Brainstorm

Right. I finally have a few concepts for my dissertation. It's difficult coming up with an idea for your dissertation. There's always the challenge of being original, and coming up with fresh ideas. I was fortunate to have a former colleague who shed some light for me, through his creative approach to problem solving. We would look at a particular problem the organisation was facing, and asked simple questions. We would then jot down the first things that would come to our heads. In the end, we had narrowed it all down to a few points, and possible solutions. It kind of worked, so decided to apply the same approach to my dissertation.

The question I want to ask, is simple. How will governments reduce spending on military and defence? Looking at this question at first glance, it seems extremely simple. I found though, that attempting to answer this particular question opens up other questions, and it suddenly becomes more complex. For example, I need to also ask the question, why do governments spend on military and defence? This enabled me to draw up a list. For example, governments are responsible for defending land, territory, natural resources, citizens, the apparatus of the state, public services, governing bodies, traditions, culture, values, a way of life. It really is an extensive list. In other words, governments spend on military in order to defend and protect these things. Again, this begs another question; why must governments defend and protect these things? The first thing that comes to mind, is to protect all of this from theft. It is fear that a foreign government, will essentially, steal their stuff. Again, looking into the original problem, really is like opening one of those Russian dolls. Every time you ask one question, you are faced with another. Anyway, this all boiled down to one question. Why do people steal? Suddenly, I have entered the realms of psychology and criminology. First, people steal because of a belief that it will benefit them. Second, because they have little regard for the person they are stealing from, in other words, an absence of empathy. However, the second point is arguable. I believe personally that all people have empathy, to differing degrees. However, this empathy is pushed to the background, when the person believes that they will benefit themselves from stealing. The solution to addressing theft on the domestic level has been through laws and education. Though society is not perfect, it can be argued that the combination of these two methods have worked broadly speaking. For example, the majority see theft as bad, and that there will be undesirable consequences should one steal. Being a student of International Relations, it is then normal for me to ask if these solutions have been applied to the behaviour of governments. The answer to this is simple. Though there is international legislation, it is far from respected by governments. Secondly, there is little form of education for governments. In fact, the predominant belief is somewhat Machiavellian in the sense that governments, presidents, and prime ministers should abide by a different set of morals to citizens, because they are responsible for protecting all of the things mentioned earlier, and this means that certain measures are necessary. Why has such a belief flooded the corridors of power? The answer is simple. The international system is anarchic, in the sense that there is the absence of a supranational world government capable of keeping the behaviour of national governments in check. This is the problem. However, this solution is particularly problematic as we are dealing with a diverse and vibrant world with many proud peoples and governments who would rather die and fall as opposed to surrendering their sovereignty to a higher authority. In short, the world is not at all ready for such a solution, and to impose this solution at this stage could create more problems that it would solve. Of course, education is always an option, and should always be pursued by different actors such as think tanks and non governmental organisations who can influence government policy. In light of this, I think there are still means of reducing the fear which force governments to spend on military and defence, and this is through building trust. It sounds cheesy and I would understand if suddenly this dissertation sounds extremely boring.

Here are a few concepts I am juggling with. There are positive and negative processes of building trust between and amongst nations. The positive processes include international events such as the Olympic Games and the World Cup, and the negative processes include the United Nations and NATO for example. Both these processes are valuable in the sense that nations can cooperate and be understood and respected. However, these processes are different and are categorised as positive and negative because they offer different experiences for all involved. For example, the Olympic Games is a festival and gathering celebrating the talents and positive aspects of humanity. The United Nations on the other hand is a forum of debate, focusing on the negatives such as war, conflict, and poverty. The coexistence of both processes is a good thing. However, the position I would take would be that there has to be more positive processes. These can be expanded from international events to concrete projects which encourage business and technological innovation and requiring transnational cooperation. The logic behind this is simple; when two or more people build something together, it builds a bond of trust. With the presence of trust, you have the absence of fear. Why then is there a need to waste so much energy on defending yourself from a threat which doesn't exist? In addition to this, I hope that one of the realisations arising from a discussion on the positive processes would be that International Relations as an academic subject is too concerned with the study of war, and paradoxically, less concerned with the study of peace. There needs to be a shift in emphasis from the study of the negative, to the positive. Of course, it is necessary to confront problems, but it is also important to not be consumed by them. In short, the idea is that trust can be built not only through more international legislation and education, but also through positive processes of cooperation which would divert the attention of national governments from military spending to more positive areas, freeing up money for investment in education, health, environment, and technological innovation for example.