politics essay

[JWK]

Just dumping my essay here while i work on it.

[JWK]

When the ‘Peace of Westphalia’ treaty was signed in 1648, a new system of rule was introduced into the world. A system under whose influences and principles we still live with today. The end of an entire regions subservience to Papal rule ushered in the concept of national sovereignty.
Separate states found themselves as the highest form of power, their leaders free of the autocratic rule of previous times and answerable to their people alone. Free of outside interference.
A state existed alone and theoretically could sustain isolation for as long as the rulers desired. No one outside of the state could challenge this new entity.
350 years on, a modern state theoretically has those same freedoms, but the primacy of the state as we know it is being increasingly and scrupulously questioned. Author Daniel S. Papp cites five factors that are challenging the very notion of the sovereign nation state.
These are: 1. economic interdependence; 2. technical advances; 3. international governmental organizations; 4. transnational movements and thought systems; and 5. internal fragmentation.
Firstly Papp confronts the ‘challenge of economic interdependence’ and makes reference to the affairs of states in the recent past. After the Second world war for example the main goal of a state in the economic spectrum was to develop a secure economy based upon as great a degree of self sufficiency as was possible. This was to protect was to protect the interests of each state and assure them stability in a time of political, economic and social turmoil.
Over the past thirty years however, in a much calmer period respectively “fewer and fewer states have pursued economic self sufficiency as a primary objective of national policy.” The necessity to fiercely protect ones own assets and interests is decreasing as the world grows more more peaceful an the benefits of international trade grow stronger and stronger.
These benefits are so vast that today we live in a world where economic interdependence exists between and amongst most states. International trade is so lucrative that to exempt your state from participation would ultimately mean stagnation of the states entire economy. For example if specific middle eastern countries stopped selling their oil abroad there would be little if any money coming into the country and a recession would result. A state need not produce everything it needs for itself if the product can be obtained cheaply overseas. It is in a states self interest to acquire goods at the cheapest rate, hence few complete products that reach the consumer are produced in one state alone.
To preserve the economic livelihood of a state, economic interdependence has become indispensable. Papp argues that critics of the state system view this as a barrier against the continued use of the system of sovereignty. “Why, critics of the state ask, need the state continue to exist if trade is so vital, if economic self sufficiency is a thing of the past, and if economic and manufacturing efficiency can be improved by an international division of labour?”
These critics take a rather pessimistic view of the state though, as the state still has control of imports and exports. An example lies in the continued economic conflict between Japan and the United States. The United States of America helped Japan to rebuild itself after it was brought to it’s knees in the Second World War. Both physical, social and economic reconstruction took place under American supervision. Before long Japan’s economy was flourishing and American investors tried to make inroads into this fresh economy. To their dismay the

[JWK]

Japanese economy remained closed to foreign investment while Japanese investors took advantage of American markets. Subsequently America has Limited the amount of Japanese automobiles allowed into the American market, a blow to one of Japan's largest exports.
Economic interdependence is a real challenge to the state, but is not insurmountable as the previous case shows. In a world where global trends clearly provide that economic interdependence is in a states best interest there is a significant drift towards a post-state era system of management but the journey is very young and the obstacles many.
Papp goes on to illustrate his second point; ‘the challenge of technology.’ The advancement of technology has increased on a massive scale recently, with the world connected via wireless communications, personal computers, improved satellites, the internet and world wide web and cellular services. Also there have been leaps and bounds in the fields of fibre-optic technology, advanced networking and information and communication technologies which allow the extremely fast and effective transfer of data, information and funds from one state, on one side of the world to another.
Governments have quickly incorporated these technological advances into their very makeup and depend upon these technologies continued service. It has become woven into the very fabric by which they rule and hence it’s downfall would mean chaos. In their continued service and development they challenge the state from three angles.
The first angle is the one that the world faced with the Y2K scare. that is the breakdown of electronic transfer of financial data and information would significantly decrease the leaders of states ability to maintain contact with their people, and severely hamper their ability to govern.
Historically, the people of one state generated their living off the land of that state, but with the advent of international instantaneous connection, economic activity is increasingly conducted across international boundaries. This raises whether states are still necessary for the economic livelihood and continued prosperity of its people.
Secondly, this instantaneous access to the internet and the world wide web has enabled the peoples of a single nation to be geographically separated yet retain a singular sense of nationality, even though the people may span several states. This leads critics to ask whether states are necessary for its people to have a national identity.
The last and possibly most crucial point Papp raises about the challenge of technology is the threat of the advancement of military technologies. With the invention of Nuclear and Intercontinental Ballistic missiles(ICBMs) the modern state is vulnerable as never before. Certain governments have been attempting to establish protection against these terrible devices of war, such as George W. Bush reinitiating the “Star Wars” program. But for now there is nothing, barring a preemptive strike that can neutralize the threat they pose. Recently more and more governments have been acquiring the means by which to generate such weapons, and the risk of sub-state actors such as terrorists obtaining them grows as well.
There is no certain defense against such weapons, and this inability to protect it’s citizens has led many to question whether the state is still relevant.
This leads to Papp’s third major argument. ‘The challenge of international governmental organizations.’ IGOs are created by sovereign states to battle

[JWK]

problems that the collective states face. For the IGOs to be effective governing bodies each participating state must relinquish a portion of its sovereign powers.
Many problems, such as that of terrorism cut across international boundaries and in response to these governments create IGOs to enable them to better meet the problems.
These IGOs have varying power, the more successful having a great deal of sway in the interstate affairs of it’s members. As an example, the United Nations has been in place since the end of the Second World War and has governing powers at the expense of it’s members sovereignty. The United Nations was created to prevent future wars such as the First and Second World Wars which had decimated Europe.
Legally, a member of the UN can only go to war with the support of the General Assembly and no veto from any of the five permanent leader states, hence in theory the legitimacy of the state as the highest actor in world affairs is questionable.
As another example the European Union holds a tremendous amount of power over it’s member states affairs. Created in 1993 it is gaining more and more authoritative power. Currently on the verge of accepting up to ten new member states the EU has respectable clout in international affairs.
IGOs such as this pose a serious impediment to the state, as they limit the power of control each has, yet they are not insurmountable obstacles. Recently we have seen the “coalition of the willing” led by the US and Britain step outside of their IGO bound obligations to the UN to act upon an issue they deemed important enough to violate the rules to which they agreed to. Thus while the IGO is a hindering force to a modern state, there are ways to overcome it.
The fourth point that Daniel S. Papp raises is the one that has become extremely relevant in light of recent events. ‘The challenge of transnational movements and thought.’ there have been several major transnational movements in the last 100 years, the most pertinent being the establishment of Marxism and the resurgence of fundamentalist Islam.
With the collapse of the Soviet empire fundamentalist Islam has become the focus of world attention, especially after the attacks on the World Trade Center perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden. The subsequent chase and failure to apprehend or kill the elusive Osama highlighted the inadequacies of states to protect themselves from transnational forces. Subsequent to this failure the fundamentalist Islamic regime the Teliban are suspected to have carried out as many as five terrorist attacks from different states.
The threat the transnational movements pose is the fact that they call for people of a similar belief to unite under one banner, regardless of the boundaries of the states they inhabit. In Ayotollah Khomeini’s fundamentalist Iran the population was subservient to Allah and the Koran and the extreme form of Shi’ite teachings endorsed the absolvence of all states to the rule of Allah.
In the communist manifesto by Carl Marx and Friedrich Engels they wrote that the state was a system that disrespected the rights of the proletariat, and when Marxism prevailed over the capitalist system power would be distributed equally amongst the people.
Even though these movements are either dissipated, collapsed or weakened the threat that movements of their ilk pertain is great. These seriously threaten the continued supremacy of the state system.
Recently transnational though has adopted a different angle. That is the

[JWK]

preservation of basic human rights. As seen in Kosovo when the international arena saw the actions of the Yugoslavian government towards it’s ethnic Albanian population as so appalling to the standards of international human rights that intervention at the expense of sovereignty seemed the only route to take.
The predominantly US-led NATO forces went into Yugoslavia under the banner of human rights. Obviously, if this argument of human rights over sovereignty is accepted as legitimate, it deals a substantial blow to the continued primacy of the state in world affairs.
The fifth and final argument Papp presents is the ‘challenge of internal fragmentation.’ At the end of the Thirty Year War and with the instigation of the Treaties of Westphalia there existed little more then 30 states. Over the next 300 years the number grew to only 54. After the Second World War and with the creation of the United Nations the number of states is proliferating wildly, expanding the number to figures in excess of 195 separate states. People found their interests strongly diverging from those of their governments and broke off to form small states. The problem of fragmentation is presented.
A state naturally likes to control as large a base of mineral and human resources as possible, and will automatically try to keep a group threatening to secceed in it’s folds. Today we see a lot of these groups appearing, because of different ethnicities and cultures to the mother state.
The problem to the state lies in the fact that if too many of these groups break off to become mini-states a proportion of their resources have gone too. the economy of the mini-state will be poor, and the mother states economy will undoubtably suffer too. Obviously if too many cases of internal fragmentation occur the economy and ability of states will be significantly lowered.
Internal fragmentation is a real challenge, and while it is of little relevance to some secure states it is another hurdle the state must overcome.
These are the reasons that Daniel S. Papp proposes challenge the continuation of the state, but they are in no way about to make the sovereign state crumble to it’s knees in disarray. As stated, economic interdependence, while limiting to the state also benefits it in many ways. Technical advances are a serious challenge to overcome, but ironically their continued evolution helps to solve the problems they create. IGOs are rising in status and power amongst the worlds states and offer a glimpse of a post-state system, but essentially can still be controlled or even absolved by their member states. Transnational movements and thought systems are challenging as ever but still paradoxically find base inside the solid foundation of states. And last but not least internal fragmentation is challenging the well being of states, but essentially leaves the genetic makeup reasonably unchanged.
In short, the challenges presented are all real but none so far pose enough of a challenge to end the dominance of the state system. They foreshadow a change in direction that the state is undertaking, but not the end itself.

[JWK]

*whew*

I need a stiff drink...

[JWK]

Korean War
(Redirected from Korean war)


The Korean War, from June 25, 1950 to July 27, 1953, was a conflict between communist North and anti-communist South Korea. This was also a proxy war of a kind between the United States and the Soviet Union. Principal combatants were North and South Korea, the United States and China although many nations sent troops under the aegis of the United Nations.

The invasion of South Korea came as a complete surprise to the US, Dean Rusk of the State Department had told Congress on June 20 that no war was likely . Interestingly a CIA report of early March had predicted an invasion in June. US officials had previously publicly stated that America would not fight over Korea, and that the country was outside of American concern in the Pacific. This attitude may have encouraged the North or given Syngman Rhee in the South a motive to gain US support.

On hearing of the invasion Truman agreed with his advisors, unilaterally, to use US airstrikes against the North Korean forces and also ordered the Seventh Fleet to protect Formosa. The US gained a United Nations mandate for action because the Soviets were boycotting the Security Council while Chiang Kai-shek's representative held the Chinese seat. Without the Soviet veto and with only Yugoslavia opposed the UN voted to aid South Korea. The US would have fought whatever the outcome, and MacArthur later told Congress "I had no connection with the UN whatsoever".


The US forces were suffering from demobilization which had continued since 1945. Excluding the Marines, the infantry divisions sent to Korea were at 40% of paper strength and the majority of their equipment was found to be useless.

In initial stages of the war, North Korea troops overwhelmed South Korean forces and drove them to a small area in the far South around the city of Pusan. This became a desperate holding action called the Pusan Perimeter. Upon the entrance of US and UN forces, American general Douglas MacArthur, as UN commander in chief for Korea, ordered a invasion far behind the North Korean troops at Inchon. United Nations troops drove the North Koreans back past the 38th parallel and continued on toward the Yalu River border of North Korea and China. This brought the Chinese into the war.

The Chinese had issued warnings that they would react if the UN forces encroached on the frontier at the Yalu River. Mao sought Soviet aid and saw intervention as essentially defensive - "if we allow the US to occupy all of Korea... we must be prepared for the US to declare... war with China" he told Stalin, Zhou Enlai was sent to Moscow to add force to Mao's cabled arguments. Mao delayed his forces while waiting for Russian help, the planned attack was postponed from the 13th to the 19th of October. Soviet assistance was limited to providing air support no nearer than sixty miles to the battlefront - the MiG-15s in Chinese