The foreign battles being fought all around the world are invisible to the eyes of many. The Author of this article is a philanthropist who loves democracy and the spread of globalization in the form of international aid organizations. The Author is concerned with the expansion, transformation and continuation of open democratic societies, in which the sovereignty resides within the people, not through the tyrant as us to be the case.
IRA: 1 "How a twist on an old Idea can protect the world's most vulnerable populations" (Soros). State sovereignty came into effect after the Treaty of Westphalia 1648, now with a twist on the idea of sovereignty, the people come to power. The author cries for the recognition and importance of open societies, and their ability to accept foreign aid.
I. Question One: What is the main argument?
That the idea of sovereignty has mutated, from the ability of the state to rule itself without interference from other nations, to citizens having the ability to rule themselves, and to choose when it's in their best interest to relinquish their rights to a higher authority or government. Sovereignty has shifted from the State power to the power of the people. That foreign aid doesn't affect the sovereignty of a state unless forcefully done so in the name of cries for help from disenfranchised individuals. That we need to spread democracy and help open the doors for third world nation states to accept foreign aid.
II. Question Two: What are the basic facts used by the author in support of the argument?
The fall of the Soviet Union shows how there has been a shift in sovereignty from the state dominating the people, to the people ruling or delegating power to the state. "The European union pressured the Baltic states to guarantee minorities legal rights and protections" (Soros 21). This form of protection / power of the people, exemplifies a drastic change from state held sovereignty to a common humanitarian / citizen held sovereignty. Foreign aid and intervention also known as global attention "is often the only life line available to the oppressed" (Soros 21). Insinuating that we need to ensure that people have the means to voice their opinion when there is an injustice occurring.
III. Question Three: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the article?
I would have to say that this article reminds me of a hawk's point of view and a justification of why we the U.S. need to intervene through out the world for the sake of humanity. Expansionistic in nature, this article place our standards of human rights upon the rest of the world, whom rightfully have their own identity of right and wrong, or do they. The U.N. is a collection of nation states that were created by the U.S. in order to protect the world and placing standards upon the rest of the world, that most not even the almighty U.S. can stand up to, depending on the standard may it be economic or "for the sake of humanity" as most claim. The article also claims that the people hold the power card; in reality the elites have the power controlling the media, what we can and cannot see or hear they are the supervisors of thought and perceptions of the uneducated and close minded. Elites claim that they do things for the greater cause, when in reality they are doing it for there own sake of greed. The article does point out that sovereignty is changing from a traditional role of state boundaries and imaginary lines to encompassing one government, to all the individuals and organizations that help one another out, "quid pro quo" this for that, this is the way that our system operates, why help someone for free. Why stick your neck out on the line for someone else if there not willing to return the favor. In reality the weaker does, not obvious to them, they return the favor by allowing us into there country and allowing us to set up NGO's. The dominate state can expand its sources of power and...