The pursuit of wealth does not make a nation more peaceful and I would submit that on the contrary the pursuit of wealth often makes nations more combative on the global stage. If a nation is pursuing wealth than that means that they are inherently competing with other nations pursuing the same goal. Due to the scarcity of resources on the planet not every nation can have all of the wealth that it hopes to attain for itself which puts each state in competition with the other states for the same resources. As seen throughout history conflict arises from the pursuit of the world’s limited resources be they land, labor, or products such as oil. The state that seeks wealth as its goal will inherently want to obtain all the wealth or resources in the world, hence world domination is the goal. Thus a nation would have to confront other nations in order to take their territory, which the nation would obviously not give up easily, and war would result.
Internally, on the other hand, if a nation obtains wealth and its citizens have their basic needs satisfied they are less likely to be aggressive and less inclined to revolt. However, if an entire nation has wealth on the global stage other nations become jealous of that wealth and insist that the nation must share. This causes those who do not have the resources to be more likely to take the wealthy nations’ resources by force but it also makes the wealthy nation more vigilant in protecting its resources and ensuring that another nation does not rival their financial situation. This is the situation of the United States at the current time in which most nations are jealous of the wealth of the United States and hope to perhaps even forcibly attain such wealth for themselves.
Essentially the conflict depicted in the film, Blood Diamond is a conflict brought about by the desire of various individuals and corporations to obtain certain resources. While this occurs on an individual level in the film it reflects greater conflicts on the world stage. Bloody conflict results because everyone wants the resources that only a few can have. Likewise the United States enters into military conflict in Iraq to ensure its access to oil which serves its goal of obtaining wealth. Therefore the United States has been drawn into conflict in order to gain access to resources it views as valuable to its pursuit of wealth. The Ottoman Empire, to take a more historic example, pursued a policy of territorial expansion in order to gain tribute and the military service of the Janissaries in order to serve their financial interests. Such successes allowed them to build upon their wealth and expand their empire and stockpile even more wealth.
Then we come to the ultimate question: is there a goal that a nation can strive for that will ensure peace? The answer depends on what type of peace a nation is striving for; if a nation wants to obtain internal peace it can do that by ensuring equal wealth for its citizens. People are less likely to revolt against their government if the government has the wealth to provide for their basic needs. This inherently means that the nation will be in conflict with other states as they compete for global resources. On the other hand a nation may seek to be at peace with its neighbors, in which case it must halt, or at least restrain, its efforts to obtain wealth, meaning that it cannot have everything that it wants. It must sacrifice some wealth for some measure of external peace. However this means that the nation may have internal problems arising from a lack of resources amongst their population. Nations strive to achieve a balance between internal and external peace. National leaders walk a tightrope between these two objectives because they can never obtain both complete internal peace and complete external peace. A lack of either one of these forces would cause destruction of the state as it exists, either by the population revolting and ousting the leader or another nation invading the territory, Machiavelli’s worst case scenario.
Erica Peterson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
2 scenarios to question you on- What if a group of states banded together and created a free trade zone to better utilize all of their resources? Would they be able pursue wealth peacefully since they would have no need for military expansion?
Second case: What if a state was large enough to have most of the resources it needed, and used the excess to trade for the one's it didn't have? Could this be done peacefully?
Basically is there anyway that a state could conceivably pursue wealth without conflict?
This question isn't just for you, but for many of your classmates as well.
Stating that in the pursuit of wealth nations become more competitive with one another to get as large a share of the limited amount of resources as they can, leading to aggression, may not be a given. To the contrary, in the process of globalization, nations will determine their strengths and their resources, and they use them to negotiate and trade with others. We see that developing at this time, where, for example, China has an abundant supply of cheap labor that it uses to export, and the resulting income expands its economy and raises the average standard of living of its citizens, while the USA has a strong position, research & development, and services, which it exports to other nations. Presuming that all resources are limited and are in short supply may be true for non-renewable resources such as oil, but this is not true for renewable resources such as labor and services. It would not be a smart move for any one nation or group of nations to try and take all wealth and resources, as they would need to control large groups of deprived people in other nations who, indeed, could revolt and become aggressive in response. It is more intelligent and logical to negotiate, trade, and get what is wanted and needed in that manner, saving the cost of war and containment. There will always be envy but that does not necessarily mean that those who feel jealousy would try and take by force what other wealthier nations have. Again, they would be more successful in furthering their cause of attaining wealth by learning from the wealthy nation and observing how they can follow suit, using their own strengths and resources, trading, and negotiating with them, which Japan did in the second half of the 20th century, for example. The oil in the Middle East does not necessarily have to be obtained by force. After all, there has been a well-functioning world market where the Middle Eastern, oil producing OPEC countries have a strong negotiating position and everyone benefits. The conflicts in that area are not based on oil, but they do cause political instability and, thereby, threaten the oil supply and the world economy. I agree with your statement that nations must find a balance that keeps the internal and external peace, and I believe, again, that political negotiation, smart use of resources, and trade can accomplish that.
Post a Comment