RE: Analysis: An International Relations Theory Guide to the War in Ukraine: A consideration of which theories have been vindicated—and which have fallen flat. By Stephen M. Walt, a columnist at Foreign Policy and the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Dear Editor,
For the most useful analysis of the political world’s dilemma
with Ukraine and Russia, it would be useful to take an actual scientific or
engineering approach. An approach using
words that have specific and relatively exact global meanings between all
readers...unlike politics, economics, and religion.
First, this educated analysis (or white paper) uses the word
“theory” where the word ‘hypothesis’ (educated guess) would be more appropriate.
Second, it would make a clear distinction
between theory and law.
Unfortunately, “international law” is technically only
wishful thinking (not made by democratic process or enforceable without war, lethal
sanctions, assassinations, or good intentions).
It would be wiser to look to the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” for making
the most accurate predictions [see the first paragraph of Declaration of
Independence].
Most people are clear about the “laws of nature’...and I’m hoping
most will agree that the laws of “Nature’s God” fundamentally means the Gold
Rule. An unwritten law that is the
foundation of every major religion. Within
this grounded context humanity is left with a simple political choice. Do we live by the ‘rule of law’ or the ‘law
of the jungle’?
Given the evolution of weapons technology and its accelerating
global affordability, availably, anonymity, power, replicability, and speed of
delivery - of multiple forms of WMD (bio, cyber, nano, robotics...and even conventional)
we must choose very wisely and quickly - or prepare for the end of civilization
as we know it.
Fundamental to any solution is understanding and abiding by
the fact that international law and politics are based on the inherently flawed
construct of independence. This is a
human mind’s imaginary concept that exists nowhere in the known universe. Thus, in reality, our Ukraine dilemma is actually
a trilemma. Most of humanity today wants
to maximize their freedoms and security.
But we expect this within the unexamined and mostly unconscious context
of independence. Thus we face a trilemma, not a dilemma.
Conclusion: The only
way to resolve a trilemma is to pick the two we desire most. And pick very carefully. A
reading of Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense will provide a
logical and legal solution to this trilemma.
In his political view, the only legitimate purpose of government is to
protect human freedom and security.
Given all people are interdependent on multiple factors...
and the recent quote by the head of our nation’s newest federal agency CISA, the
Cyber and Infrastructure Security Agency (two years old – the agency, not it's
head), “everything is connected, everything is interdependent, and everything
is vulnerable” - we must seriously consider her choice of words in a later sentence
... ‘we need a global approach’.
This, in my opinion, is the only wise “realist perspective on international politics”. Creating a new global governance system that
puts the protection of human rights and the environment above the protection of
national sovereignty (independent nations) will be our only earthly salvation.
As Woody Allen
once said, “Humanity stands at a crossroad.
One road leads to utter hopelessness and despair. The other, to complete annihilation. I hope we have the wisdom to choose the right
path.”
An Elon Musk’s
reality? ’...burrow a tunnel under the crossroad or move to another planet.’
Another option
already exists. It was globally agreed
upon at the United Nations in 2015. It
would mean funding the world’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals by the year
2030. The world’s oligarchs could afford
this and still keep their yachts.
Time is not
on our side. Neither is Putin.
No comments:
Post a Comment