A lack of purposeful, unified action across borders paralyzes efforts to improve our world.
A lack of purposeful, unified action across borders paralyzes efforts to improve our world.
Brexit? “Sovereignty.” U.S. Congress refusal to ratify the Paris Agreement? “Sovereignty.” Putin’s resistance to ousting Assad? “Sovereignty.” .” Native American tribes have what, President Bush? “Sovereignty.”
Why are many so concerned with national sovereignty when our problems are so increasingly international? Often, citizens are led to believe that international cooperation enables other countries to exert influence over their own government, and thus they the citizens lose representation. However, those doing the explaining are typically politicians (or other elites) nervous to forfeit or eager to gain some policy-making power — for better or for worse.
Even more significant, many fail to consider is that it is impossible to solve problems such as a migrant crisis or climate change in isolation. And it is unrealistic at best for poor countries like Moldova or Nigeria to prevent the trafficking of their young girls when countries like Turkey, the U.A.E., and Italy sustain such prosperous markets. Any unilateral action on these issues is nothing more than the proverbial band-aid. If they are to be solved or even reasonably alleviated, these cases — and so many others ranging from corruption to terrorism — require common goals and intelligence, equally allocated resources, and equivalent if not international legislation, enforcement, and adjudication.
But what about national identity, and, of course, sovereignty? Basic trust is required that the humans of the rest of the world are reasonable beings who will find no part of a culture or society objectionable if not truly harmful to the whole. Regarding sovereignty, it is critical in addressing these issues to recognize the choice between the absolute sovereignty of the nation and the sovereignty of humanity. Humanity can only choose how it lives if all (major) actors are both involved in governance and effectively liable — is that worth denying to pursue freedom from rules and regulation domestically?
Despite what we might assume, our common, global problems have frequently been our most difficult to address. Because “sovereignty” has become a sacred buzzword, certain actors have been and are permitted to weaken and even derail attempts to stem territorial aggression and human rights abuses, among others. Yet we continue to shy away from those dubiously claiming fear for their freedom — both at home and abroad — who thereby proceed to infringe upon that of numerous others, directly or indirectly.
As we move together through this world, we may as well keep in mind that we are in fact “in it together.” It is certainly easier to submit to (and participate in) a larger body of governance when remembering we are all part of a larger body of people sharing a larger common space.
