The Right to Decide Should not be Decided for You

            The idea that developed nations are better at controlling themselves than developing nations is the epitome of the us versus them mentality. In Gusterson's view of Western nations versus the rest, we can see a well developed case for why each nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Equally as unfair as claiming certain nations cannot have such weapons is the idea that no nation should have them after powerful nations have benefited from them for so long.
             This argument really falls inline with similar arguments surrounding climate change. Climate change is a problem, and we have learned that factories and rapid industrialization worsens this problem. After having benefited from child labor, poor working conditions, and massive pollution, the United States and other western nations find themselves the moral authority on who can and cannot pollute to empower their economy. "We understand what we did was wrong, so we don't want you to make the same mistake," is akin to scolding a child for partying to hard when you blasted through the 70's and 80's. Every contentious corner that would equalize nations becomes a question of maturity, and since we have been there, what right do these nations have to do such horrid things now?
            International hypocrisy may have good intentions for the future of our world, but what right do these nations have to tell other nations how to develop? One mold doesn't fit all. Perhaps a country like Ecuador doesn't want to work 60 hour work weeks because they appreciate the value of the siesta. Maybe certain countries don't want to full industrialize because they value their environment. Vice versa, perhaps certain countries what to destroy themselves to chase the "American Dream." The point is, we shouldn't dictate how countries should be or act, let alone how they should develop. Development is subjective and each country has a different version of it, or perhaps even none at all.
            Gusterson's claim that Orientalism is being used to prevent countries from having equal rights on the international stage is valid. Perhaps nuclear weapons should be abolished, banned, or destroyed, but that should be each country's right to decide. If the US can say Iran can't have nuclear weapons, shouldn't Iran be able to argue that the US must outlaw Mcdonalds because it is an assault on the world's health? No nation should be allowed to criticize another for its mistakes, but it doesn't hurt to have dialogue to come to similar conclusions on what is and isn't acceptable. The key here, is dialogue, and not righteous, self-serving monologues of "mature" nations.

Gusterson, Hugh. "Nuclear Weapons and the Other in the Western Imagination." Cultural
Anthropology 14, no. 1 (1999): 111-43.

Comments

  1. AnonymousJuly 5, 2018 at 1:22 PM

    I agree that, in the context of this module's discussion, dialogue is more effective than powerful nations "talking over" less powerful in order to perpetuate self-serving ideologies. Would you suggest then that your position on proliferation would be that of Participation, which maintains that all countries benefit from access to nuclear technology? Perhaps this position would "level the playing field" so to speak, thereby allowing for easier and more open communication between nations moving forward. However, there are some logistical issues with this position. While I don't think any one nation should dictate the actions of another, when it comes to matters of violence and nuclear capabilities in particular, I would argue that the potential for far-reaching international effects must be taken into consideration. Not only the effects in terms of violent conflict or first-strike capabilities, but the effects on trade (nuclear technology and materials), alliances, etc. It is a complex issue that--even if with the removal of all bias from the discussion--requires intense strategic evaluation on multiple levels.

    ReplyDelete
  2. EHJuly 12, 2018 at 7:32 PM

    I think Sarah's suggestion that we consider opening access to nuclear technologies to be interesting. Particularly those countries that face looming water and energy crisis due to climate change. Some kind of international enforcement, or at least verification system would likely be needed to ensure that materials were only enriched enough for domestic purposes, rather than weaponry.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more

Balance of Power Theory is Not All Encompassing

There are several theories that attempt to explain the rise and fall of great powers. In reviewing the theories it appears that no single theory can account for every situation that has occurred in international politics at least the way in which these theories are currently elucidated. This is especially true concerning the balance of power hypothesis, which claims that international stability is created when there is an equilibrium among state actors, especially concerning militarily capability. However, findings show that hegemonic stability may ensue in a multi-state system. While the balance of power theory may account for some of the outcomes in world politics, to some extent, the theory loses credibility through its inability to account for variations between states and the rise and fall of great powers. The balance of power theory certainly does not hold true in the case of the United States. In my view, the US is the current hegemon and thus, we are living in a unipolar w...
Read more