The whole point is to have that encapsulation--a single entity that manages the big picture relations between the people of different areas. It reduces complexity and confusion.
Without that, if you want to arrange for an end to armed conflict between your people and another "nation," you have to find representatives of all the groups and get each of them to agree to a cease-fire separately.
If you can deal with a single government, that government has the responsibility of enforcing the agreement on its internal groups.
But when there's no central authority for an area from which hostilities flow, what choices do you have?
Cut a deal with the groups that will deal, and accept that the rest will keep attacking you? That may not work if the holdouts have enough power to inflict serious harm.
Arrange for somebody else to conquer the holdouts, and then negotiate with you on their behalf--putting in a government you can deal with?
Invade the area yourself, and destroy the holdouts, and keep them suppressed? That might get the non-holdouts cheesed off at you too, and get you into a bigger problem.
Do punitive invasions where you tear into the holdouts and their temporary allies, and then leave? See above.
There are several places in the world where the nominal central government doesn't actually have effective control. One of them, insofar as control of military actions is concerned (and that probably extends into other fields as well), may well be Iran. That was their fall-back plan, anyway. I don't know who is talking to who about what, though I hope that secret (and no doubt face-saving) talks are underway about the uranium.
Interesting times
No comments:
Post a Comment