Global Politics: Politics among States

Jhulius Kyle M. Seno

01/12/16
Birds born in the same cages think that flying together is an illness
-Alejandro Jodorowski
The United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), these two top

peacekeeping and developmental agencies in the world has been challenged by cooperation.

The world thinks that fusing these agencies would result to a more effective and efficient

visibility of peace and development throughout the world, but the most fearsome effect has

been met, cooperation did not take place as waited. Let us seek facts and information on why

the fusion of these two agencies did not work out pretty good.

Two Equivalent Bodies

FACTS:

The ideology of UN and NATO

Who will benefit? questions

Threats to National Security

THOUGHTS:

The cooperation issues between the UN and NATO has been largely a piece of the worlds

problems. Joining these two congruent forces might be an achievement of both the people and

the states involved, but the issue that is on track is their gaps on cooperation. This paper will try

to answer the questions being thrown to these peacekeeping bodies. Upon, answering the

priority objective, I would like to point out the flaws, which I observed during my research.
These flaws will obviously be tackling on why did the cooperation talks did not happen. The first

problem I had observed is the problem on national security, member states were already on

the road to cooperation just as they have reached to the point of realizing that fusing the

bodies would cause threats and problems to the security. They have concluded not to pursue

with cooperating to the other party because national security problems may arise after doing

so. The next flaw that is concerned on hampering the success of the ever-waited cooperation is

the issues on who will be getting the most benefits. Each of the concerned peacekeeping

organization has set the what-ifs on their meetings on cooperation. They always looked at the

bigger picture on what if this thing might go wrong or the other way. This, I think is one of the

biggest flops on the UN-NATO cooperation. Lastly, both organizations possess different beliefs

and aspirations for the betterment of their respective unions, this I consider the most minor

problem yet the most major loophole that each side of the parties might have looked to before.

NATO is concerned with peace keepings and development through military power, while on the

other side, the UN is also on the track for development and maintaining peace but by means of

law. This is where both organizations failed to meet. The UN commends the military efforts of

NATO and likewise. These are the main problems why both of the organizations failed to meet

halfway.

SUMMARY:

On the field of global politics, I can say that the UN and the NATO has gone way too far. They

have proven their credentials both in the inside domains of the organization and throughout

the globe. They have performed exemplary political actions on the world. The world thinks that

fusing these agencies would later result to a greater defense and development. This is the way
that the world see the cooperation between the NATO and the UN. There have been various

attempts on passing treaties and contracts regarding the so-waited cooperation, but I think

none of them really passed the scrutinizing minds of the people. Few problems and loopholes

have been brought up as the major gaps for the road to cooperation. If, in all certainty, member

states would create resolving fillers that fill the major gaps between NATO and UN, this

cooperation might be a success in the near future. Learning to create relations among states,

especially, in the field of politics is the life-long task of every state. The UN and the NATO

should always find time on resolving problems regarding peace and progress. Prevent, protect

and preserve; these are the core values that the UN and NATO should consider in order for us

to create a more sustainable and a more progressive land.

TERMINOLOGIES:

UN- United Nations

NATO- North Atlantic Treaty Organization

Bibliography:

https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Janka_Oertel_Paper_ACUNS_Conference.pdf/retrieved,

01/11/16

http://www.iiss.org/en/publications/survival/sections/2009-5f8e/survival--global-politics-and-

strategy-april-may-2009-9e37/51-2-02-harsch-9aad/retrieveed,01/11/16

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50321.htm/retrieved,01/11/16
 Interest Groups vs. Political Parties vs. Social Movements

Jhulius Kyle M. Seno

01/12/16

W. Phillips Shively, Power and Choice; 8th Edition

https://worldpoliticsreview.com/contentious-politics/

Be the Change you wish to see in the world

-Mahatma Gandhi

Interest groups is defined as a group of people drawn towards voicing a single concern. Interest

groups are the pressure peers in the society. They play a big part in policy making for they

influence the government by means of carrying out the voices of the people. There are three

different kinds of interest groups they are the (a) sectoral (b) institutional (c) promotional.

These three different kinds of interest groups form part of the overall view of interest groups.

Interest groups use strategic techniques in order for them to influence the people and the

government. Interest groups are just like political parties but also with a very vague difference.

Interest groups differ from political parties by simply concluding that interest groups are

influential groups while a political party is also an influential group but they have the urge to

seek seat from the electorate which an interest group is not interested about. Lobbying is the

most common technique that these interest groups manifest. They lobby certain concerns and

the government in return grants their concerns but with a return-favor. Therefore, interest

groups are any organized groups with a particular aim for their union and the aim to participate

in every political decision-makings.

Social movements is briefly defined as an informally structured organization dealing primarily

with current social issues. Social movements emerged due to the demands on voicing out

certain concerns. Social movements prime consideration is the will to answer certain social

issues or legislations. They are informally organized to convey the pulse of the society. They are

informally established to answer the question on beneficiality and credibility. Social movements

scrutinize well the legislations for the society before approving it to be implemented.

Movements happen when there are certain commotions regarding certain social issues. These

are the primary goal for the establishment of social movements. Social movements aim differ

the aim of interest groups. They may have a link that connects each other but interest groups

were implemented for a serious period of time while social movements were established for

the call of certain public matters. These two movements are so different from parties because

just like the interest groups, social movements do not seek for the electorate.

In conclusion, political parties were established due to the hunger for power and seat in the

electorate. This might be the main reason why political parties might crash down in the future.

Social movements and interest groups might stay in place if they would only continue to be the

voice of the certain political matters and not to grab a seat from the electorate.