Muppidi argues that post colonialism advances global governance on a level of mutual concepts of power, and to some degree integration. He notes that the greatest threat to post colonialist global governance is large scale risk such as terrorism.
If the world accepts terrorism as a mutual threat, does that qualify as a "common enemy?" The recognition of state powers having a common enemy could be seen as a likely sign of state integration. If they believe they have a common enemy, they are more likely to sacrifice for the group.
Though not triggered by terrorism, this sort of group work can be seen in the European Union. Common goals, with less emphasis on nationalism could be the regionalization trend of the future. I do not see this as possible in the United States, a country who believes their self interests overshadow all others, but I would not be suprised if other forms of cooperation take form due to the increase world threat.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What I always find interesting is the term terrorism. In IR and everywhere else we use this term very freely. But what is harder than using it is actually defining it. I do think it is interesting that maybe terrorism can be viewed as a common threat but what can become sketchy is what is terrorism exactly. What is viewed as terrorism to one state can be viewed as a fight for self determination. It's pessimistic to think that terrorism can not be defined in any way but for terrorism to be a common enemy there needs to be a common definition... which a lot of the time does not exist.
This is a good point. One could define the same person as a freedom fighter or a terrorist. It would not be that difficult, however, for like countries to agree on the term, as they have like goals. For instance, Great Britain and the United States both agree that Al Qaeda is a terrorist group.
Post a Comment