I strongly believe that it is not only possible for sovereign states to reach global agreement, but that it would be in their best interest to do so. If a collective effort was made by all the nations of the world to solve the plethora of issues facing humanity today, such as environmental destruction, overpopulation, poverty, oppression, and injustice, people everywhere would benefit. There are several examples of when sovereign states reached global agreement. One such example was the 1970s campaign by the World Health Organization (WHO) to eradicate smallpox. Through a combined effort of the nations, a deadly disease that had ravaged the human population for centuries was completely eliminated from nature, a feat which has not yet been repeated to this day1.
Another example of a global agreement seems to be the de facto consensus between sovereign states that nuclear weapons, although powerful politico-military bargaining chips, are so overwhelmingly destructive that their use should be avoided at all costs. Since the introduction of nuclear weapons in 1945, only eight nations – the United States, the Russian Federation, Britain, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel – possess nuclear weapons, compared with the nineteen nations – Australia, Egypt, Sweden, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Romania, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Syria, Libya, Italy, Japan, Germany, and Norway – that decided to abandon their nuclear weapon programs and ambitions. In addition to these nations, four other nations – South Africa, Belarus, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan – possessed nuclear weapons but chose to sign on to the NPT and disarm2. As of today, North Korea and Iran are the only nations exhibiting significant nuclear weapons ambitions.
Although I strongly believe that nation-states can reach global consensus, I feel that current international and domestic sociopolitical atmospheres present a problematic ideological bloc to humankind’s progressive advancement on a global scale. However, I do not view this bloc as impassible and am confident in the many efforts that exist to begin to “break through,” such as the great number of grassroots movements promoting social justice, education and healthcare reform, gender equality, racial harmony, and other progressive agendas. I am also encouraged by the fact that there are many others out there who, like me, share my vision of a better future for humanity and will work for the advancement of the common good.
-Gregory Proulx
1 “Smallpox Disease Overview.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 30 Dec. 2004. 5 Sept. 2007. http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/overview/disease-facts.asp.
2 “Nuclear Weapons Programs Worldwide: An Historical Overview.” Institute for Science and International Security. 5 Sept. 2007. http://www.isis-online.org/mapproject/introduction.html.
2 comments:
On the topic of nuclear weapons, I agree that the nations have reached a consensus that nuclear weapons are detrimental and should not exist. But I do not think the major powers that still have nuclear weapons are going to abandon them anytime soon. The US agreeing that nuclear weapons are dangerous and should not be further developed is no where near the US agreeing that they are horrible and destroying them.
Your point about WHO and smallpox though is very convincing! I hadnt thought of that. But then, that effort was orchestrated by an international body (the WHO) and not simply the nations alone so perhaps that is the key to international agreement?
But what is there in the fact that it hasn't been replicated? Malaria is a disease which could be practically eliminated, yet the WHO has failed to bring this about. What makes the two cases different?
Rachel has a good point though. Perhaps international bodies must start the change? I'm not sure but the Landmine ban may have started this way.
Post a Comment