Just because we can measure states doesn't mean that we should. The Comparative Government curriculum is focused on comparing governments around the world on a fixed set of well-defined concepts. This allows scientists to make distinctions between cases and to clarify similarities and differences in order to further refine the concepts themselves. In an actively changing political environment, however, it may be useful to develop new concepts that better capture reality. When real cases cease to match our distinct definitions, they need to be generalized or perhaps new categories need to be defined as separate and distinct. Giovanni Sartori explains this using the ladder of abstraction found here: http://poli.haifa.ac.il/~levi/conceptm.html#c. (Intension is the depth of the concept and extension is its breadth.)
This has become a particularly important issue with the concept of the state. As political scientist have defined it, a state is a territory with defined borders, a population, a government, and sovereignty. The state is the international standard for participation in world politics, and the nation-state, in which the population of a state shares common language, culture, religious values, ethnicity, and history, is the pinnacle of state development. While we don't often thin k of definitions really affecting world politics, this one definitely has.
First of all, even though the definition of state is relatively broad, there are plenty of areas in the world that just don't quite fit. Borders are ill-defined and contested. Sovereignty is fragile, especially in developing states that invite aide from foreign countries and in states that desire the approval of the international community. The emphasis on nation-states has caused a massive proliferation of states in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Ethnic groups weary of trying to live in peace under the same political structures as their traditional competitors have broken off into new states, hungry for world recognition. Pseudo-states that fall short of the definition struggle to maintain their fragile hold on independence.
The case of Palestine (See the following stories for a mix of points of view: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39685&Cr=Palestin&Cr1=, http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/features/2011/09/201192212910587149.html, http://www.thenational.ae/news/worldwide/middle-east/palestinian-statehood-bid-one-more-problem-for-harried-europeans, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/21/palestinian-statehood-bid-explained/) is particularly problematic. The somewhat complicated history of the Palestinian Authority and the geographic realities of settlement of the Palestinian people have left the members of the United Nations in a particularly difficult position. Palestine lacks defined, defensible, and contiguous borders. The existence of a Palestinian government belies the political reality that that do not have sovereignty. Even asking for UN recognition and membership does not guarantee that statehood, or the internationally acknowledged concept of statehood. Some even argue that the pseudo-statehood provided by UN membership would do little to fulfill the Palestinian desire for real, by-the-book, statehood. http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0922/Palestinian-statehood-bid-at-UN-drives-hopes-for-a-real-state-farther-away
Why should the Palestinians want statehood anyway? Obviously it is a great ticket to involvement in international participation and negotiation, but why is the rest of the world so wed to the concept as to force different social forms to shoehorn themselves into nation-states? Most violence in the modern era is undertaken by non-state actors. Civil Wars and terrorism make of the bulk of global conflict. Increasingly, non-state actors like multinational corporations, bank, and charities organize the global economy. Global human rights organizations defy state sovereignty to attempt to protect the rights of individuals regardless of state boundaries. Environmental concerns require the cooperation of state and non-state actors alike.
Is the concept of state dying? If so, what will take its place? Should the Palestinians proceed in their call for statehood? Should they receive some kind of formal statehood without the necessary requirments of state? How useful is the concept of state in comparing government structures?
(Please respond to whatever you'd like. If some part of the reading made you think or spurred more questions, post your thoughts below. You may also respons to your classmates' reponses.)
I feel like the concept of being a state is like being in a membership-only sorority and Palestine is the wannabe sorority member. To be in the sorority, you have to own three pink V necks, date a blonde guy, abstain from alcohol, and eat grilled cheese sandwiches every other Tuesday (in other words, you have to be a territory with defined borders, have a population, a government, and sovereignty). Palestine, sadly, owns one pink V neck, dates a brunette, drinks beer like an alcoholic, and eats grilled cheese only once a month on a Wednesday. She doesn’t really meet the criteria for becoming a state but Palestine is still stubbornly fighting for that title after she was denied permission by her parents (Israel).
ReplyDeleteObviously, Palestine isn’t the only wannabe member. It’s because of these oddball states/not really states that the concept of a state is dying. The rules of becoming a state are almost too rigid and archaic, so I agree – a new term needs to take its place. I’m not sure what a better concept would be, but there’s probably one out there.
As far as whether or not Palestine should become a state, I think for the safety of the Western world, Palestine shouldn’t be let in. Creating a Palestinian state that doesn't clearly recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state would only serve to strengthen the resolve of the radical Islamic front, and we all know that’s not good for the US.
I think the concept of a Palestinian is bad for the Middle east and the United States. If they become a state it will set off a paradox all over the middle east and across the world, for example Western Sahara if it were to become a state would be a legal country where they would have power in the United Nations and since they are considered a part of Morocco would create another conflict between the both of them since the in the 1970's.It upsets a balanced system that has in place endorsed by many UN members including the United States. Also if Palestine becomes a state Hamas will then have the legal authority to attack Israel since they can say they are a part of the Palestinian government and they will have their own air force and be able to ship in weapons from various countries since the blockade will then be "illegal" against another state. Its like Chechnya there are two many factions that are working in Chechnya the Chechen rebels and then the pro moscow government of Ramzan Kadyrov who has held power since February, 15,2007. If the rebels are able to defeat the puppet government led by Kadyrov then the other republics of Russia would want independence to all because it will start with the Palestinians. They also dont like Israel because they are jewish and Arabs have always hated jews i mean they used them to create the Pyramids in Egypt and people seem to forget that it was created with suffering, its no different then armed groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo or Chad etc to get what they want diamonds which are like the Pyramids. Israel has been defending itself since 1948 and they have won against all odds but this is something that they can not win if they become a state.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone else who has already posted. A Palestinian state would be a bad decision in the Middle East and would send a wrong message to developing countries. A fledgling country will look at what the Palestinians have done to get power and copy it. We cannot have a world where people use terror as a way of negotiating. If this happens, the U.N. will be giving power to a terrorist run state. I thought Woodrow Wilson’s idea for a League of Nations/ U.N. was to promote peace and equality. Not promote blowing up your neighbors because you have a land dispute. If you shot your neighbor because he was Jewish and put his grill on your border, you would be thrown in jail. You wouldn’t be rewarded with statehood. The only way I would be happy with a Palestinian state is if Hamas is over thrown and the borders are peacefully worked out with Israel. The only way to long lasting peace is negotiating with Israel, not going behind their back and taking a shortcut to the U.N.
ReplyDelete@ Cynthia: I really enjoyed your metaphor, and your conclusion was well-reasoned. What I was vainly attempting to express was that I was concerned about the ways in which the very definition of statehood was motivating nations to take actions that have often been undesirable. The international bias towards states has created perverse incentives in the same way that the bias in favor of nuclear states has created perverse incentives for rogue states to develop nuclear weapons. Sometimes norms create unintended consequences.
ReplyDelete@ Nick: I appreciate the way in which you brought in other world events. The Chechnyan issue is distinctly different in light of the provisions of the Russian constitution. That constitution grants different levels of autonomy to former Russian republics, and many have asserted that autonomy. The Russian government of today does not always act in according with the spirit of decentralization that gripped the Russia of 1992, and many ethic groups within Russia have been caught in the crossfire of Russian reconsolidation.
While the concept of state has motivated certain behaviors, so has the concept of rebellion. The Declaration of Independence relies heavily on the philosophy of John Locke when it asserts that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights and that a government that fails to do so abdicates its right to govern. In these cases, Jefferson argues, "it is their right, it is their duty," to take up arms against the government and overthrow it.
Western Democracies trip over themselves to recognizes states that grow out of righteous causes, but who decides which causes are righteous? Who distinguishes the freedom fighter from the terrorist? Why does the United States sanction the violence undertaken by Libyans in their attmept to rid themselves of the rule of Moamar Ghadafi but condemn the violence undertaken by Palestinians under the guise of reasserting their claim to sovereignty?
These are tricky questions, and I am not sure there are answers. Int he first season of the West Wing Josh asks the President why an American life matters more to him than the lives of others. The President, troubled, answers, "I don't know. It just does."
@Heath: I appreciated the way you took international politics and brought it down to the level of domestic interpersonal relations. I think that kind of thing helps people make sense of what is going on. What I wonder is how a group should go about grasping at state sovereignty. The United States was founded after a six year war. The (first) French republic took shape after some very bloody conflict. Haiti cast off the French in a revolt that was so raucus it scared Napoleon.
Of course, those things all occured before international cooperation was reinforced by the United Nations. The modern era has as many exqamples of peaceful transitions as it does violent ones. The Russian revolution was notoriously...tame. Eastern European states seem to pop up with few weapons fired, despite rampant ethnic conflict in the region. The recent Egyptian revolution was decidedly non-violent.
What are the standards for admission to the club, then? How should the UN enforce them? Is it possible to decide when a separate state is necessary and warranted?
I have to agree that letting Palestine become a state is a terrible idea—especially as long as they are in conflict with Israel. I read an article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15033357) about Palestine’s statehood plans and Israel and Palestine can’t even agree on why they can’t agree! Palestine says they can’t negotiate with Israel because of the “building of Jewish settlements.” Israel says they can’t agree because Palestine refused to negotiate.
ReplyDeleteIf Palestine isn’t even a state yet and it’s already in conflict….that just doesn’t seem too promising to me.
Also, I like Cynthia’s metaphor, but I think Palestine could be like the pompous, indolent rich kid who pays his way into college because that’s the thing to do [NOTE: I’m not saying that Palestine is lazy, because they are trying really REALLY hard to become a state—I’m just saying they don’t really fill all of the requirements and they’re still trying anyway]. The kid doesn’t have the SAT scores, the grades, or the extracurricular activities, but wants to go to Harvard any way and is try to pay his way in. Just like how Palestine doesn’t have the all of the requirements of a state [defined boarders, sovereignty, government, and a population] but wants it anyway (because statehood has come with a connotation of importance) and it really doesn’t sound like they’re trying to work things out with Israel first.
Also, this is kind of random, but I noticed someone mentioned the conflict between the Arabs and the Jews, and I just wanted to add that this animosity goes back much further (or farther? I’m not really clear on this grammar rule) than the Pyramids in Egypt. The split, and the sibling rivalry, between Muslims/Arabs and Jews began with Abraham and the birth of Ishmail (who was born from Sarah’s servant because Sarah was barren) and then the birth of Sarah’s son, Isaac. Once Issac was born, Sarah kicked out Ishmail and her servant into the desert, and as legend goes, Ishmail kicked up the desert sand and an oasis sprung up and became Mecca, which is obviously a holy site for Muslims. Additionally, the Muslims claim that many stories included in the Bible actually happened to Ishmail (and NOT Isaac, as it says in the Bible) or Ishmail was cut out of the Bible in certain parts to make Ishmail look much less important (this is important because Ishmail is a really prominent figure in the Muslim faith).
Clearly, religious tensions are not the only problems that these two countries have to deal with. I remember Mrs. Garber saying something in class (I think this is the right example) about how the Palestine people left Israel willingly but I read this following quote from Abbas (in the article that I posted the link to) and it does not sound like he remembers the fact that they were not forced to leave: “The time has come for my courageous and proud people, after decades of displacement and colonial occupation and ceaseless suffering, to live like other peoples of the earth, free in a sovereign and independent homeland.”
I feel very outside of my league of understanding, but, what i can put together is that i think it is a very bad idea for Palestine to become a state. It appears that if they are granted the label of "a state" this will take away the denotation of what a state really is. They lack the requirements needed to be, by definition a state, and by labeling them as a state this will set a bad precedent publicly to the world, and will dramatically change what a state is, in itself.
ReplyDeleteI hope my comment doesn't sound completely ignorant :)
I creeped on Hannah's article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15033357) and I must say that the prospect of Palestine becoming a state is quite bleak. It doesn't meet the requirements of a state (defined borders, government, sovereignty, population etc), the country is basically a mess, and the governmental leaders can't even agree on anything. In order for anything to happen, Israel and Palestine have to sit down, and come to terms with one another.
ReplyDeleteThere's obviously no easy solution to this conflict, but continuing to deny Palestine from any hope of statehood, I think, is a wrong way to go about solving this problem. Sooner or later there will be massive amounts of angry rebels that start a Civil War. This is last thing the world wants. In order to prevent this from happening, the UN needs to make some compromises. The concept of statehood is slowly dying so why not give Palestine a least a little bit of representation, especially since their view is generally not being represented by Israel. The more point of views and cultures represented at the United Nations the better the debate will be and the UN can continue to improve the world the best they can.
ReplyDeleteI'm a supporter of Palestine but I don't think right now is the time for them to be granted statehood. The way I see it, statehood for Palestine would further foster the "Us and them" mentatlity between the Palestineans and the Israelites. The one positive that could come out of the Palestinean state as a part of the UN is that the UN could help mediate resolutions which otherwise would be more difficult to come to.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone in the sense that Palestine should not become or be considered as a state, especially with the route they've taken to try and get there. Not solely because they don’t fit the technical requirements of a state, but because they’re trying to depend on the United Nations to give them an answer. I don’t think peace in Israel can be achieved unless both Israel and Palestine come to some sort of agreement, and leave out any third party’s opinion. If the members of the UN make the final decision, only more conflict will come in the future.
ReplyDeleteA few nights ago I saw an interview on the Daily Show, where it was proposed that Palestine and Israel would be redefined as a dual-state.
ReplyDeleteThe territory is already divided ethnically and religiously, with Israelis predominantly living on one half with Palestinians inhabiting the other.
It was also suggested that Jerusalem be "shared", since both sides adamantly demand a piece of the holy land.
While I feel that the Palestinians have some components necessary for statehood, what upset me are the underlying archaic religions that drive these two groups to fight and bicker with each other.
And even if we don't approve of the Palestinians actions, who are we to say who has the right to unite and govern themselves? If they want an honest opportunity at organizing and governing themselves peacefully, I don't think we have the authority to deny them that opportunity.
Stepping back from the Palestine issue, I'd like to focus on the "concept of statehood" aspect of the post. As humans, we love it when there's a place for everything and everything is in it's place. We are NOT okay with ambiguity. Since we were born we've been taught everything in terms of opposites (left and right, good and evil, blue and red). That's why we enjoy Disney movies so much. It's obvious that Snow White is the good guy and her wicked stepmother is, well, wicked. But the question is - should we really be defining states so precisely? Maybe there should be some wiggle room instead of these strict guidelines on what is and what isn't a state. Sure, it's great when we can put everything in a nice little box and everything inside the box is a state and everything outside is not a state, but sometimes there needs to be some gray area of not-a-state-but-not-not-a-state. There are plenty of these forming nations in the world that haven't been recognized as states, but do have many of the qualities that might lead to them being classified as such - definite boundaries, government, etc. The definition of a state needs to be flexible instead of resistant to change, so that we don't have the dilemma of pushing "states" where they don't really belong. It often seems like even those that have most of the qualities of a state aren't recognized by the UN for years, while some are recognized almost immediately.
ReplyDelete