Write two reflection response in Political science at least 200 words.
Write two reflection response in Political science at least 200 words.
Respond to the postings of a least two other students, no later than midnight on Sunday, April 30. What are the strengths and shortcomings of the other students' arguments? How?
Q : Which system is better for managing global affairs, collective security or the balance of power?
Classmate's answer A : Collective Security
What I believe is better for managing global affairs is collective security because of the establishment of common institutions that are made to settle the disputes. Nations might feel overwhelmed when having problems with another nation because of the power that nation has and collective security efforts such as establishing the United Nations is designed to settle those types of disputes without having each of the nation's power have such a role in decision making. Collective security creates an even level playing field on grounds that every dispute will be settled in all fairness. Stated in the book on perspectives on international relations: “Collective security becomes an alternative way to organize military power compared to balance of power” (Nau 53). What this is trying to say is the military power of one nation should not hinder another nation's ability to speak up when it feels the need to do so. With the establishment of the UN, it provides an avenue for nations to come together and speak freely disregarding military power. Balance of power on the other hand I believe is a lot more volatile on allowing states to override the system sense loopholes could be found. The idea of collectively coming together under one roof and disregarding what everyone has and just discuss the problems and solutions makes a lot more sense to me. For example in a period of time where Gaza was horrifically attacked by Israel, unleashing chemical weapons on the most densely populated area in Palestine (2 million + civilians), the UN came together to resolve the conflict. Gaza is just a city with very little military power against an entire country, when it came on the floor of the UN, it did not matter how much military power Gaza or Israel had, the focus was resolving the problem and ending the bloodshed as soon as possible. Now of course the UN did take into account that it's ridiculous for a country to go against a city and stressed on Israel to stop the bombings (since israel is the hegemon in this scenario) or it will use other means against Israel. Although this conflict is part of a much larger conflict, Palestine v Israel, Israel and Gaza did eventually come to a resolution with tremendous efforts from the UN.
My reply to a friend discussion :
Classmate's answer B : Collective Security
In my opinion, I believe that collective security is the better system over the balance of power in managing global affairs. Collective security allows for peace and security for all nations. I believe that collective security is efficient because there is a system present of set rules and regulations that a nation must follow in resolving disputes amongst one another. This allows for a more peaceful approach in settling issues. Collective security gathers military power together instead of using a balance of power among the different nations. This creates a strong united globalization of nations that is better off than balancing it amongst many different nations. Collective security collected this military power into global institutions, such as the United Nations. All nations are ordered to pool their military power together, creating one large military power, which could then be used to threaten nations who would choose to not comply. These threats would include economic sanctions. With a strong central force of military, the institution has the ability to decrease weaponry. This creates a more secure and peaceful environment overall.
One institution in particular, the League of Nations, is a good example that can be used to illustrate the collective security approach. The textbook offers a definition for the League of Nations. It states, “The League of Nations: a universal institution, founded after the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, that embodied the collective security approach to the management of military power” (Nau, Kindle Locations 3216-3217). The League of Nations, being the first institution to exemplify the concept of collective security had its issues and eventually failed, however this does not mean collective security is a failure. After major powers including Japan and Germany withdrew from the League as well as the Soviet Union and the United States’ refusal to join, the League of Nations failed. Without the major powers of the world it was inevitable to fall. However, collective security lives on to thrive today. Although the League of Nations failed, it is the first major example we can use to illustrate the idea of collective security and understand it and its benefits.
The idea of collective security is still implemented today. For example, in recent years, the United States turned to collective security as a way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This was done under the presidency of both Obama and Bush. (Nau, Kindle Location 3306). In conclusion, collective security is more efficient in managing global affairs rather than a balance of power. Creating one giant power of nations that work together provides more peace and unity globally.
My reply to a friend discussion :
