As the snow melted enough for me to take my kids to the movies on Sunday, the universe gave me two contradictory examples of our debate. The first was the story on NPR about the new law in Switzerland that just passed that would limit immigration. During the debate, I was on the pro-side and suggested that the EU is a great example of how things can be altered. The EU has created multiple structures to move states away from nearly constant warfare to almost 70 years of peace. Amazing when you consider the wars that had happened in almost any 70 year period in Western Europe.
But along comes the right-wing Swiss who decide that they don't like immigration on EU terms. Especially if it lets in immigrants that they don't like due to religious or ethnic differences. The EU has clear expectations about immigration and open borders. Switzerland is saying they will break the convention. This seems like a great example of sovereignty winning out. Cooperation was fine for Switzerland when it was easy, but they want control of their own boarders. So what is the EU going to do about it? Maybe it is all about Sovereignty or anarchy,
I park the car and take the kids into the movies and while watching the commercials that I just paid $22 to see, this add for Coca-Cola comes on.
http://www.marketmenot.com/coca-cola-soda-in-space-commercial/
Can an Astronaut and a Cosmonaut in the International Space Station sharing a coke and saving their environment, even while watching a competitive hockey game, give us hope that things can change? I hope so. Embracing the status quo has never been my strong suit.
What a great commercial Amit! I haven't seen that and I think it's an awesome metaphor for our discussions. I think the most valuable thing we learned in class the other evening was that maybe there is no "answer" to the question of whether the international environment can be fundamentally remade. Maybe it really all just comes down to perspective, and if you have ontological differences in your perspective then there is little you can do to resolve the issue.
ReplyDeleteGood observation RedRidingHood!
DeleteAmit, great points. When a state's internal interests align with their greater communities ideas, great things can happen. As you point out, Europe has seen little conflict over the last 70 years, and when it does occur it has been much smaller-scale and well-handled by interested parties to ensure it is resolved (I'm thinking Bosnia and Kosovo).
ReplyDeleteBut as you point out with Switzerland, what happens when those two diverge? Which camp wins out? If I recall from the NPR story, there is a split within Switzerland between the French-speaking parts and the German-speaking parts. Could it eventually lead to the break-up of the country? Or will they find a way to resolve their differences? I don't know enough about Switzerland to say if any one linguistic group is more powerful politically. So much going on with no good answers.
Excellent question you are posing. I also like to stay in my "optimistic" liberal zone of cooperation and flexible borders, but reality can sometimes prove otherwise. The US and Russia had a very long history of distrust, misunderstandings, and being "lost in translation" with each other. Things have shifted in a great way from the Cold War, and maybe Coke has it right. Maybe it is possible to completely shift the international realm between two nations making cooperation the central focus between states.
ReplyDeleteAs for Switzerland, their nationality has always been a strong mix of Italians, Germans, Portuguese and Turks. Their blood has been heterogeneous since the late 19th century when there was a free moving society within permeable borders. It appears they are taking a neo-isolationist approach. I wonder what their "idea" of this new development will bring them?