Pessimist or Realist?

I believe that it is not currently possible for all sovereign states to reach agreements or set global standards. Sovereign states (all 194 of them - 192 included in the United Nations) range across the extremes on both the economic and political spectra. Each one considers their own individual needs above those of the entire world, making worldwide concession impossible. We should not, however, blame them for this as it is embedded within individual people as well. Self-preservation is a natural instinct and thus people as a whole will fight for those things relating directly to them before considering that their opponents are doing the same thing. As this knowledge becomes more well known, global agreements may become possible; people may realize that what may not directly benefit them will help others and thus improve society worldwide.

For the time being, it seems that nations worldwide cannot agree on the most basic of things. They cannot agree not to kill each other. Few people – and even fewer whole sovereign nations – want war. Yet the fighting continues. Poverty continues to be a desperate problem worldwide despite the surplus of money (and pretty much everything) that exists in countries like the United States. However, as we saw in class yesterday, countries who have more than they need are reluctant to give any of the extra up without some sort of incentive – such as a chance to hold the ball and thus speak/participate in the discussion. We, a class of only 24, who had no real money or property at stake would not share. We could not reach an agreement so that all nations could use the ball out of mistrust. How can almost 200 nations, each of whom have large bodies of constituents' views that they must consider, reach any sort of agreement?

For example (though widely used, it is in fact an excellent example), the Kyoto Protocol, written to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus help protect the planet from global warming (if you believe it exists), was approved by only 169 of the 192 countries in the United Nations. Of those who did not sign the protocol was the United States whose greenhouse gas emissions have risen in the past few years. Whether or not one believes that they contribute to global warming, it is clear that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the environment. But we, who produce almost a quarter of all the emissions, who have the money and resources to pursue cleaner energy methods continue in our harmful ways. We cannot make agreements, so how can we set standards?

Global standards ask countries not only to agree on a matter, but to act upon said agreement in order to achieve something. All sovereign countries could join the United Nations (though they haven't) and agree that diplomacy is the best way to solve a problem. However, when the destruction caused by oil use is examined and standards are set to lower oil use, not all countries will agree to said standard. For whatever reason, be it lack of funding, necessity in their economy, etc., there will always be (at least) a few countries that refuse to participate.

Until we can overcome our instinct to care only for our own country, we will not be able to agree with all those who are different than us. So long as this separation between countries exists such that agreements cannot be reached, standards will never be set.