Friday, January 29, 2016
Strong vs. Weak States
I would say that the Middle East and North African regions should be considered strong states because throughout history their cultures and ways of life have remained the same even through many hardships. Conflict and war has ravaged the MENA region for most of its existence. This area was truly the birthplace of religions and therefore many different groups have fought over whose ideologies are right and who deserves what land for many years. The fact that these people have survived all of the tragedies that have occurred in this region is what I believe makes them strong. Although the governments and economies have not necessarily thrived at any point in time, their cultures and the people within them have remained in tact and hopeful for better days in the future. A state would not be powerful without its people and therefore the strong will of Middle Eastern and North African citizens allow this region to be categorized with strong states in my opinion.
There are many implications that go along with the conceptualizations of strong and weak states. The strength and weakness of a nation or state can be defined in many different ways. Some consider brute force and therefore the size of a nation's military to be the most determining factor in it being categorized as 'strong'. Others believe the financial stability and economic growth of a nation as compared to others as being the most important. Still some say it is a combination of many parts that make a state strong or the lack of that make one weak. However, it is important to remember the security dilemma. If one state is very strong, other states may form alliances against that state and therefore make it weaker. It is very hard to pinpoint exactly the requirements that make a state strong because in international relations, the balance of power shifts all the time. So in conclusion, a state cannot truly be categorized as strong or weak but rather can have certain elements that make it strong or weak.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like how you bring an unconventional perspective on what it means for a state to be strong. It isn't necessarily the size of the military or nuclear program, or the economic success of being an oil-rich nation, but is instead the ability of the people and their culture to survive through centuries (arguably millennia) of wars and destruction. The region is still able to retain rich cultural history and identity even after years of religious violence and colonization. Could the region's diversity both help and hurt its ability to prosper? Like could its ethnic, cultural, and religious diversity make it stronger because of its ability to retain them, or make it weaker because it could be more divisible (tribal mentality) and therefore easier to conquer/erupt into warfare? I also agree that being "strong" or "weak" is a very relative thing.
ReplyDeleteValerie - thanks for being the first one out on this! Your post gives me an opportunity to highlight something we'll discuss throughout the semester, namely the apparent 'timelessness' of the MENA region. You say, "throughout history their cultures and ways of life have remained the same." This is in line with the same sentiment expressed by President Obama in his last State of the Union, when he suggested the conflicts in the Middle East go back millennia, implying that the region has really not changed much, only on the surface. This is, however, not an accurate reading of history. The 'cultures' of the Middle East have definitely not 'remained intact,' they have consistently changed and continue to change (as do all cultures - there is no such thing as an origin culture or unchanging culture). And, as I will ask all of you in class, what is a 'nation-state' exactly? Even if cultures in the region had remained the same (which they have not), why would that make the nation-states 'strong'?
ReplyDelete