘unipolar moment’ will inevitably end. If the defining struggle of the twenty-first century is between China and the United States, China will have the advantage…” (Ikenberry 2008). Ikenberry suggests that the rise of China will undoubtedly pose as a threat to the current dominance of the United States but predicts that it will not affect the dominance of western civilization as a whole. Ikenberry holds the belief that the United States’ leadership of the Western Order gives us an unquenchable amount of power over China and in fact encourages the assimilation of China in to the Western Order. Ikenberry feels that opening the Western Order’s arms to China will encourage integration in to western policies and will prevent an overturn of power. Realists such as Mearsheimer feel as if this is an extremely threatening situation and the United States must take all precautions necessary to ensure that China’s economy does not continue to grow. Given that China is a crucial trading partner to the United States, boycotting all economic ties with them does not appear to be in our best interest. Naturally, Mearsheimer’s followers believe that inviting a potential revisionist power into our system of world order is like entering the lion’s den.

While I agree with Mearsheimer’s theory that the growth of China must indeed be contained, his suggestion of thwarting all trade with them negatively effects the US economy as well. However, I am also not completely sold on Ikenberry’s theory of integration. It seems to me that bringing a growing world power into a system that spoon-feeds it an increased sense of leadership and influence along with connections with prosperous partners may actually spur even greater growth for China. Ikenberry claims that the Western Order is a rule-based system making it, “…easy to join and hard to overturn” (2008) and that once integrated into the Western Order, China is likely to become a leader of the WTO, thus increasing its power and influence in the international system. Providing a socialist nation with increased influence and leadership in the world order does not bode well for the hopes of a democratic future. As rising power entering a powerful system, China will surely want to exhibit its newfound power and leadership and will express a desire to, “…reshape the rules and institutions in accordance with their own interests” (2008). As a democratic nation that yearns to see the spread of democracy, is a world order in which the rules are geared toward a socialist perspective what we want? Therefore perhaps it is best to deprive China of any influence in the current world order.

The rise of China is an inevitable threat to both the hegemony of the United States and the preservation of a democratically ruled Western Order. While we cannot simply cut ties with China as their economic prosperity is crucial to our survival, I also do not fully support welcoming a rising socialist power into the world order with open arms. While China’s growth cannot be prevented without damaging the growth of the United States, the preservation of a democratically dominant international system can be assured if China is not granted additional influence in the Western Order. China will undoubtedly surpass the United States economically, however the potential spread of socialist policies and institutions can be prevented if China remains excluded from the Western Order.

Humanitarian Efforts in Syria

            The earliest days of September 2013 were standard in the United States; schools opened, neighborhood pools closed, and the American public assumed the traditional hubbub of a schedule lacking the luxuries of summertime. Yet by mid-September, as the news of Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons spread like wildfire through American media, the attention of the American public was held captive and questions regarding the United State’s response began to arise. The alleged “red line” had been crossed, and it was clear that Obama was set to intervene in Syria. Some hailed the idea as heroic, while others bemoaned the proposition as an invitation for a second Iraq War. While I understand the need for action in Syria, I would argue that the United States lacks the authority to intervene in a civil war which does not pertain to them. As Americans, our obligation is not to act as an overarching authority which polices the use of warfare, but rather, to reach out on a humanitarian level to help those who have been victimized by the war.  

            The assertion that America should rush to action on a military level has several inherent faults, mainly in its ignorance of the reality of the Syrian situation. For example, while proponents of military intervention would offer that the United States needs to take an active stance against the breach of conventional norms, that chemical weapons are not to be used in times of war, is a militaristic intervention the only method of achieving diplomacy? Exploring other options in which the United States is involved on a level which does not involve a war is an entirely viable alternative, especially considering the exponential cost and bloodshed which our involvement within Syria could unleash. There also remains the fact that following our involvement in Syria, more political instability could ensue, which begs the question of just how involved we should be. Rather than open Pandora’s Box for the sake of upholding our reputation as an enforcer of international law, I believe that the United States should become involved on a less militaristic level.

            Our nationwide concern with the welfare of Syrians was only recently sparked, following the news of chemical weapon use, while more than 100,000 Syrian casualties had been reported prior to the contraband weapons were even introduced to the scene. Our attention was held by the murmurs of torture, pain, misery, and suffering on the part of the Syrian people, and while it is difficult to differentiate between the combatants and the noncombatants, a primary fault which makes the concept of war unjustified, innocent victims are now fleeing the country to escape the hell which they previously called home. If Americans are inflamed enough to go to war for the rights of these people, I do not believe it is too idealistic to consider a humanitarian option in which we send financial aid to countries surrounding Syria for the support of refugees. Rather than sitting idly by and wondering what we should have done surrounding the Syria crisis of 2011-2013, I believe that we should find a way to ensure that these Syrians are not forced to suffer even more in countries that are overwhelmed by an influx of immigrants from the war-torn Syria, and whether we do this unilaterally, or with the help of other nations, I think that we have the potential to make a difference.

            While the United States as an entity possesses the power and influence to make a difference in the world, I believe that these assets would be better suited in Syria in the form of refugee assistance and humanitarian aid. While congressional leaders and a minority of Americans may argue for a military intervention in Syria, I do not believe that this war would be justified on our part or that we have the authority to intervene, and our efforts are best suited to help those who have been victimized by the civil war.