What is the most important issue in world politics?
When asked to identify the single most important issue in global politics, my first instinct was to isolate several recent occurrences in an effort to evaluate their international significance. The conflict between Russia and Georgia quickly came to mind. Though much of the military conflict has now concluded, the repercussions of such a devastating action have already appeared in the form of thousands of displaced refugees, as well as a sharp increase in international tensions, namely those between Russia and its adversaries from the Cold War era. Shifting to a larger scale, the war in Iraq took center stage. In addition to the humanitarian and economic consequences, the war has had a profound impact on the Middle Eastern perception of the United States. This perspective will play a critical role in the future, as the area’s regional development has already made it into a powerful contender in the international arena. Lastly, I considered the threat of China, which amazed the world with its stunning presentation of the 28th Olympiad while simultaneously masking their complete disregard for human rights. At this point it is evident that while the U.S. and China have developed a mutually welcomed economic relationship, the vast differences in attitude towards their respective citizens offer the conviction that these two countries contain conflicting social values, a trait that would prevent such a cordial relationship to extend beyond its current fiscal boundary.
These three examples provide support for my arguing that the maintenance of effective diplomacy is the most important issue in world politics. The art of negotiation apparently has been lost. It may be that we, as Americans, believed strength to be justification for aggression. Perhaps Putin and company had a similar train of thought. And if the Chinese government was more concerned with impressing the global community than ensuring the well-being of its citizenry, it could possibly be because of a conscious desire to flaunt its national strength. Such a move would indicate that the Chinese are playing the same game as the U.S. and the Russians. Negotiating a compromise, in the politics of today, is seen as weakness. In the current presidential race, Senator John McCain attacked Senator Obama’s alleged weakness, comparing his intentions to meet with foreign leaders to the failure of Chamberlain and the British government to check the spread of Hitler’s armies. The strategy of appeasement had backfired, and instead of resolving the conflict it had escalated into World War II. Fox News masterfully carried the story, hoping to label Obama as a leader who would adopt appeasement as his primary tool of diplomacy. But on that day, while Fox proliferated their message on the impressionable masses, one unimpressed teenager learned a very different lesson. Although I now know never to confuse “appeasement” with “diplomacy,” my concern is that many people cannot make this distinction. In some ways Fox’s message appears to have made an impression on society. The problems between nations will only be resolved when the world’s leaders see beyond this misconception.
It is impossible to be certain of the effects of employing effective diplomacy, but one would have to be exceptionally cynical to predict anything but a positive outcome. Without armed conflict, the humanitarian casualties would be reduced to zero. The government would not require a substantial allocation of funding for military functions, enabling it to address other areas. Effective diplomacy will not solve the world’s problems overnight, but it would mark the beginning of a new era of tolerance, peace, and the ever progressing idealism of humanity.
No comments:
Post a Comment