Reflections: Week 6/Module 3 Activity

Like Dan, I was lucky enough to get assigned into a group for our debate assignment whose position I already agreed with . . mostly.  I should probably begin by saying here that I'm a big fan of Star Trek (all series, though TNG and DS9 are best, clearly) and the idea that the international system could break from its current modus operandi and shift toward more rational, cooperative means overall, eventually leading toward a one-world government that is able to meet the needs of all its citizens without conflict, is something that definitely appeals to me, but it still seems to just be science fiction to me.  

I do believe that the international system could, theoretically, be changed, though I'm at a complete loss as to where exactly that change would come from or what would kickstart it, which I guess makes me a (reluctant) realist?  While the advent of international organizations and economic unions would at first seem to be a victory over coercion and the "old school" of the international order, we saw in our presentations/groupwork for that week that, for the most part, these organizations aren't fully effective in their goals and can even serve (in the case of the UNSC) as a tool for certain actors to block international attempts at checking their expressions of sovereignty/power.  Here, Dan has laid out most of my argument for me pretty succinctly already so I won't drone on too long - these organizations don't hold sovereignty above the nations that compose them and participation is on a voluntary basis, with each member state retaining the capability to take its ball to go home.  Likewise, as many of these nations are composed of unequal powers (the UNSC being the  chief example here), those states with the most power within the institution are more or less able to serve as de-facto "leaders" and organize the other members' policies around themselves.  In this way, they don't serve as checks to actors' expression of sovereignty so much as microphones.  

I'm not even certain that an existential threat to humanity would be sufficient to break us from our current perceptions of "us" and "them" (Pink Floyd, anyone?).  In the case of the Paris Climate Agreement, and earlier agreements, it seems that we don't tend to treat these kinds of threats with binding resolutions, or with anything more than flexible goals - if our world order can't even organize to save itself under the assumption that other states will be making similar economic sacrifices in order to stave of climate change (instead preferring to assume that no one will be making these sacrifices), how likely is it that we come together for any other reason?  I don't think we need greyskins to invade the planet to see that it may not be easily likely for the international system to come together.  Trey Parker & Matt Stone covered this one fairly well in an episode of South Park, I think - in the episode "Pinewood Derby," the nations of Earth aren't able to come together and keep their discovery of "space cash" a secret from intergalactic cops investigating a crime - of course, there's always going to be a rogue state that builds too many water parks and spoils it for everyone.  Perhaps this is a bit overly cynical here, but I wouldn't put it past some world leaders to spin invasion by little green men into a positive for his nation and its interests.