The vast size of the universe leads a large number of individuals to believe that that there is in no way a possibility of Earth being the only planet with life forms. If there is other life somewhere out “there”, then it is only a matter of time before our world make contact. Under constructivism, the idea of relations with an alien species (leading to the ultimate appointment of a UN ambassador) is a difficult issue to tackle.
Constructivists are about the constant evaluation of the current field of identities. States create an identity of themselves in relation to others, yet there identity is different depending on the “other” they are dealing with. So an ultimate expectation by a constructivist is that the UN as a whole would deal with this situation in one way, yet individual nations might have their own reservations towards the alien species and therefore have stipulations within the relationship. For instance, the United Nations as a whole may simply decide to allow them to join the General Assembly and exist within the market. However, a nation such Russia might decide that they don’t want to freely trade with this alien nation and ultimately have a different relationship with the aliens outside of the UN. Yet, this relationship at any time could change, with Russia or the UN, through such methods as altercasting. More important than simply trade, though, is our world’s security. This alien force poses an additional state to add to our security/defense force within the UN or a potential threat to our world, which could ultimately lead to a complete change in the identities of the globe- where every nation bonds together to ward off this unitary enemy. However, before it gets to any point of changes in relationships, the UN (through the eyes of constructivism) should treat the alien force the way in which the nations within the UN would want to be treated by the aliens.
Under the idea of constructivism, international institutions set standards to which states can legitimately be held. The alien force would ultimately have to live up to these standards if it wishes to continue have a legitimized existence within the UN.
I really like your analysis from a constructivist perspective, and I hadn't thought about the trade aspect of the ambassadorship. The relationship with the security of the world and trade reiterates the concept of "it's the economy, stupid", and the do no harm tactic you described fits perfectly. I agree with your statement that the UN should treat aliens the way they want to be treated, because it can utilize a really positive policy for the way we would approach aliens.
ReplyDeletein my opinion there should be no difference between dealing with an alien species and dealing with another state, because in principle they are synonymous. A different species most likely has a different culture, set of values, language, etc. just as a foreign state does. Therefore, the delegation and negotiation between two states or a state and alien species should be the same.
ReplyDelete