Personal and Mutual Security

Three links were shown in class that I'd like to address. The East Coast Firearms website merits recognition simply because the issue it presents has been flogged to death by my classmates, so I’ll bridge the gap by attempting to connect it to World Politics.

The reaction provoked by the website among the class demonstrated the reaction of outsiders, including governments, to violent conflicts, or military buildup in anticipation of one. Despite that the website did not advocate violent acts, the images of weapons nevertheless conjured up images of their use, and many people reacted with shock and disapproval (though a few of us males reacted with excitement, because we’ve freely surrendered ourselves to gun culture). A similar type of negative reaction can also be observed frequently among outsiders appraising an armed conflict that they have no stake in. Nonpartisan nations, most frequently European and Asian states, as well as non-government organizations, supranational organizations, and individuals tend to issue a blanket condemnation of violence, stating that they regret the loss of innocent life and hope that peace and negotiations can prevail. They take no sides, even in some instances where one party has the moral highground. They state only that they abhor violence, a position than anyone, even a baby, can take.

And so it progressed in our class. The initial reaction by nearly everyone was a rejection of such weapons, regardless of their intent. The only reason it progressed to a debate about gun control was due to differing interpretations of what it meant to repel violence; while some were so disgusted by automatic weapons that they advocated a near-complete ban on their sale, others defended their necessity, though not necessarily the caliber of guns that were being advertised. It’s important to note, though, that no one advocated an upgrade of existing domestic weapons, and I would attribute this to expectations of what self-defense would actually look like in our own context. Surely, it was agreed, no one would need a fully-automatic weapon to protect their homes.

This summarizes a fundamental difference between ourselves and independent states: a difference of scale. While we may not need such weapons, national armies do, simply because military technology has progressed to that point. Unlike nations, we do not exist under constant threat, and our technological and tactical capacities have not increased by necessity to the levels advocated by East Coast Firearms. Thus, the sudden submersion into that mindset was alarming for many.

I will not state my political views on gun control. My personal view is “Guns for me, no guns for anyone else”, but I realize the impracticality of that policy. Ultimately, though, I see little link at present between that issue and world politics, so to keep with my running tactic of deliberate ambiguity on my political views, I will abstain from commenting on the pros and cons of gun control.

The next important link was the trailer for “The World Without US”, a documentary on possible U.S. isolationism. I was surprised to hear many in our class take an uncompromisingly negative view of it, deriding its “scare tactics” to promote “more U.S. influence” in world affairs. While there was an obviously propagandistic tone to it, I felt that the main point was missed. As I see it, it didn’t so much promote a course of action as defend the current one. It was making the case that the United States cannot be blamed for inciting so much violence around the world, and it opposed the widely-held view that if America were to stop intervention in conflicts, the world would be a safer place. Simply put, war existed long before the U.S. entered the scene, and it will exist long after it leaves it. There are an innumerable amount of interests competing with each other, and there is no shortage of people who will take up arms to further their ideologies. The United States can hardly be blamed for fighting “better” than everyone else. Viewing American withdrawal as a solution to world suffering is taking a dangerously two-dimensional, not to mention skewed, vision of world affairs. Going down such a path would be a strategic fiasco for everyone.

The final link I wanted to bring up was the cartoon on Social Security. It portrayed an elderly woman in a hospital attached to an IV tube, labeled “Social Security". In front of her, a politician preaches to his followers that Social Security must be converted to private accounts, because personal responsibility is an American value. His followers cheer, since they, as taxpayers, are no longer burdened by her healthcare costs. I see the relation of this message to world politics in modern economic cooperatives, particularly the European Union. The bare premise of the cartoon was the idea that those with more generally do not want to bend for those with less. This continues to be demonstrated by the EU in their induction process, their membership, and the promotion of their common currency. Upon the breakup of various ex-communist states in the early-nineties, there was a multitude of potential new members. However, their economies were not nearly as advanced as those of Western Europe, and had much difficulty adjusting to the capitalist system. Their GDPs were far below the common European standard, crime was on the rise, and all of it bred corruption and demagoguery in politics. Membership was stalled for each nation until they could kowtow to the rest of Europe, and even then the existing economic order would have to take a hit for the new fledgling economies. Now, this didn’t sit well with the most financially robust of states, including France and Belgium, and for a time they attempted to block membership even further. However, once they acceded, they assisted in defraying costs accrued while they were building their infrastructures.

This unfortunate fact has been the reason some Western European states still hold out on the EU and its common market. Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland have rejected calls for them to join, not wanting to pursue common interests with states that may not share their values. The United Kingdom and Sweden have not adopted the Euro as their currency, in part because they fear the effects of inflation once Eastern European states are inducted. They, like the voters depicted in the cartoon, prefer to keep their private economies, mainly because they’re better off by themselves. It becomes a question of security when these states have to decide whether to forsake their own security apparatus to defend another, which becomes an issue whenever states are included in the EU or NATO.

To close this, I wanted to post the finale of Scarface, as promised. Unfortunately, it seems to have been deleted from YouTube. Cursed copyright laws! For all you bloodthirsty folks out there, here’s the next best thing.