Muppidi Article

Muppidi never seems to make his point very clear about the idea of global governance. There are a few contridictions on how countries should act, specifically relating to when to intervene in another country's affairs. He seems to both try and make the point that a state should be at fault if they a) have too much control over their own affairs and shut the international community out, and b) not interferring in the affairs of a state who has shut the international community out to to detriment of its people. I've always hated the expression about having cake and eating it to (this seems to only require a fork), but this seems a perfect situation in which to apply the basic meaning behind it.

Relating to second part of the statement above Muppidi is also very critical of the United States in his article, using several negative terms to describe how we've sort of imposed our will in the international system in recent years. This is the part of his article I agree most with. While I don't perscribe to the realist view that sovreignty is rigid and pyshical survival is of the utmost importance, I do believe most countries should follow Article 51, even a hegemonic power. It doesn't matter that a political force (such as the United States has become in the most recent years) has an interest in matters in a particular region, it still must take the appropriate channels in order to launch an offensive war (through the Security Council, invoke the Genocide Convention). While the US has suffered a drop in world popularity and certainly has inflicted costs from its imperial rampage, I think Muppidi makes his strongest part during the article's opening paragraphs when he discusses the US.

But still, even with that, I can see now why post-colonialism isn't quite considered a major theory yet. It doesn't seem fully fleshed out, and doesn't have much history to work with.