by Irshad Ahmad Mughal
We exist in an age defined by instantaneous information, where our understanding of global events is increasingly mediated by artificial intelligence, social media influencers, and algorithmic news feeds. This constant stream of content, while offering multiple perspectives, paradoxically threatens pure, critical thought. As Jean-Paul Sartre observed, our consciousness is often shaped by “Being-for-others,” defined through external perceptions rather than introspective analysis. In the realm of international relations, this creates a paradox: while a multifaceted view is essential, our thinking is often distorted by the sheer volume of curated narratives, leaving little room for genuine reflection. To cut through this noise, one must sometimes begin with foundational personal experience to decipher the complex dynamics of the global stage.
This approach recalls a simple, universal lesson from youth: a parent’s advice that if you confront a stronger individual, you will be defeated, but if you target someone weaker, you will be punished. This dichotomy mirrors the brutal logic that governs the international system. Institutions like the United Nations, designed as great arenas for dialogue and diplomacy, often reveal their powerlessness when confronting a determined aggressor. Much like a sheep before a lion, the UN frequently delivers eloquent speeches and condemns actions but stands helpless in the face of raw power. This operational principle echoes Thomas Hobbes’s assertion that “covenants, without the sword, are but words.” We see this in stark relief: powerful nations often act with impunity, their violations met with little more than rhetorical disapproval, while weaker states face severe consequences, including military intervention and sanctions, as witnessed in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
The ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine serves as a tragic case study of this “might makes right” paradigm. The international community’s response—overwhelmingly characterized by condemnation without consequential action—highlights a profound institutional paralysis. This inaction extends beyond Palestine. Recent Israeli airstrikes on Qatar, a nation rich in wealth but perceived as weak in military resolve, further illustrate the vulnerability of states that rely solely on external security guarantees. Despite investing billions in advanced Western defense systems, Qatar’s response to direct bombardment was notably absent, revealing a critical weakness. A purchased arsenal is merely a “stick of loan”; it cannot replace indigenous military capability and the political will to use it in self-defense.
This phenomenon is not confined to the Middle East. European nations, despite their economic strength, appear paralyzed in the face of Russian aggression, unable to formulate a cohesive, independent strategy without American leadership. The United States, meanwhile, often profits from global instability through its massive arms industry, selling security while frequently avoiding direct confrontation that does not serve its immediate strategic interests.
The lesson for the modern state is clear. In an international system still governed by Hobbesian realities, where power trumps law and institutions are often sidelined, self-reliance is paramount. Trusting solely in alliances or imported technology is a dangerous gamble. True security is not purchased; it is built through the development of sovereign defense capabilities and the unwavering national determination to defend oneself. As the digital age shapes our perceptions, we must not lose sight of this enduring, sobering truth of international politics: ultimately, a nation must be prepared to craft its own stick.
