Powerful countries do in fact have obligations to less powerful countries. Of course these obligations stem from peaceful relations between powerful and less powerful countries. This is because if the relations are peaceful and the two countries are allied the more powerful of the two is inclined to help its ally so that if the powerful country ever fell upon hard times it world receive help. Also it simply looks good in the eyes of the world if the powerful country doesn’t go around conquering the earth but rather works for peace. Lichtenstein is a good example of a less powerful country that relies on the obligations of more powerful states. The small country has no military and simply relies on the peaceful relations it has with Germany and Austria to avoid conflict.
Just as powerful countries have an obligation to less powerful countries, rich countries have obligations to poorer ones. We see these obligations being fulfilled every day with the United Nations (funded by rich nations) and its programs that work to fight hunger and with the U.S. giving aid to poorer nations. The obligations that rich countries have to the poorer states come from dissenting people in the nation and the world. For example, if people in a democratic state want their country to aid a poorer one they will simply vote for the candidate who promises to use part of the nation’s GDP to help the poorer nation, and so the leaders of the country are now obligated to take on a new obligation. Also states tend to enjoy being liked and supported by other states, so to gain this support a state must take on the obligation of relieving the suffering citizens of a poorer state and give them aid.
Powerful countries do have obligations over less powerful countries, but these obligations do not necessarily have to come from peaceful relationships. The obligations these powerful countries might have, don't have to be of protection or assistance. If there are not any peaceful relations, then a more powerful country could feel obliged to take control of a less powerful country. For example during the time of the Roman Empire, the Romans did not necessarily have peace treaties with the countries they conquered, yet since they were expanding their empire they felt obliged to take control of that country. Obligations do not have to include aid or assistance because not all countries fell obliged to do so. Some powerful nations do certainly feel obliged to help less powerful ones, but that doesn't mean every obligation has to be peaceful. A powerful country might feel obliged to destroy a less powerful nation, or help them but obligations a country has over another do not have to be ones of support.
ReplyDeleteIn reply to what Ben said above, “If there are not any peaceful relations, then a more powerful country could feel obliged to take control of a less powerful country.” I have to disagree. A country does not feel the need to take over another country unless it has some economic (wealth/gain) that will improve the status of their own state, not just a power trip. Given the rise of the United Nations and other peace keeping forces a country who tries to attack another country for the sake of expansion or aggression, will probably be punished by the world body with economic sanctions or embargoes. For example when Saddam Hussein took over Kuwait, the entire world responded by creating forces to stop him, including the United States who sent in troops to Kuwait to help protect the state.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nicolle, as the world becomes a smaller place and the U.N. gains support I don't believe that powerful countries, whether there are peaceful relations or not, feel obligated to take over a less powerful one. And if a takeover were to happen as Nicolle said the country would be punished and may even lose the support of its allies and countries all over the world. Peer pressure is a powerful thing and at the moment most countries are pressuring for peace, particularly the Superpowers when could destroy the economy of an invading nation of all trade were to be cut off.
ReplyDelete