December 13,2013 Protestors stand upon the crumbled ruins of Linin's statue, an the world takes notice that Kiev is ignited with the aurora of revolution. Three profound points in this assessment comments that scholars succinctly have defined “the process of state making as “primitive central state power accumulation.” Thus defined, state making must include the following:1) “The expansion and consolidation of the territorial and demographic domain under: a political authority, including the imposition of order on contested territorial and demographic space (war).” 2) “The maintenance of order in the territory where, and over the population on whom, such order has already been imposed (policing).” 3) “The extraction of resources from the territory and the population under the control of the state.”From the Ukrainian perspective, “all three broad categories of activities outlined here, however, depend on the state's success in monopolizing and concentrating the means of coercion in its own hands in the territory and among the population it controls.” One can easily disagree with Ayoob on many given points rather there has to be a consciences on what constitutes a stable nation state. Internal sources base their opposition on two factors. The first factor in exporting democracy is that people argue that a country's citizens are the only ones who can promote democracy.
The desire and struggle for democracy has to come from within. Christopher Coyne establishes that cooperation and self-governance is a habit. Citizens volunteer cooperation around liberal democratic institutions, as well as self-sustaining ones. Coyne stresses the point that without independent development, constant coercion and intervention will be needed, i.e.: “nation building” (Cohen). This position of intervention is simply motivated not only by the desire to spread democracy, but also on behalf of more self-interested objectives. Sometimes, the motivating force is national interest, and promoting democracy is how policymakers sell the war‒and subsequent occupation‒to the American public. The second factor is those who support non-intervention also base their arguments on the promotion of democracy, adding that democracies are not necessarily peaceful in their relations with other kinds of political systems. Owens argues that democratic peace is vulnerable in three areas .Still, they insist that sovereign, stable democracies have never waged war with each other in the modern international system. “The first it contains two inherent ambiguities, democracy is immeasurable, democracy is undefined and lastly democratic peace lacks a convincing theoretical foundation" (Owen, 1994). The ability to conjugate democracy will determine the effectiveness of democratic peace. Democracy is more likely to emerge in countries whose neighbors are democratic, presumably due to the cross-border exchanges and peer-to-peer learning that close proximity allows between nations. External sources and democratic peace propositions argue that the peace between democracies is based on shared democratic norms or political institutions. The relationship of relative peace among democracies is a result of some of the more desirable features of democracy, and it is not caused exclusively by economic or geopolitical characteristics of the state. External sources argue in support of a semi-pluralist and semi-globalist position. Pluralism is created on a different set of assumptions than a realistic form of government. In pluralism, we see that this form uses multiple bodies working cohesively to produce policy rather than one solitary entity. No one body actually rules; yet, they rule by consensus of the cooperative bodies. In globalism, there are three fundamental assumptions.
he first assumption is that the origins of relations between democratic nations exist only in a global context. The second assumption is all international relations between democratic nations are viewed from an historical context. The last assumption is that coalitions between democratic nations focus on the mechanism of domination. When examining exporting democracy, one cannot help but draw the conclusion that organizations, such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the infamous International Atomic Energy Agency. If you assess this Baltic conflict by the standard of Kenneth Waltz The Man the State, and War establishes that the idea of Man vs. State vs. System is the foundation of conflict, in addition. Waltz argues three main positions in his theory the first being that conflict is caused by mans nature or the particular individual , the second is that wars are caused by the make up of the state, and the third which most accepted The traditional understanding of Man vs. State vs. System is based in inseparability and the need to balance power. It is this balance that brings “peace” or “domestic homogeny” . It is when that homogony is disrupted that conflict occurs. Stewart and Brown analysis of economic factors that contribute to violence on macro level . Mansfield and Snyder examination into the contribution of rapid democratization’s contribution provides a more defined understanding of overall root causes of violence in addition to Samuel P Huntington and Kreide and Monroe . Simply put, for over 300 hundred years the traditional nation state has served as the primary unit for the make up of the international framework by which we function in today. Although the “nation-state” still exist the conditions of global information system and the global economy are such that the far reaching impact of domestic affairs and external forces have been amplified dramatically.
Waltz is simply making the case that states that act in a “Realistic” manner will produce conflict. He by default makes the argument that only the presence of “Pluralist” bodies in a Globalist international system can peace exist. When one examines the rise of multi-polar powers that possess regional dominance both economically and militarily such as The Republic of Turkey and India , North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, .( Which many debate that both could be considered super powers, and that both sit on the UN Security Council if not for their limited military reach and limited economic output.). In an ideal world these powers act as a balancer” tipping the scales in the proxy dance i.e US,UK, and France for Europe and the developed world and China and Russia in favor or rouge states and the developing world. One can see that the power and potential for conflict increase when these smaller powers collide with the larger powers such as the US, UK, France, China and the Russian Federation. Much of the conflict comes from the desire of the West to spread democracy . They attempt to apply the Liberal democratic theory thus acting in a “Realistic” manner thus in their own interest they spread the idea of democracy with the Huntington conceptualized this augment best in his piece “The Clash of Civilizations” that the modern realities of today are that nation-states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations.” Conclusion The conclusion could be easily drawn that it is the development of the nation state that has allowed nations to exist and the very idea of Supra-nationalist bodies maintain this existence thus making globalism the ideal form existence for a 21st century state. the over all concepts man state – system conflict one can easily assess that conflict can originate at any level and all levels when opposing parties seek to overcome the very balance of each other as the state seeks maintain control over all parties while balancing itself against another nation-state in a multipolar