What is a government's responsibility?

from July 9 2017 

UN Shield

The apocalyptic  21st c has carved out a

division on how best to determine the

rights and responsibilities of government

to their citizens, though, and maybe more

crucial, has been the case of collective

security. Economic matters will always

retain their zeal among government in

order to campaign for political office or reelection.

The founding of the United

Nations, the rights and responsibilities of

those in affected regions with instability

due to counter forces to the ruling elite

(see Syria) or simply those factions that are

at a crossroads of the many who fall under

policy that favour them (see Britain), place

a burden on UN members . The United

States has shouldered the burden of

collective security starting with The Treaty

of Paris in 1898 that shifted independence

to Cuba away from Spain and along with

that Puerto Rico, The Philippines, and

Guam into the American orbit and with

that, a stronger sense of colonialism.1

Rightfully, the first order of business for

government is the protection of their

citizens, those who reside within their

borders legally or have business interests

that require their presence for extended

periods of time (notwithstanding Multinationals.)

They must be a guarantor of

those rights or we have the prospect of

opportunities for terrorism such as the

incident in 1970 that led to the FLQ (Front

de liberation du Quebec- a French

Canadian separatist group) kidnapping

British Trade Commissioner James Cross

in Quebec, Canada. So, we have installed

various mechanisms to protect

government dignitaries and to a lesser

extent, the average legal citizen.

However, the founding of the United

Nations on October 24, 1945 promised a

new world order based on “collective

security” guaranteed by its members to

provide assurances of safety. Great idea

and wonderful concept, though, the post

WWII global structure weighed heavily on

the United States with much less of a role

for stalwarts such as the United Kingdom,

France and Italy. Germany and Japan had

much work in front of them to win back

the good graces of the international

community and still have work to do to

become truly sovereign nation- states

apart from American influence. 

Former Harvard Professor, Samuel Huntington

famously spoke of a culture change

regarding conflict among humans in “The

Clash of Civilisations” in 1996. Huntington

could foresee the rise of Islamic

fundamentalism born out of the Israeli-

Palestine discord that has been festering

since the founding of the state of Israel in a

Post WW2 world. Staunch allies of Israel

among Western powers has given rise to

jihad and thrust various groups into the

spotlight,most famously or infamously, Al

Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

This notion of collective security then begs

the question: what is a government’s

responsibility and to whom.

Libertarian’s refer to positive and negative

liberty. Negative liberty being

characterised as the notion that I am free

as long as I can act unimpeded by other

persons while I am pursuing my objectives.

If I am interfered with, then I am unfree. In

the positive sense of liberty, my decisions

are mine alone and not affected by

external sources. This sounds good but a

bit fishy. In government, we are affected

every day by external forces who impose

sanctions on us in the form of taxation. 

In 2018 we are at the dawn of American tariffs on those 

nation states that the Trump Administration deems scurrilous 

in their pursuit of trade in a globalised universe.  

In our daily lives,we encounter laws that may

affect us in a puerile manner, such as

minor infractions like jaywalking, riding a

bicycle without a helmet or other regional

laws that are devised to protect us from

ourselves and other citizens. The notion of

immigration can create some unease

because jobs are being shifted in this era

of globalisation and soft(er) borders. Seats

in classrooms are being allocated to

international students that create

competition among citizens for

opportunities in the work-place and

colleges that never existed to this extent

for past generations, which drive up the

cost of tuition. Yes, the benefit is a diverse

group of students who bring a well rounded

palette of ideas and experiences

to the class-room and this is invaluable.

Ditto for the work-place.

Back to the notion of collective – security,

the rise of jihad has spread to Europe and

has left many Parisians and European’s

lacking “Positive Liberty” which, in turn has

forced governments to ramp up efforts to

screen individuals or groups that may have

designs on terrorist activity. Pivoting back,

we might say that America and its allies

flubbed the security file in Libya, Iraq and

other nation-states that gave a window of

opportunity for terrorist’s to enter.

Currently, U.S. President Donald Trump is

correct in claiming that some nation-states

do not pay their fair share for collective

security. Yes, the system is a bit convoluted

with NATO a surrogate organisation

competing for funding in order to do what

the UN was designed to do in the first

place. NATO was designed as an anti-dote

to Eastern Europe and The Warsaw Pact,

which itself was designed as a collective

security blanket for the (FSU) Former

Soviet Union. Along the way, the Allies

found the lust for power too appealing

once the Berlin Wall fell and with it the

collapse of the Warsaw Pact. With that, the

West has embroiled Russia over NATO’s

incursion into Eastern Europe, while the

U.S. has China in its cross hairs over their

inability to curtail North Korea and their

pursuit of nuclear proliferation. The recent

death of American student, Otto

Warmbier begs for a military response to

North Korea’s abuse of the 22 year old

held in detention. The New World Order is

a, pardon the pun, a land-mine of Foreign

Policy rationale; hence, a military

operation on the Korean Peninsula might

engulf that region in uncertainty and a

refugee crisis for China and South Korea

will ensue. America, then, is caught

between a rock and a hard place in

protecting its mainland from a potential

missile strike from North Korea and

placating to Conservative’s who admonish

what Senator John McCain referred to as

the murder of Otto Warmbier. 

(The Singapore Summit of June 12, 2018 shows 

promise for bi-lateral relations between North Korea and America.)
Recent reports, however, suggest North Korea is beginning work at the Yongbyon
nuclear facility since the summit.)

Can America continue to operate in this version

of a collective-security vacuum, without

thrusting innocent parties into a global

conflict. Is it too late to turn back the clock

to a time when nation-states policed

themselves, first & foremost. Military

budgets be damned, suggest that with the

rise of defense spending, the notion of

peace-keeping will continue to vary with

the Heads of State as well, placating to

those nation-states that stimulate our

economies with lower priced goods and

multi-lateral, historical relationships. But,

an attack is an attack on positive and

negative freedoms and those that support

all forms of democracy. Therein lay a

government’s responsibility. Or not.

Works Cited

1. “1898: The Birth of a Superpower.”

Office of the Historian.

<https://history.state.gov/departmenthi

story/short-history/superpower.>