Akademy has a point, but it must be remembered that European integration happened in a particular historical context that is somewhat unique: they were under the umbrella of American military power. For the last sixty years the European countries have not had to seriously worry about attacks from one another because the U.S. would not have allowed such a thing to happen; they had the benefit of NOT living in an anarchic society. That’s not the case for all countries, however. Unless (or until) some sort of world government arises, the absence of monopolized coercion will mean that some countries (the powerful ones at least) will tend to view each other through cross hairs.
Now it might be that “nations” will fade away as Akademy says, which would certainly reduce one source of conflict. However, this is unlikely in the near future. If you look at Eurobarometer data, you’ll see that even in Europe people are clinging to their national identities even as they integrate economically. My take on Inglehart is that these “identity” issues will only grow in prominence in the future and could well serve as rallying points for demagogues who stand to gain by fostering conflict between peoples.
If war does come to an end, it will probably be in one of two ways: global government, a confederation of republics ala Kant’s Perpetual Peace. (But see Kant’s take on world government before getting excited about it). If peace comes about, it will be because of the increasing accessibility of WMDs to states and non-states alike. Technological innovation gives more and more people the power to be world-destroyers, and eventually we’ll realize (or not) that we have to cooperate or perish.
Original content is for Non-commercial use under Creative Commons. Except where otherwise noted.
Some Rights Reserved. Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Discuss
Jake Wobig on May 15, 2008, 1:16 PM
Akademy has a point, but it must be remembered that European integration happened in a particular historical context that is somewhat unique: they were under the umbrella of American military power. For the last sixty years the European countries have not had to seriously worry about attacks from one another because the U.S. would not have allowed such a thing to happen; they had the benefit of NOT living in an anarchic society. That’s not the case for all countries, however. Unless (or until) some sort of world government arises, the absence of monopolized coercion will mean that some countries (the powerful ones at least) will tend to view each other through cross hairs.
Now it might be that “nations” will fade away as Akademy says, which would certainly reduce one source of conflict. However, this is unlikely in the near future. If you look at Eurobarometer data, you’ll see that even in Europe people are clinging to their national identities even as they integrate economically. My take on Inglehart is that these “identity” issues will only grow in prominence in the future and could well serve as rallying points for demagogues who stand to gain by fostering conflict between peoples.
If war does come to an end, it will probably be in one of two ways: global government, a confederation of republics ala Kant’s Perpetual Peace. (But see Kant’s take on world government before getting excited about it). If peace comes about, it will be because of the increasing accessibility of WMDs to states and non-states alike. Technological innovation gives more and more people the power to be world-destroyers, and eventually we’ll realize (or not) that we have to cooperate or perish.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register