within the Grand
like to use this paper as a personal forum to openly discuss my opinions and
critiques of my professor’s, Carlo Pelanda, proposal
for a Grand Alliance, as well as taking the opportunity to very quickly touch
on the significance the class had on me.?
While taking this course at the
?The Grand Alliance’s objectives to contain the emerging meganation of
Environmental crises are affecting our lives today, but they are not at the forefront of most states?national interests or individuals?personal interests because we are an “instantaneous?generation.?We want results now; we want to conquer today’s issues before we can move on to tomorrow’s plagues.?Taking preventive measures regarding the environment and coming up with solutions are indeed key elements in ensuring our livelihood in the future; but getting food, health care, benefits, and ensuring stable retirement for US citizens seem to be higher on the agenda for people.?
It may seem that with globalization we can objectively see that the world is less diverse because religions, cultures, and tribes are dying off as a uniform, globalized society is formed.?On the other hand, subjectively, an increasing interaction between different parts of the world allows us to be even more aware of the diversity around us.?As the world is more driven for profit, it seems that people are abandoning their identities and accepting globalization allowing westernization to take precedence (Donald Horowitz).?This argument is only somewhat accurate because not all groups want to leave their “old ways?completely or take on the “new?values of the West.?Uri Ra’anan argues for a nation-state ideal where there is one nation within one state, and there is correspondence with the nation and the political boundary.?This is the ideal, but national and state boundaries rarely correspond resulting in a mismatch of values, irredentism, secession, and internal instability.?How can we expect an alliance of democratic states to function when within each member state lie different core values??I feel that the realist mentality will continue to thrive and take primacy over the collective forum of the Grand Alliance’s objectives to become a global governing force.?
With economic globalization, multinational corporations?economic interests sway government decisions.?Developing countries rely on large corporations for jobs which gives leverage to the multinational company over the government.?Even with the standards implemented by governments within their borders, corporations find ways around them through the use of outsourcing, another symbol of how the government has less control over its own borders. ?/span>I do not think this situation will change when a Grand Alliance is formed.?Corporations hold lots of bargaining power transnationally and if they are bringing in revenue, who will stop them, the alliance??This should be their duty but I do not think the member states will allow it.?
Samuel Huntington’s offers a succinct definition of democracy as “a system in which the most powerful decision-makers are selected through fair and periodic voting procedures in which candidates freely compete for votes and in which virtually all people have the right to vote[…]?(Huntington).?The global governance of the Grand Alliance requires participation from the American, European, Russian, and Asian democracies (Pelanda 110).?As the alliance strengthens, grows, and gains credibility, other “democracies?are allowed to join.?A problem I anticipate happening is the emergence of illiberal democracies ?how can a Grand Alliance thrive when illiberal democracies exist within or around it??The core countries must be strong enough and have unified values in order to govern effectively and to prevent these states from becoming illiberal.?Most countries fall into the illiberal democracy category because of lack of rule of law, issue of poverty, religion taking precedence, unavailability of information, and so on.?I think that a strong economy will create a stronger government, or at least allow for one to exist and capitalism is indeed the key, and this only comes with good, unified governance, which the Grand Alliance may not turn out to be.
may agree on maintaining a free market and abiding by rules and regulations for
that market to exist, but what happens when other issues like human rights or war
are brought to the Grand Alliance’s table??
Certainly they will not all agree on what the best way to solve or
contain these issues are or what the best way to promote democracy is.??/span>Callahan states the “national interests of the
alliance sees a stable state as an easier actor to share the international
system with and that is what it wants to maintain and promote - stability;
however, as evidenced by Jensen’s article, the US continues to push for
democracy-building on foreign soil but then pushes for political candidates that
benefit US national interests over the interests of the Iraqi people.?Self-determination is meaningless and true
democracy is disfigured.?In this sense, a
liberal democracy becomes illiberal if the
The realist ideology triangle of self-help, survival, and states is also a key factor in whether or not the Grand Alliance will work.?Thucydides?Melian Dialogue says “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.?span style='mso-spacerun:yes'>?My trouble with an alliance of democracies is it is working to balance against a common enemy, which is what happens when any new power emerges ?states balance to protect their own interests but once a threat is gone, or another one emerges, a states?loyalty can switch immediately.?Who will govern within this global governance??From the birth of states in 1648 at the Treaty of Westphalia to their transition into primary actors with power and control over economy and ideology after the World Wars, states have often acted to benefit themselves, true to realist thought.?In the Grand Alliance, these sovereign, independent states will now have to work together and compromise together, when they could hardly do that beforehand.?What will keep one nation from switching sides, or from becoming the new world leader, even within the coalition?
Callahan, Patrick. Logics of American Foreign Policy.
Horowitz, Donald. Ethnic Groups in Conflict.
Huntington, Samuel. The Clash of Civilizations. ?/span>1993.
Huntington, Samuel. American
Politics: The Promise of Disharmony.
Pelanda, Carlo. The Grand
Ra’anan, Uri. “The Nation-State Fallacy.?/span> Conflict and Peacemaking in Multiethnic Societies. Ed.
Joesph V. Montville.?