The Sovereignty of Nations

  The sovereignty of nations.  What a topic to discuss this evening as we see the clash of world governments in front of our very eyes. Whether it be conflicting foreign policy goals, personal vendettas, or a power struggle amongst men, political pressure is rising as the boiling point towards armed conflict grows as the days pass.  As the world turns on its axis, the people are left to wonder, what is to come for a world rumbling for help and burning for change.

Before we dive into the world of today, let’s rewind the present moment and arrive at a time in the past.  As we emerge in the past, we freeze the frame and observe a world focused on the League of Nations.  Following World War 1, Woodrow Wilson established the League of Nations to combat international conflict.  Although the United States inevitably never joined the League, it established an international governing body whose main goal was to stop foreign conflict from taking place.  As time progressed from that moment in 1918, we noticed a trend emerge as time ticked forward.  What was once a good idea in principle, unraveled as the world inched closer to global conflict again.  As Japan and Germany began to expand their military into foreign lands, the League of Nations was helpless in halting the aggressive expansion of the German nation and the Japanese imperial expansion in Manchuria as well as the islands of the south Pacific.  The nations of the world created a governing body whose sole purpose was to stop nations from attacking others, only to see it fail in stopping another world war from occurring.  

Following the aftermath of the 2nd World War, another international governing body was established to reaffirm the international cooperation of participating nations.  This second international governing, The United Nations, has withstood the tests of time compared to its earlier counterpart.  As history will go to show, the League of Nations had too many gaps and barriers in its structure to truly be effective at preventing war and armed conflict.  Although the United Nations has many working parts and pieces of legislation, the main principle in its creation remains unchanged: The maintenance that, “No sovereign nation can be invaded or controlled by an outside nation.”

As we move this story forward, we come to a stop at the present.  As I exit the train, I look around, observing the world around me, seeing it for all that it's worth.  The boy pauses for a moment and begins to contemplate the very nature of what it means to be sovereign.  He closes his eyes and his mind spells out in words, “Free, independent of outside rule or influence.”  Looking deeper at the concept of sovereignty, the boy asks himself another question: “What makes a country free and independent?”  As the thought is processed by his brain, thoughts project out in real time.  Sovereignty means freedom of land, communication, and property.  It means freedom from foreign influence, it means letting the people take back what is theirs.  

As the boy looks from the outside in, he inverses the outlook of the concept of sovereignty and begins to look from the inside outwards.  He asks himself yet another question, “What is a government and what is its created purpose?”  No sooner the boy asked himself the question, an answer emerged.  The boy thought to himself, “Governments are not businesses.  They are entities whose sole purpose is to protect the rights of those who elected them to office.”  As he pondered this idea, he thought about why a government would resist foreign intervention.  The United Nations puts pressure on governments of participating nations whose policies violate international law.  Whether the U.N.’s actions are politically motivated or genuinely in the best interests of the people of the affected nations, many governments become hostile and play the blame game when fingers are pointed in their direction.  With that thought, let’s flip back to the inside-out perspective.  Foreign Policy is a tricky business.  How long will nations sit back and watch a government rule with an iron and bloody fist, before intervening?  How far does the sovereignty of a nation go before it is in the best interest of the country as a whole, or a world as whole, to see the change of a regime?  It is not the government or the U.N. to decide, but the people that inhabit the land.  

With this in mind, let’s focus our attention on the problem at hand today.  Conflict in the Cradle of Civilization is so deeply twisted and contorted that it is hard to find a foundation from which to stand from.  The Cradle of Civilization is now the cradle to an early grave for many, as powers of the world fight over the power vacuum that has become the political state of Iraq, Palestine, and Syria.  Although the problem is much deeper than the present moment, the problem plaguing the world today is the conflict between Iran and Donald Trump.  

Before dissecting the problem as a whole, we must first dissect each side individually to understand the motives for action in the present.  Let us begin with Iran, Iraq, Palestine and Syria.  Throughout my 20’s, I watched as the world, most notably Russia and the United States, volley for power and control of the war torn and destabilized countries of Iraq and Syria.  I saw with my own eyes the utter destruction of whole cities at the hands of the Russian military, the U.S. military, as well as those proxy fighting groups of the indigenous backed by the co-defendants.  I saw with my own eyes, millions of displaced individuals because of the politics of power- hungry men, who in their eyes saw what they were doing as liberation, but in reality, it was merely a rich man’s battle for political and economic domination.  At what point does the sovereignty and cries of a nation’s people take precedence over the interests of foreign nations?  When will the day come when foreign intervention ends, and the time for autonomy and self-governance occur?  At what lengths should ordinary people suffer at the hands of international politics and economic gain?

As we move this story forward, let’s stop and focus on the United States.  Because we have put so much time, energy, and money into the development of Iraq post Hussein, it is hard to watch as all the country has invested into a nation goes into the hands of people who one does not trust.  Giving up control of Iraq would negatively affect the U.S. backed multi-national corporations who have profited billions from the oil industry as you will find companies like ExxonMobil, Mobil, and BP.  To Donald Trump, it is all about protecting U.S. economic interests in foreign occupied land and using his military to protect those interests while playing the narrative of protecting Americans on foreign soil.  The U.S. has spent more than 5 Trillion Dollars on Iraq and Afghanistan alone since 2001. Let that sink in.

As we reach a climax to this story, we shall discuss the aforementioned title of this topic, “The Sovereignty of Nations.”  As I sit here tonight writing these very words, I wonder to myself, will the leaders of the world leave the words and world of Machiavellian politics behind, and do what is best for the people of the world that outnumber you so greatly instead of seeing the world through a lens of your own self-interest.  Will the powers of the world live up to the legislative works they create?  Will the sovereignty of nations be honored and sealed with the ink of a pen’s tip, or will the world tip even further into chaos because of the tightening of man’s grip.  Power is not meant to be grabbed or gripped but given.  Power and land belongs to the people that inhabit it, period.  The role of governments in foreign nations should be given from and by the consent of the people, and when the people of that very nation no longer wish to seek help, it is the right of that nation to expel foreign bodies.  The role of a foreign nation should be to help another nation establish a structure for long term peace and independence, not use the opportunity to embed oneself into the inter-workings of another’s socio-economic structure.  Whether it be a neighbor or the great powers of the world, it is not the job of foreign nations to decide the fate of the governed, but the governed themselves.  

The Art of the Deal of any great leader is to give into one’s pride and provide for the interests of the people.  I pray for the day when men sit down at a table and talk to achieve, rather than talk to appease.  I pray for the day when the actions of men are meant to mend, I pray for a day when killing to bring change is no longer a means to a hopeless end.  In that hopeless end, I hope that all hope is not lost, so we can find a new way to begin to mend this trend without any thoughts of a hopeless end.