Ideologies in World Politics by Unknown

Author:Unknown
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9783658305123
Publisher: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden

3 Conclusion: From Trump’s Reset to a New “Global State of War”

The new National Defense Strategy adopted by Donald Trump and diffused in 2018 takes distance with the Obama’s position. The document does not consider this issue as a priority on the agenda. Moreover, the Trump administration aims at putting America first without bearing in mind the normative pillars that have shaped the global commons for decades, i.e. the “international rules and regimes protecting the global commons [that] have also strengthened US primacy in world affairs” (Almond 2017). The outer space policy illustrates the orientation that Trump’s administration chooses for evolving in the global commons. On June 2018, Trump decides to set up a suitable military force—a sixth branch of the armed forces—for ensuring American dominance in space. It designates clearly Russia and China as the main competitors in this environment. But the militarization of outer space as an objective of national security calls into question the article 1 of 1967 Outer Space treaty that qualifies this global commons as a “province of all mankind”. As for Scott Pace from the National Space Council: “outer space is not a “global commons,” not the “common heritage of mankind,” not “res communis,” nor is it a public good. These concepts are not part of the Outer Space Treaty, and the United States has consistently taken the position that these ideas do not describe the legal status of outer space” (Pace 2017, p. 4). In other words, the Trump administration is prone to balkanize the commons by militarizing them (Kampmark 2018). Such strategic position will increase tension with the great emerging powers.

With this new confrontation concerning the global commons, the front lines differ from conventional wars. A new global state of war emerges. Modern philosophers mobilized the state of war in order to understand strategic relations between States. They discuss the factors that explain the state of war. For Hobbes, this state is natural in every anarchical situation, before or after the social contract. According to Rousseau, this state depends on social conditions. War does not embody a natural relation but a political institution motivated by ostentation. Although their disagreements, both consider the state of war as a situation where States evolve. Nowadays, a new state of war appears between them. The confrontations take new forms because of globalization requires strategic restraint. As Chris Brown points out, “whereas in the past it was common for rising powers to feel that they had to define their new status by challenging existing power-holders, building empires and “co-prosperity” spheres, (…) this is no longer necessary, and indeed may be even more counterproductive than previously” (Brown 2010, p. 8). Kirshner adopts a similar perspective but he insists in the role of macro economic factors that makes “the resort to arms by States less likely because the macroeconomic discipline demanded by world financial markets, lending institutions, and powerful credit agencies is incompatible with military adventurism” (Kirshner 2006, p. 9).The new state of war also doubles because non-state actors are part of it.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.