Evolution of International Structure
This past week we read material regarding why we exist in a
state of anarchy. The debates that
followed centered on articles from Wendt and Waltz with strongly opposing viewpoints
between whether or not states are ruled by ideas or interests respectively. Clearly, it was easy to argue on the side of
interests and support the idea that the international structure can never be
remade, however, history has proven contrary to this issue.
Wendt sums it up with the point that states view the world
through the lens that they (the state) are doing the right thing. America has conducted a mission spanning
centuries of promoting liberty and democracy abroad. America and the Soviet Union were in a
political arms race, spanning decades, trying to convert the rest of the world
to their respective ideologies. NATO was
founded on the values of democracy with the interests in mind of creating an
international “club” that excluded the USSSR.
In the end, in my opinion, all interests are rooted in ideas and,
through extension transference, those ideas are more to the forefront. People forget the values that started
everything and only see the interests ahead.
Going by the four squared table in the lecture, the
structure of the international community has undergone changes from hard/autonomous
to soft/autonomous and evolving to hard/attunement. Originally, we had the billiard effect. States only looked out for only their own. After
a catastrophe like WWII, states
redistributed their values (especially the U.S.) and state agents
created institutions such as the United Nations, the International Court of Justice,
etc.
When values change, interests follow until they become lost
in transference then interests become as strong as an idea or value.
No comments:
Post a Comment