POSC 170 -- DANGEROUS MIND

(ex."onload='...'onunload='...")

[ VoyUser Login optional ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 14:48:04 09/24/03 Wed
Author: Anonymous
Subject: POSC 170

John Sa’omoana Tuhaika
POSC 170
Date: September 24, 2003
The Real World Order
by Anne Marie Slaughter

Slaughter is responding to the idea that the new world order announced by George Bush is the answer to world problems. The high-hope is based on the idea that the international organizations such the united nations, headed by the United States is the only way to international peace and harmony, as it has supports of most of the world powers. However, she argued, “infeasible at best and dangerous at worse,” because this organizations lack a more centralized government, which can make sound and effective decision. She also argued that the absence of structured-institutions and lack of members of all countries of the world makes international institutions fragile and weak.
Slaughter argued that the United Nations in particular is not effective because it is can never operate separately from the most powerful nations that are backing it. However, the problem here is that major powers who are playing a vital part in the U.N. cannot give their full power or even their sovereignties to empower the organization.
This is crucial because U.N. failed to stop United States from going to war against Iraq. Even if powerful countries such as France, Germany, Russia and China disapproved of it. Because U.S. was supported by a number of allies in U.N., particularly Britain, it was able to invade Iraq. If the U.N. had an a more powerful government and centralized government making decision, U.S. would have been pushed to the side and an invasion of Iraq wouldn’t have occurred.
Earlier on in one of the readings, as Waltz quoted Fox who described international politics as “politics with the absence of government” ((Fox. 1959. P.35) 71) and describing as decentralized and anarchic.
But then she highlighted the liberal internationalism’s view of so called “the new medievalism” which embraces the idea of a creating ‘international rules and institutions to solve states’ problems’ and this will put an end to ‘nation states.’ This may have some problems if governments still hold on to their states’ sovereignty and allow little from international institutions into their own state affairs.
Furthermore, this seems to be a good idea as it would punish world extremists. It will empower international organization by creating rule-making institutions to effectively handle international affairs, instead of just watching powerful nations doing what they want to do, with little respect to, for instance U.N. This will make the world a better place.
But there’s the dilemma, as long as U.S. is on the top of this uni-polar system, or in theory, on the top of the world political food chain, they will do anything to hang in there. Such international law will merely create a multi-polar system whereby people live together according to laws and treaties, and U.S. will not support it.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Void -- Anonymous, 21:41:58 03/12/08 Wed

[ VoyUser Login ] Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* Notice: Posting problems? [ Click here ]
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

Type your message here:
>John Sa’omoana Tuhaika >POSC 170 >Date: September 24, 2003 >The Real World Order >by Anne Marie Slaughter > >Slaughter is responding to the idea that the new world >order announced by George Bush is the answer to world >problems. The high-hope is based on the idea that the >international organizations such the united nations, >headed by the United States is the only way to >international peace and harmony, as it has supports of >most of the world powers. However, she argued, >“infeasible at best and dangerous at worse,” because >this organizations lack a more centralized government, >which can make sound and effective decision. She also >argued that the absence of structured-institutions and >lack of members of all countries of the world makes >international institutions fragile and weak. >Slaughter argued that the United Nations in particular >is not effective because it is can never operate >separately from the most powerful nations that are >backing it. However, the problem here is that major >powers who are playing a vital part in the U.N. cannot >give their full power or even their sovereignties to >empower the organization. >This is crucial because U.N. failed to stop United >States from going to war against Iraq. Even if >powerful countries such as France, Germany, Russia and >China disapproved of it. Because U.S. was supported by >a number of allies in U.N., particularly Britain, it >was able to invade Iraq. If the U.N. had an a more >powerful government and centralized government making >decision, U.S. would have been pushed to the side and >an invasion of Iraq wouldn’t have occurred. >Earlier on in one of the readings, as Waltz quoted Fox >who described international politics as “politics with >the absence of government” ((Fox. 1959. P.35) 71) and >describing as decentralized and anarchic. >But then she highlighted the liberal >internationalism’s view of so called “the new >medievalism” which embraces the idea of a creating >‘international rules and institutions to solve states’ >problems’ and this will put an end to ‘nation states.’ >This may have some problems if governments still hold >on to their states’ sovereignty and allow little from >international institutions into their own state >affairs. >Furthermore, this seems to be a good idea as it would >punish world extremists. It will empower international >organization by creating rule-making institutions to >effectively handle international affairs, instead of >just watching powerful nations doing what they want to >do, with little respect to, for instance U.N. This >will make the world a better place. >But there’s the dilemma, as long as U.S. is on the top >of this uni-polar system, or in theory, on the top of >the world political food chain, they will do anything >to hang in there. Such international law will merely >create a multi-polar system whereby people live >together according to laws and treaties, and U.S. will >not support it.
Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 2.94, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums^(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2008 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.