International Studies Group 4

What the readings are telling me is there is a constant struggle between “interest” and “idea” and it is, sometimes difficult to tell where one ends and the other begins.  In the article regarding foreign policy, it may look like states are acting rational, in order to achieve their own interests, however they might be guided by ideas.  The best that I could understand from this is the idea of America’s isolationist tendencies. 

After World War II, the U.S. realized that it could not just sit on the sidelines of a changing international world so, it began to get involved in the new international remake of the globe.  Even though America is more involved, the country’s leaders still fall on isolationist policy as a means to keep somewhat separate from the rest of the world.  Take the ICC as an example.  Clinton helped create the Rome Statute as a guide for the Court and placed America’s conditional signature on the treaty as a gesture of good faith that with a little work the U.S. could be part of this organization.  Then, when Bush came into office he officially rescinded the U.S.’s signature and then implemented laws that penalized allies that did sign the Statute. 

From a behavioral standpoint it looks like pure interest and it may very well be.  However, like the lecture stated, it can be both rational and values based.  The value is that Americans do not trust overseas forces to govern what goes on in its own borders, which is most likely a residual effect of going through this problem with the British monarch.  This idea is further compounded by the U.S. deep seeded mistrust of a central government. 

What is rational may just be the tip of the iceberg, the small chunk that is visibly floating on the surface.  The idea that guides it is the biggest unseen part that no others may bother to pay attention to and that tends to be a source conflict in international relations.

Another example would be the reading about using Protestant ethics as a means to control the deadly sin of greed that Weber describes as “pursuit of profit.” Capitalism is rooted in tradition and convention and is, therefore, an idea.  This idea is meant to keep the rational calculations of chasing profit in check.

The message about idea and interest is understandable, but still murky.  The way the two work together reminds me of Hobbes’ Machiavellian philosophy on sovereign states and how rational calculation is rooted in values which explains why the ends justifies the means.