Britain’s exit from the European Union, known as the Brexit, has forced the concept of “international governance” into the spotlight by raising some very interesting issues. Where many policymakers and political figures take their knowledge of international issues for granted, much of the population appears to struggle with basic questions like “what is the European Union.” Although a good portion of the population may not fully understand international governance, they can understand how and when international governance benefits them.
International governance created standards for the rights of nations and Peoples where strong and weak nations alike enjoyed equal sovereign rights, which is the ability of nations to act without the consent of a higher authority. The prosperity of the Twentieth Century was made possible thanks to the willingness of nations within the International Community to cooperate on global security, to pursue internationally brokered diplomatic engagement instead of armed conflict, and to build the global economy. Strong nations benefited from the stability of a successful International Community and weaker nations were protected from their stronger revivals.
The so-called Brexit has, and will continue to, drive a flurry of news coverage predicting the end of the European Union and the modern International Community. Despite the alarms, the Brexit is the result of a necessary and predictable recalibration of Britain’s diplomatic relations with the European Union. Unfortunately, international investors and political figures have a habit of ensuring self-fulfilling prophecies come true by overreacting to the potential for economic troubles in the future. Other nations and foreign businesses should be more than willing to work with Britain, if Britain continues to offer economic opportunities.
The problem is that the economic, security, and diplomatic ties of countries are no longer simply strategic arrangements between nation-states. They have become so politically charged that events like the Brexit Referendum are treated as emotional decisions. Political leaders have come to see their relationships with other nations more as romantic relations than business dealings. In practice, trade with Britain will change very little, which means the economic opportunities Britain offers should not change. How Britain negotiates trade will change. Thanks to politics, changes in the deal-making process could hurt Britain’s economic outlook.
British democracy has yielded a “yes” vote on a historic “Brexit” referendum to the dismay of internationalists and the financial markets. With Britain set to leave the European Union after more than forty years of open economic and diplomatic relations, the will of the British People has sparked fears that are feeding uncertainty around the world. On the one hand, Great Britain’s exit from the European Union is the greatest challenge to the unified governance of Europe. On the other hand, the Brexit is only a product of the EU’s far deeper political and economic problems.
Consequently, far greater geopolitical shifts in European governance are likely on the horizon. From an American perspective, the international governing institutions of the European Union always seemed to contradict Europe’s strong cultural diversity and independence. Whatever the fate of the EU happens to be, dramatic political and economic shifts represent the greatest potential threats to the countries and Peoples of Europe. Europe faces a great deal of uncertainty that can only be mitigated by strong leadership capable of envisioning a path forward and producing policies that usher in a new era for all of Europe.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Democratic Congressmen from the US House of Representatives have chosen to act like a disenfranchised minority and copy the dysfunctional, obstructionist tactics of their Republican counterparts by holding a “sit-in,” until the House Leadership agrees to hold a vote on their gun control agenda. In turn, the Republican Leadership has chosen to censor coverage of their civil demonstration. As both Congressional Republicans and Democrats have been empowered by the American People to represent their interests in the legislative process, the situation does little except demonstrate how both sides hijack government for their agendas.
That said, Democrats appear to be pushing for reasonable provisions, including tighter background checks and curbs on the sale of weapons to people on government watch lists. In turn, Republicans, such as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Susan Collins, seem willing to compromise. Unfortunately, the threshold to be placed on a watch list like the “no-fly” list, can very low and random while the process for appealing the placement of one’s name on the list is nearly non-existent. Clearly, compromise is needed to protect People’s Second Amendment Rights and Right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Obama Administration’s policies toward Syria and the Arab Spring Era Middle East have attracted many detractors. Over fifty US State Department Officials recently joined in the criticism by utilizing a so-called dissent channel cable that calls on the Administration to use force against Syrian President Basher Al-Assad’s military forces. Dissent is a necessary and productive means of developing a potential solution when the status quo offers no hope of success. Although the current diplomatic approach is unlikely to resolve the Syrian Civil War or the Syrian Refugee Crisis, however, there is much to be considered.
First and foremost, neither the Obama Administration nor a Clinton Administration or a Trump Administration can allow the United States to be pulled into another unwinnable war as happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. American war hawks have long advocated for intervention on the ground in Syria and renewed commitment to the Iraq War, but the costs of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars have made such a level of engagement unrealistic. Thanks to Russian intervention in Syria, which has undermined Western-backed factions, there is increased pressure on the Obama Administration to counter Russian influence.
Read old posts