Nancy Salvato, Senior Editor

Risking Our Nation’s Sovereignty
December 22, 2008

Anyone who is successful at forging relationships has mastered the art of diplomacy. There are a few simple rules. There is a time and a place for everything. You cannot change another person, only yourself. You have to give to receive. Maintaining a balance of power is probably the most difficult. If one person denies another a relationship, there can be no balance of power because that person has taken all the control. Both parties have to want the relationship for one to occur. Any parent soon realizes that a dictatorial style will not foster loyalty or the intrinsic motivation to behave within a child. At the same time, giving in to a child’s demands grants the child all the power. A well-timed tantrum can put an end to a parent’s agenda.

When people learn and respect each others’ boundaries, they can interact within them and have no fear of upsetting the balance. On the other hand, if a person has difficulty accepting or respecting another’s boundaries, that can be a recipe for a confrontation, a break in the relationship, or an unbalanced relationship. Learning how to practice diplomacy is a worthwhile endeavor. By granting each other mutual respect, we can usually get along.

Group dynamics can change the nature of relationships. Working within a group or as part of a team is much different than negotiating the needs of two people. Groups or teams usually have a larger goal which forces us to look beyond our individual differences to achieve this mutual goal. We might have to compromise on some of our personal preferences and beliefs to get along. These personal beliefs and preferences might not even be relevant to the larger purpose.

Within our own country, the Framers recognized the importance of maintaining a balance of power. They divided power between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of our government. They divided power within the Legislative Branch between the Senate and the House of Representatives. Finally, they divided power between the federal government and the state governments. When the balance of power shifts, what happens is that power swings in the direction of one particular interest. Many factions try to tilt the balance in their direction. The result is that most of the time the balance doesn’t move too far because all of the opposing forces are pulling at the same time. This is what the Framers intended. Substantial change needs lots of groups pulling in the same direction all at the same time. In order to get a lot of people to pull in the same direction, they all must feel at some level that their need will be met. This takes compromise. A larger purpose might be enough to set aside personal beliefs and preferences. Therefore, what feels like a small concession is actually reflective of larger change that takes into account on what all factions agree. Again, this is what the Framers intended. Should a minority faction force substantive change that denies other groups their rights, the likelihood is that this change will be rolled back when that faction loses influence by being voted out of power. This is what is considered a bloodless revolution.

So it is with countries. There must be a balance of power. When one country respects the boundaries and the policies of another, in other words, their sovereignty, they can both benefit from trade or investments. Sovereignty depends on the strength of a country to defend its interests. Should one country become aggressive and show disregard for another country it might result in a confrontation, a break in the relationship, or an unbalanced relationship. One thing is for certain. Diplomacy doesn’t always work unless it is backed by a substantial show of strength. If one country is aggressive and another country cannot repel their advances, there is no sovereignty. Unless we all agree to a higher authority, given the power to enforce international laws, the best way to maintain our country’s sovereignty is to be able to defend it.

There is a movement to disregard our nation’s constitution and instead answer to a global authority. This is not a well thought out idea. It is one thing to agree to abide by some global standards because our country determines that it is the right thing to do but it’s entirely different to have our sovereignty diminished by an international law making body who is not necessarily looking out for our people’s best interests and which is unequipped to enforce the standards to which those in our country agree to abide.

Should an international body be provided the force to enforce their rules and decided to make war on our country if we didn’t abide by their authority, what would we do? What if we backed down? We would be abdicating our sovereignty if we did not defend our rights. What if we yielded to them our power? We would be giving up our sovereignty. What if an international body told us we were obligated to fight in a battle and on whose side? Would we agree with their decision? Would they be able to force us to take up arms for a cause with which we don’t agree? If we yield our sovereignty to a global authority, the delicate balance of power within our own country that was established by the Framers would be erased. The Judeo Christian values which serve as the foundation of our Constitution would be replaced by those the world deemed as more reflective of the world order. The freedoms we take for granted would disappear. We would no longer be sovereign and could not defend our rights on the international stage.

In a world where countries are required to forego the balance of power to achieve world peace, one must ask at what cost? What kind of peace would be achieved? Would there be freedom of speech or would what we say be controlled by the Politically Correct Gestapo? Would there be opportunities to become what we want to be or would this be determined by those deemed more capable of deciding our fates? How could this not turn into anything more than a socialist experiment? Worse, why is there any reason to believe that countries that follow Communism, Sharia law or have entirely different ideas of what Human Rights actually means would buy into such a world body? Many who are members of the UN vote one way but their actions belie their words. Global governance is a utopian idea at best.

We are not perfect. The Framers understood this. That is why we strive for a more perfect union. We are a sovereign nation in order to protect the balance of rights we have created. We must allow for imperfections, for contrary ideas, for dissonance. If we can accept this and respect each others boundaries we can get along. It’s when boundaries are crossed that there is trouble ahead.