Principles of International Relations and Human Relations

If you’re going to govern over a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, multi-religious, and multi-cultural territory, I think that you’re going to have to do one or more of three basic things.

The first, would be to make a common denominator that everyone shares; a singular touchstone of identity that everyone can feel apart.  This cannot be a top-down given thing, but requires communication amongst the whole population (meaning, all peoples from all populations) in order to arrive at that common denominator that cannot be determined in advance.  This is most similar to what the United States has done successfully over the years and least like what is happening in France or other Western European countries.  You need people to be one people.  Just because you may give up something as the host, doesn’t mean that you can’t preserve the essence of your society in a more general and less specific form.

The second is to include people into the political and economic systems, such that you don’t have people alienated, helpless, and potentially angry at whomever they have chosen to live with.  Just because new people have chosen to live in a given territory and are given a hard time within that territory by the native population, doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily likely to go back to wherever they came from.  Again, the American society has done this fairly well over the years relative to others, while we look at other societies with marked social divisions leading to economic divisions and political divisions.  These social, economic, and political divisions are toxic to maintaining health and happiness within a society, as we can plainly see when looking at societies, such as Nigeria or Iraq or Turkey, where exclusion or forced assimilation are the defacto policies of the society and the government.

The third option, is to part ways outright and to divide land with the recognition that violence only exacerbates negative economic, social, and political conditions for all sides.  It usually is more costly to fight and hold onto land that doesn’t have your people occupying it than it is to let the land break off and form its own sovereignty, for better or for worse, depending upon how all involved handle it. People tend to demand agency and, when that agency is denied, it tends to make things worse for all parties who are involved in the conflict.  We can look at cases, such as India and Pakistan and Bangladesh as ways to not divide territory and societies, while we can look at the Czech Republic and Slovakia as ways to divide territories.

These are the principles that seem to be generally at the heart of international relations, political science, sociology, and human psychology.  To neglect these concepts is to spark war, tension, and economic collapse between two or more collective consciences of humanity.  We see this in Ukraine at the present time, as well as in Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine.  It boils down to two basic options.  The first is to welcome people into a society, develop a bottom-up approach to building a national consciousness while including people in the political and economic systems.  The second is to part ways, hopefully amicably, and let the two national consciences be apart with less territory.  You can’t force a people to be someone or something they’re not, anymore than you can force a single person to be someone or something they’re not.  It just doesn’t work out, and tends to increase net suffering while decreasing net well-being in the process.  This is based on personal observations from history, cultural geography, sociology, political science, and human psychology.  These have not been statistically tested in practice, nor do I think we can test them with the present data that’s available.  However, our consciousness of the past is growing all the time, and our awareness of world events can already happen at the speed of electricity.  We can either use the general information to guide us as best as we can while we collect and model data to make our conclusions more solid, or ignore the information that is already present from these different disciplines and from our world, and simply continue trying to fit the square peg in the round hole.  We can do a much much much better job at handling our public affairs with the knowledge and insights that we can have at present.  What in Hell are we waiting for?

See on Scoop.itIt Comes Undone-Think About It


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: