I have to confess this subject is one of my hobby horses. After completing my Masters Degree in International Law in 2016 I realised how much the world had changed and how many Nations were beholden to other Nations.
This got me thinking. How can one claim to be a sovereign nation when another nation can demand something from you as a payback? So many poorer countries are being propped up by wealthier nations, that if the wealthier nation stopped, what they call Aid, the poorer nation would be in trouble.
When Donald Trump took over the Presidency of the United States of America in 2025, he made the decision that America would no longer provide Aid to poorer countries. According to Oxfam, Foreign Aid provides assistance in healthcare, education, disaster relief, as well as providing food and economic development.
Yes, some Aid has started to flow again to those needy nations, but the amount of money allocated is nowhere near the amount that it was before the American Foreign Aid Agency was closed.
Now, when I say Nations that are beholden to another could find it hard to say they have sovereignty, I don’t just mean poorer countries. Those nations that were affected by the ending of Aid had become reliant on that Aid, so really didn’t have the chance to dictate any terms for their country. But, since the inception of the International Monetary Fund, some larger nations, have also become reliant on other nations with payments for products, produce or minerals that they sell (trade) to others. When one nation is the sole recipient then the reliance grows larger with each delivery of merchandise. Only selling to one organisation can be a kiss of death. If that organisation becomes bankrupt, decides to pay less for the products, or looks elsewhere for those purchases, what happens then?
The main problem is, the nation providing the money can call the tune, and the smaller or poorer nation is left with nothing they can do about it.
This control has been happening a lot over the past few years. Some nations are growing richer and using minerals from other countries to build a bigger and better country for themselves. They also sell the products made from the poorer nation’s items, making more money for itself. Suddenly there is becoming a huge divide between rich and poor countries, and this divide is being used by the bigger nations to control the smaller.
What we see happening of late is, the poorer nations are surreptitiously being taken over. The poorer nations still have their own Parliament, but certain spaces and areas in its country are being used by the larger nation. Small sections are being taken over. How long will it be before it is large sections, and then eventually the whole country?
Now if the smaller country has a strong leader, then the taking over will not be allowed to take place. The inhabitants will put up a fight and find other nations to support them. But if the take-over is slow, over several years, people are not aware that it is happening and before anyone realises it, there is another nation dictating how the country should be run, and that small country has lost its ability to disagree.
What does this mean to sovereignty? According to the Montevideo Convention of 1933 a statehood’s entity does not depend on the recognition of other states (nations), providing, of course, the sovereignty wasn’t gained by military force. Once a country invades another country, the invaded country still holds its sovereignty. But in the situation of the previous description where I explained about large countries taking over smaller countries, there has been no invasion. In fact, the smaller country hasn’t been aware that it is slowly being taken over. So, can we still say that smaller country holds its sovereignty?
And this is the conundrum that currently faces the world. Large countries are buying their way into smaller countries. Is this done to assist the smaller country to grow, or to take over? That is the big question we have to ask. Is there answer? And this is where I get on my high horse and say very loudly YES!!!
I, for more years than I care to remember, have been promoting a unified world. A world where no country, no matter how wealthy or big is better than any other country. A unified world where we all work together to make this planet the best it possibly can be. If we look towards helping everyone on this planet, and promoting systems where every person has what they desire (a roof over their head, food on the table and an education for every child), maybe we could live in closer harmony than we are as I write this sentence?
There will always be with us, people who feel they should rule the world, mainly because they love the power and the money it generates. But with a united world, we should be able to control such people. It boils down to society to establish certain values, so that when people don’t adhere to them, those people become ostracised. Anyone who has been treated that way, will tell you it is the worst feeling that can be experienced. No need to put them in prison. Put them on show for their poor behaviour. That is a better way of control.
There is strength in society and its social morals and ethics. Sovereignty is losing its impact. Maybe, we as earthlings, should be starting to look towards a universal world, where we have the say in what happens, not those people who find power exhilarating.
Julie Finch-Scally ©
Add comment
Comments