1

Voices for Intellectual Independence Imperatives that Regulate International Equilibrium Omar Alansari-Kreger

The world of the twenty-first century is notorious for its international ideas and aspirations which cease to be confined to a single sphere of the world community. Whenever there is a philosophical paradox, we are confronted with a convoluted definition that is generic, but is also abstract which leaves the individual inquirer in a position where they are constantly pursuing various threads of definitive substance clarity. Before we are able to attain that sense of clarity, we are often confronted with an inherited bias which is usually a byproduct of an environmental upbringing; the questionable substance that must be brought into perspective must concern itself with the overall quality of a society and its surrounding civilization. Worldviews are shaped, defined, and broken based on the environmental imperatives which thrive on the societal surface and it is this substance that retains profound ramifications on the individual beholder. The idea that supports the near endless interpretations and philosophical manifestations of internationalism exists as no exception whatsoever; the revolutionary transgressions that have been made possible through the innovative threads of technological modernity has severed as one of the most potent forces which has sold the idea of internationalism to the public masses worldwide. This is a group or generic majority that can be classified as the umbrella of individuals around the world who are in tune with the progressive force of technological modernity. In this sense, is it possible to generate a thread of clarity without utilizing the force of a definitive substance such as technological modernity in order to provide the supporting idea of internationalism with a greater degree of meaning to those inquisitive inquirers? The generic notion of internationalism is definitely nothing revolutionary to mankind considering that the

integral meaning behind the term has been with human civilization since the reign of the ancient Mesopotamian civilizations (Assyria & Babylon as two pristine examples). The initial idea that encourages the manifestation of expansionism is made possible through some definitive interpretation of internationalism through the bastion of political, diplomatic, economic, and military power at one given period of time. Since the end of the Second World War, a general perception has been proliferated through the horrors and hardships of open warfare and it is this fundamental which has given internationalism is contemporary meaning in the immediate present; this being defined as an ecumenical theme which is then situated upon the force of open mindedness. The contemporary meaning of this term is not terribly well rooted in the sense that the modernized (post-modern) interpretation of internationalism retains its roots throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries respectively. Intellectual and philosophical personalities have envisioned the replication of a world entity that contains and retains the political, economic, social, and military institutions of a traditional nation-state for centuries, but it has all been a question of feasibility and practicality when committing an initiative that is audacious enough to act on such a grandiose proposition. The pretense which could wield enough force to motivate the consolidation and creation of a world state beneath such wide ranging denominations (as previously stated) is usually dependent on some sort of detrimental event of epic proportions. The twentieth century is marked by two different world wars in addition to so many proxy wars that had emerged in almost every geo-political arena of the international community. The fundamental pretense which could generate the capacity to take such a drastic step forward under the alias of a world nation situated upon egalitarian principles has already materialized beneath the institutional fabric of the United Nations in addition to its predecessor the League of Nations. We are then brought to question another paradoxical inquiry which would inquire into the legitimacy of both organizational models; this being irrespective of real world tangibility, but the centralized emphasis should be concerned with the initial

methodology that is observed in order to safeguard the foundation of that internationalist example in question. The League of Nations had existed as a proposition that was often debated among the elite circles of the latter part of the nineteenth century longer that it did as a fully functional organization. The unanimous discrepancy that was observed by the league in addition to the fact that no standing military force had existed beneath its umbrella proved to be a great disadvantage considering that no entity could actually enforce the statures of international law. The leagues ultimate failure was its inability to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War which was largely due to the fact that the rise of authoritarianism across continental Europe had engendered those belligerent personalities who could only respect their own elite forms of international law, not that adopted by the whole of the world community. There was a hidden bias that was imposed on the league considering that the defeated powers of the First World War had observed that the bulk of the same organization emerged through the politicized idealism purported by the victorious Allies. In this case, there was a certain degree of power brokerage that produced a form of hegemony on the whole of what can be considered as an organization that is situated on the premise of idealism. As we reflect on the larger than life personalities who are interchangeable with the direction application of extreme authoritarianism of the twentieth century (Hitler and Mussolini), it is almost laughable to think that either belligerent personality would be willing to succumb to the proclamations made by the League of Nations considering that no show of force was present in an effort to ensure the compliance of the antagonist powers. The main shortcoming that had undermined the first trial of egalitarian based internationalism had failed solely due to the fact that the brilliant measures made in the name of statecraft did not have the force in order to implement the supposed will of the international community. In an ideal world, we may care to envision a world that is illuminated through an enlightened civilized consciousness which celebrates pacifism, but what may seem to be ideologically sound

beneath its blanketed idealism is not practical in its totality; in the end, the parameters of idealism is not enough to salvage the bulwark of international community and humanity at large. Such a manifested disposition will only lead to an endless cycle of political correctness which has now defined the situational reality that surrounds the forefront of the world community at the beginning of the twenty-first century. After the Second World War, the United Nations was able to pick up from where the league had let off, but we have now encountered a reality that is stifled by institutionalization and rival agencies that exclusively work for their own agendas which is nothing more than just another appropriated form of idealistic cynicism. The equilibrium that can be support the depth of egalitarian worldliness can only be sustained with the absence of overzealous institutionalization and elitism. The sooner the security council is decommissioned at the peak of the United Nations will be the moment when a great opportunity will be at hand for those who seek to unilaterally revitalize the priorities of mankind in an effort to concentrate on a greater depth of equilibrium which leads to the attainment of a genuine new world order for the betterment of humanity.