The world always has two sections of people namely "The Rulers" and "The Ruled". The ideologies of the rulers have always changed the world. To put thing in a simple way, the political ideologies of the national leaders decide the future course of the of the world.
There is no shortage of examples to prove the above statement. Take the case of Ivan the terrible, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Franklin.D.Roosevelt, Winston Churchill etc..... Everyone of the above cited names had their own political views that have more or less changed the course of their nations. Some of them believed in wars and some in negotiations. Having spoken a lot about the rulers, it would be really misleading if the importance of ruled isn't highlighted properly. A simple scrutiny of the lives of the above stated rulers shows that they were the ruled in the early days of life. Their revolutionary thoughts and ideologies made them the rulers. This clearly drives home the point that political ideologies decide who the ruler is and who the ruled is. We can now take the case of the world in entirety and treat the countries as the population. Now, the same concept of the ruled and the rulers can be extrapolated to this case to decide which country dominates the world.
There are several established ways of looking at the world. One philosophy goes on to states that all the countries in the world can coexist in harmony and peace and therefore keeps the concept of war at bay. Another sect of people espouse a philosophy which advocates that there are two or more groups of countries in the world. Each group has a leader country and the aim of each group is to attain supremacy over th world affairs. This is the current situation in the world. Advocates of this philosophy argue that negotiations coupled with smart war tactics can be used to gain the supremacy.
It is clear that the above two philosophies are based on to corner stones namely the negotiations and the war. the difference in theories arise because of the different ways of viewing the utility of negotiations and wars.
I believe that negotiations and wars are the cornerstones of country's foreign policy. but, let me venture a philosophy that the ultimate goal of a state is to be the supreme leader of the world .I would further state that there can't be something called as a multi-polar world that exists in perfect harmony. I would argue that any multi-polar world will have internal tensions and rivalries which will try to make the world a Uni-polar world. And the state that wants to head the unipolar world needs to have a leader who believes in two important tenets. The first one is that war between two nations of competing countries is inevitable. The best that can be done is delaying it. The second being that negotiation is the process of buying time from your enemy.
These two tenets have a huge impact on the foreign policy of a country. The first thing being that the country continuously engages in negotiation with its competitors to develop itself and to preempt war till it is ready. This process of negotiations continues in a strategic way till the state establishes develops a significant economic and military clout without giving any clues of a war. After the state is poised for facing the enemies, it will try to assert its supremacy in the issues of interest by means of a diplomatic way. If the competing nations agree, it supremacy in the area has been established. this process continues in different matters till significant opposition arises. After evaluating the alternatives for the military stand-off, the country engages in a military battle if it believes that it can overpower the enemy. By this step, its supremacy is strengthened. If it fears a defeat, the country again starts the process of negotiations to buy more time and the cycle repeats.
By means of these two tenets, the supremacy of a country can be established. And this should be the ideal motive of every country because of the fact that the security of a country is assured if its enemies feel threatened. in the real world, enemies of a country are under constant threat if the country is in the lead.
The above theory should have ignited a doubt that if every country follows the above philosophy, then who will be the ultimate leader? The theory answers the question. In the theory, we discussed the cycle of negotiations and threat of wars. The country that carries out the cycle most efficiently wins the game. But, the victory is momentary and the supremacy can be retained if and only if the country continues to carry out the cycle more efficiently that any other country in the world.
Hope, you had a good insight into my theory of foreign policy.
There is no shortage of examples to prove the above statement. Take the case of Ivan the terrible, Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Franklin.D.Roosevelt, Winston Churchill etc..... Everyone of the above cited names had their own political views that have more or less changed the course of their nations. Some of them believed in wars and some in negotiations. Having spoken a lot about the rulers, it would be really misleading if the importance of ruled isn't highlighted properly. A simple scrutiny of the lives of the above stated rulers shows that they were the ruled in the early days of life. Their revolutionary thoughts and ideologies made them the rulers. This clearly drives home the point that political ideologies decide who the ruler is and who the ruled is. We can now take the case of the world in entirety and treat the countries as the population. Now, the same concept of the ruled and the rulers can be extrapolated to this case to decide which country dominates the world.
There are several established ways of looking at the world. One philosophy goes on to states that all the countries in the world can coexist in harmony and peace and therefore keeps the concept of war at bay. Another sect of people espouse a philosophy which advocates that there are two or more groups of countries in the world. Each group has a leader country and the aim of each group is to attain supremacy over th world affairs. This is the current situation in the world. Advocates of this philosophy argue that negotiations coupled with smart war tactics can be used to gain the supremacy.
It is clear that the above two philosophies are based on to corner stones namely the negotiations and the war. the difference in theories arise because of the different ways of viewing the utility of negotiations and wars.
I believe that negotiations and wars are the cornerstones of country's foreign policy. but, let me venture a philosophy that the ultimate goal of a state is to be the supreme leader of the world .I would further state that there can't be something called as a multi-polar world that exists in perfect harmony. I would argue that any multi-polar world will have internal tensions and rivalries which will try to make the world a Uni-polar world. And the state that wants to head the unipolar world needs to have a leader who believes in two important tenets. The first one is that war between two nations of competing countries is inevitable. The best that can be done is delaying it. The second being that negotiation is the process of buying time from your enemy.
These two tenets have a huge impact on the foreign policy of a country. The first thing being that the country continuously engages in negotiation with its competitors to develop itself and to preempt war till it is ready. This process of negotiations continues in a strategic way till the state establishes develops a significant economic and military clout without giving any clues of a war. After the state is poised for facing the enemies, it will try to assert its supremacy in the issues of interest by means of a diplomatic way. If the competing nations agree, it supremacy in the area has been established. this process continues in different matters till significant opposition arises. After evaluating the alternatives for the military stand-off, the country engages in a military battle if it believes that it can overpower the enemy. By this step, its supremacy is strengthened. If it fears a defeat, the country again starts the process of negotiations to buy more time and the cycle repeats.
By means of these two tenets, the supremacy of a country can be established. And this should be the ideal motive of every country because of the fact that the security of a country is assured if its enemies feel threatened. in the real world, enemies of a country are under constant threat if the country is in the lead.
The above theory should have ignited a doubt that if every country follows the above philosophy, then who will be the ultimate leader? The theory answers the question. In the theory, we discussed the cycle of negotiations and threat of wars. The country that carries out the cycle most efficiently wins the game. But, the victory is momentary and the supremacy can be retained if and only if the country continues to carry out the cycle more efficiently that any other country in the world.
Hope, you had a good insight into my theory of foreign policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment