It seems to me that the Westphalian experiment was a failure, a very flawed way to found a "new world order". Rather than create a system of equal states. it gave the elites the power to draw lines for their own interests and control. It made divide and rule possible. Look at what happened Africa divided into 54 countries all splitting ethnic populations and dividing communities to create conflict and strife in Africa for its own advantage. My god just look at the Sykes–Picot Agreement carving up West Asia and ripping off Mecca & Medina from the Ottomans and giving it to "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (there were no Kings or Princes in West Asia until the UK granted these titles to them) Whatever good intentions the signers of Westphalia may have had were overrun by the interests of elites.
Creating a new world system should not include a return to past failures.
The crucial historical context for Westphalia is absolute monarchy i.e. the absolution or reconciliation of all political differences in the person of a monarch.
Germany is an exceptional case in Europe because it was a latecomer to nationalism. In England for example the establishment of absolute monarchy goes back at least to the Lancastrian Revolution of 1399 which broke the old magna carta political order. France of course became one of the great absolute monarchies until 1789.
But while England was in a civil war that would lead to the execution of its absolute monarch Charles I in 1649, Germany was a backwards case. Germany was a land of kleinstaat or petty states i.e. innumerable medieval principalities.
The Hungarian philosopher Gyorgy Lukacs provides a good overview of Germany's inability to make the transition from feudalism to absolute monarchy as happened in Western Europe and England, in his book "The Destructionof Reason." Germany did not become a nation-state until Bismarck in the 1870s, he served as a sort of belated absolute monarch.
But the Western democracies of course had already made their revolutions against absolute monarchy in the 1600s and 1700s. So I don't think Westphalia is really the model of the modern international system. Today's world descends from the Anglo-French bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the 1780s and the subsequent "heresies" of liberalism and romanticism. That's what has driven world history for the past 250 years. Westphalia is a semi-feudal exception in Europe.
Germany of course paid for its retarded development after Bismarck with the rise of Hitler who played the part of absolute monarch that Germany always lacked. Hitler also lost a 30-years war with America and that have us the present world order, not based on Westphalia but rather on market liberalism and democratic romanticism aka human rights.
I think CCP China has a more sinister goal than depicted by Professor Diesen. However, a smooth transition from imperial hegemony to a multipolar sovereign system is more important at this moment. If China has any real evil intentions, we probably will need to deal with that later. But for now, I would welcome all policies that can help the establishment of a multipolar world. Rome has been burning for a while now, and Roman Legions should go home and fix their own country.
Please study the history of CCP since its founding. Maybe you want to say the times has changed, people has changed, even the form of government has changed. Yes, but many things have not. Xi grew up during the Cultural Revolution and is known to have always worshiped Mao. In case you don't know, per China's laws, revealing financial information of any Chinese companies to unauthorized personnel can be prosecuted as a violation of national security. Any overseas Chinese not willing to help the operation of China's national security apparatus or obey the orders thereof are subject to the prosecution of the same law. If you think the Western hate-speech law is arbitrary, ambiguous, and harsh, you should try to understand China's national security law.
It is the Communist Party of China (CPC) - when you cannot even get the basics right and show basic respect via language you have nothing else of value to contribute imho. Get your own house in order before pointing fingers at China, it's system or it's people. [comment split in 3 because it would not take the whole thing at once, something weird happening. ]
It may surprise you to discover that polling conducted by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), which is anything but friendly to anything remotely like multipolarity, reveals that the Chinese population considers its country to be the most democratic nation in the world.
No surprise at all. Besides some of the people who dared not to complain at all, the bulk of them DO BELIEVE it this way. They also believe Chinese Communists lead the anti-Japan resistance and causedt he bulk of Japanese military loss in China, and that Korean War happened because USA invaded North Korea, etc.
North Korea’s perspective, the invasion was an effort to reunify a country artificially divided by external powers after Japan’s defeat in 1945. a bid for self-determination in a divided nation same as Vietnam due to interference from the USA. Typical US warmongering behind a veneer of the UNSC in the cold war. F... Japan, F... Sth Korea and F... the USA.
I agree. The driving forces behind NKA and NVA were mostly nationalism and the hope to unify. There was a slight difference, IMHO, historically Vietnam was more often split than united, and that there is a clear difference in ethnic composition. The Korea peninsula, even when it was fragmented and warring, the people were more homogenous.
I hope with all my heart China, Russia, and Nth Korea (BRICS et al) take over the entire peninsula using their nukes as self-defense and kick the Japan/US hegemonic nexus out of there forever. I see Nissan are toast - watch the dominoes as they fall in a heap
Well maybe your seeing a sinister intent by the CPC is a matter of your own thinking and less that of the Chinese. All states do default to self interest, that's more a human condition but history doesn't support the idea of a hegemonic imperialist China outside her borders, well other than because of Geographical constraints.
You are right about one thing: CCP is not the same as the Chinese people. Chinese people are easily moldable at the material level and can be easily westernized in a decade or two. But Chinese thoughts are deeply ingrained and not easy to change even by Chinese leaders. and I totally agree CCP itself has morphed into a suit-wearing English-eloquent party, on the surface that is. If you read only China's official English version news or governmental statistics, your understanding will be greatly off the mark. It looks like your impression cannot be clarified by reading English materials, please try to get some Chinese readings. I have multiple family members visited China, some just two months ago. I started to study CCP theory and history when I was 16 and witnessed the tail of the Cultural Revolution. The outside appearances have changed, the inside is still worse than 1949.
imho you are your own worst enemy - problem. You have learnt nothing since you were 16 yr old because you are still using the bastardized western version of CCP
I strongly disagree. Actually what most "Western Analysts" have more or less wrong opinions about China -- from my perspective of course. What has been interesting to me is that people who tend to be correct on matters related to Russia, USSR, Europe, Middle East, etc. tend to make wrong judgment of China. Looking at the typical reasons about why USA should pivot to the Pacific and turn against China and I see they picked wrong reasons and methods.
It sounds wonderful Glenn. However, even if China can bring world peace and invest in green transitions, not green energy additions, for the developing economies: any kind of economic growth, anywhere in the world, is unsustainable. Only multilateral degrowth is going to make any dent in the climate crisis, the agricultural failures and the mass migrations coming soon in the next few decades.
While agreeing with the need, I would argue that any attempt at solutions absolutely requires a stable international balance. We can buy as many electric cars as we like, against the backdrop of a mobilising military industry and the fossil fuel expenditure of arms races and open conflicts, it'll be a drop in the bucket.
Climate ignores borders, so unless we can achieve peace, we won't solve anything, but only accelerate the catastrophe
This is a fractal repetition from old ideas 100 years ago, nothing new. Innovation as going backwards to dark times. To many of the same circles as 100 years ago are in similiar leading position.
All that is an opposite to “wonderful”. Eugenic thinking, transhumanist, technological posthumanism will never create a wonderful word.
Very interesting. I would like to know more about China's civilization initiative, and explored it a little in my substack and YouTube channel. I noted when Xi Jinping and Putin met last year or early this year (?) cultural cooperation (which includes education & science) was stressed. What are its origins in Chinese thought and traditions?
I would propose an alternative history to you, that does not accept Westphalia established a world order. Neither Russia, nor China, nor Iran nor Indian states were part of the Treaty of Westphalia after all. Four years before Westphalia the Qing succeeded the Ming dynasty. In Japan, the Tokugawa established a more enduring peace than Westphalia.
I would follow John Darwin's argument that there was a 'Eurasian equilibrium' until 1750, and that much of what people think of as the "Westphalian system" is in fact the pattern established in Europe after the Napoleonic wars and by extension of Greater Europe's empires to the world. This came with the 'invention of the West' - which defined Western civilization as the reference standard for the world.
I think this is the true breaking point represented by Russia, India, Islamic states, South East Asian states and China of civilizational diversity, including in political institutions.
Confucius says listen to a person for what he says then check what he does in reality. Despite my negative and hostile attitude toward China, I do agree with you that if China can actually achieve something for the rest of the world, then it is still a plus. So far I see China's behavior under Xi highly consistent with the traditions of the Warring Kindom period of China: diplomacy for the faraway places, military actions against the neighbors. Many of BRI projects carry imperialistic intentions although they in theory do benefit host countries. Some probably do but not reported by the Western media. Therefore, a lot of China's foreign dealings, especially for those under Xi, remains to be observed.
By the way, I don't see China as a whole being evil from hell. Not even the majority of the CCP card-carrying members. The evil is CCP institutionalizes many of the worst Chinese traditions into a system. Anyone able to rise to the top have to be bad enough, must have blood on their hands, must have participated in corruption, etc. Think the movie "Hostel II".
What China et al need, is as many guns and weapons as they can muster - and to start shooting anything that moves. It is the only solution. What is happening in Ukraine and Gaza, and Yemen, and Lebanon, and Syria, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Georgia, Moldova, Iran, the West Bank and inside Israel proper and North Korea, and across Africa is a sickening joke.
ENOUGH already - What you say Glen is nice in "theory" - but the USA-UK-Israel Nexus the Anglo-Saxons-Zionists are run by Psychopaths. You don't play nice with Psychopaths. You either lock them up or you kill them. No Quarter given. It's time to get real.
The whole “democracy vs autocracy” framing is a transparent sham as demonstrated by the coziness between several notorious West Asian monarchies and the Western powers.
Thanks to Glenn, China has a completely different ontological cosmology compared to the dualistic (colonial) Western tradition of a hard separation into white/black, for/against, good/bad. Central to a deeper understanding of Diesen's article is knowledge of the unique socialism with Chinese Confucian and Daoist characteristics.
If one is interested in China's geo-economic foundation and power base, i.e. China's strategic industries, transport corridors and financial instruments, I can refer to the unique and easily accessible 'Inside China Business' on YouTube
A greast article and thank you for sharing your thoughts and analysis.
My view is that between 1648 and 1948 the Westphalian System proved its weaknesses within the European sphere and those of its empires. It was a flawed systm and produced constant war and conflict, not everywhere, but there was enough tension between nation states to create imbalance, arguably culminating in WW1 which was a catastrophe for western civilisation. WW2 - again arguably - was simply round two.
I think there was a genuine attempt post WW2 to create a sane international system, but weighed down by the cold war and the baleful influence of tyhe Soviet Union. Whatever bad points the USA had - and there were many - it was infinitely better than the murderous Stalinist regime post WW2 and its less murderous successor regimes. The West was tainted by colonialism and the USA certainly supported de-colonisation. Whether this was to weaken Europe is a moot point, as by that stage the Empires were a drain not an asset.
Following the USA's victory in the Cold War there was a huge opportunity to engage with Russia and the ROW. A long term strategic plan of binding in Russia to the western system and in a mannner that respected and benefited Russia would have paid great dividends. The chance was lost over 30 years ago IMHO. The doctrine of hegemony, the US Empire and total dominance was adopted instead. Well that has worked out well...
So we now have a failing Empire, beset with internal problems, over-stretched and making enemies around the globe who are forming alliances against the USA to protect themselves from its abuse of power. To paraphrase Putin/Lavrov etc, the rules based order is not written down, no one agreed it - and taking Mr Diesen's point - really means a moral obligation to break the rules governing relations between nations - a definition that changes over time and is dependant on the caprice of whichever suit occupies the Oval Office.
I doubt very much a return to a multi-polar world where China and others are key players is going to change the arc of history all that much. Nations act in their interests, or at least their governing regimes [The EU vassal states being a notable current exception...]. Anyway, we will still have power politics, naked aggression, economic coercion and war. A world government simply means a world wide rebellion. But I live in hope that more serious people than the current crew in DC and European capitals might do a better job of regulating the worst of human nature as it applies to international relations. I am not holding my breath.
Excellent point about the essentials of the Westphalian order and its similarity to the Multipolar approach for social order. Refining the lesson of what works is no easy task I can see.
I think it shows people have no memory that doesn’t exist but in books history.
It’s a problem to consider.
Means no learning curve exists for this social creature , us.
We are not an ant nest yet, and will be never become one no matter hard our rulers try to evoke this social state through a primitive propaganda level describing our existence in the hegemony.
We are watching the alternative emerge to this social void which I find exciting .
Comes with the new social media available to anyone , anywhere.
I could be wrong but I think when trying to figure out a multifaceted, relatively complicated problem it’s sometimes best to keep it simple stupid, (which is summed up by the acronym KISS).
As I’ve said many times in the past, if the US had listened to the rational thinking peace activists in the 1950s and 1960s, and then to the logic of George Kennan and later John Mearsheimer we would be in a much better place. Being in a much better place would allow us to try to tackle all of the problems we all face as a species.
In my opinion, the biggest mistake we made was allowing fools to run the show. There’s no reason for me to rehash all of this stuff when all one has to do is listen closely to everything John Mearsheimer has had to say in the last few decades.
Having said that, it’s my opinion that if through very good leadership, the United States could try to get everyone to go along with having the US run the show that would be the best thing that could happen at this point.
In order to have that be successful and effective we would have to have the president of the United States speak directly to the citizens of the United States and to the world and start to do that which is honest, logical and the right thing. That person would have to try to use the power of the people (so to speak) in order to circumvent the interest groups that are counterproductive to where we need to try to be heading.
But the reason you’re correct is because the US didn’t play its cards right when it had a chance.
The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether that ship has sailed, the top leaders in the US should have enough sense to talk and try to be friendly with both our friends and adversaries, instead we keep making the same mistakes…
It seems to me that the Westphalian experiment was a failure, a very flawed way to found a "new world order". Rather than create a system of equal states. it gave the elites the power to draw lines for their own interests and control. It made divide and rule possible. Look at what happened Africa divided into 54 countries all splitting ethnic populations and dividing communities to create conflict and strife in Africa for its own advantage. My god just look at the Sykes–Picot Agreement carving up West Asia and ripping off Mecca & Medina from the Ottomans and giving it to "The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" (there were no Kings or Princes in West Asia until the UK granted these titles to them) Whatever good intentions the signers of Westphalia may have had were overrun by the interests of elites.
Creating a new world system should not include a return to past failures.
The crucial historical context for Westphalia is absolute monarchy i.e. the absolution or reconciliation of all political differences in the person of a monarch.
Germany is an exceptional case in Europe because it was a latecomer to nationalism. In England for example the establishment of absolute monarchy goes back at least to the Lancastrian Revolution of 1399 which broke the old magna carta political order. France of course became one of the great absolute monarchies until 1789.
But while England was in a civil war that would lead to the execution of its absolute monarch Charles I in 1649, Germany was a backwards case. Germany was a land of kleinstaat or petty states i.e. innumerable medieval principalities.
The Hungarian philosopher Gyorgy Lukacs provides a good overview of Germany's inability to make the transition from feudalism to absolute monarchy as happened in Western Europe and England, in his book "The Destructionof Reason." Germany did not become a nation-state until Bismarck in the 1870s, he served as a sort of belated absolute monarch.
But the Western democracies of course had already made their revolutions against absolute monarchy in the 1600s and 1700s. So I don't think Westphalia is really the model of the modern international system. Today's world descends from the Anglo-French bourgeois-democratic revolutions of the 1780s and the subsequent "heresies" of liberalism and romanticism. That's what has driven world history for the past 250 years. Westphalia is a semi-feudal exception in Europe.
Germany of course paid for its retarded development after Bismarck with the rise of Hitler who played the part of absolute monarch that Germany always lacked. Hitler also lost a 30-years war with America and that have us the present world order, not based on Westphalia but rather on market liberalism and democratic romanticism aka human rights.
I think CCP China has a more sinister goal than depicted by Professor Diesen. However, a smooth transition from imperial hegemony to a multipolar sovereign system is more important at this moment. If China has any real evil intentions, we probably will need to deal with that later. But for now, I would welcome all policies that can help the establishment of a multipolar world. Rome has been burning for a while now, and Roman Legions should go home and fix their own country.
I do not believe that China has any sinister goals. This idea is the result of western capitalist propaganda and paranoia, also tinged with racism.
Please study the history of CCP since its founding. Maybe you want to say the times has changed, people has changed, even the form of government has changed. Yes, but many things have not. Xi grew up during the Cultural Revolution and is known to have always worshiped Mao. In case you don't know, per China's laws, revealing financial information of any Chinese companies to unauthorized personnel can be prosecuted as a violation of national security. Any overseas Chinese not willing to help the operation of China's national security apparatus or obey the orders thereof are subject to the prosecution of the same law. If you think the Western hate-speech law is arbitrary, ambiguous, and harsh, you should try to understand China's national security law.
It is the Communist Party of China (CPC) - when you cannot even get the basics right and show basic respect via language you have nothing else of value to contribute imho. Get your own house in order before pointing fingers at China, it's system or it's people. [comment split in 3 because it would not take the whole thing at once, something weird happening. ]
It may surprise you to discover that polling conducted by the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), which is anything but friendly to anything remotely like multipolarity, reveals that the Chinese population considers its country to be the most democratic nation in the world.
No surprise at all. Besides some of the people who dared not to complain at all, the bulk of them DO BELIEVE it this way. They also believe Chinese Communists lead the anti-Japan resistance and causedt he bulk of Japanese military loss in China, and that Korean War happened because USA invaded North Korea, etc.
North Korea’s perspective, the invasion was an effort to reunify a country artificially divided by external powers after Japan’s defeat in 1945. a bid for self-determination in a divided nation same as Vietnam due to interference from the USA. Typical US warmongering behind a veneer of the UNSC in the cold war. F... Japan, F... Sth Korea and F... the USA.
I agree. The driving forces behind NKA and NVA were mostly nationalism and the hope to unify. There was a slight difference, IMHO, historically Vietnam was more often split than united, and that there is a clear difference in ethnic composition. The Korea peninsula, even when it was fragmented and warring, the people were more homogenous.
I hope with all my heart China, Russia, and Nth Korea (BRICS et al) take over the entire peninsula using their nukes as self-defense and kick the Japan/US hegemonic nexus out of there forever. I see Nissan are toast - watch the dominoes as they fall in a heap
Do you use the phrase States of America United? SAU? I put it to you you know close to nothing about China bar ingrained biased zeitgeist propaganda
Well maybe your seeing a sinister intent by the CPC is a matter of your own thinking and less that of the Chinese. All states do default to self interest, that's more a human condition but history doesn't support the idea of a hegemonic imperialist China outside her borders, well other than because of Geographical constraints.
You are right about one thing: CCP is not the same as the Chinese people. Chinese people are easily moldable at the material level and can be easily westernized in a decade or two. But Chinese thoughts are deeply ingrained and not easy to change even by Chinese leaders. and I totally agree CCP itself has morphed into a suit-wearing English-eloquent party, on the surface that is. If you read only China's official English version news or governmental statistics, your understanding will be greatly off the mark. It looks like your impression cannot be clarified by reading English materials, please try to get some Chinese readings. I have multiple family members visited China, some just two months ago. I started to study CCP theory and history when I was 16 and witnessed the tail of the Cultural Revolution. The outside appearances have changed, the inside is still worse than 1949.
imho you are your own worst enemy - problem. You have learnt nothing since you were 16 yr old because you are still using the bastardized western version of CCP
I strongly disagree. Actually what most "Western Analysts" have more or less wrong opinions about China -- from my perspective of course. What has been interesting to me is that people who tend to be correct on matters related to Russia, USSR, Europe, Middle East, etc. tend to make wrong judgment of China. Looking at the typical reasons about why USA should pivot to the Pacific and turn against China and I see they picked wrong reasons and methods.
It sounds wonderful Glenn. However, even if China can bring world peace and invest in green transitions, not green energy additions, for the developing economies: any kind of economic growth, anywhere in the world, is unsustainable. Only multilateral degrowth is going to make any dent in the climate crisis, the agricultural failures and the mass migrations coming soon in the next few decades.
While agreeing with the need, I would argue that any attempt at solutions absolutely requires a stable international balance. We can buy as many electric cars as we like, against the backdrop of a mobilising military industry and the fossil fuel expenditure of arms races and open conflicts, it'll be a drop in the bucket.
Climate ignores borders, so unless we can achieve peace, we won't solve anything, but only accelerate the catastrophe
It will be a technocracy, psychocracy and scientocracy controlling biosecurity.
This is an opposite of a wonderful world.
Diversity was already the term of scientifical racists around eugenicists like Pioneer Fund. https://archive.org/details/scienceofhumandi0000lynn/mode/2up
This is a fractal repetition from old ideas 100 years ago, nothing new. Innovation as going backwards to dark times. To many of the same circles as 100 years ago are in similiar leading position.
All that is an opposite to “wonderful”. Eugenic thinking, transhumanist, technological posthumanism will never create a wonderful word.
Very interesting. I would like to know more about China's civilization initiative, and explored it a little in my substack and YouTube channel. I noted when Xi Jinping and Putin met last year or early this year (?) cultural cooperation (which includes education & science) was stressed. What are its origins in Chinese thought and traditions?
I would propose an alternative history to you, that does not accept Westphalia established a world order. Neither Russia, nor China, nor Iran nor Indian states were part of the Treaty of Westphalia after all. Four years before Westphalia the Qing succeeded the Ming dynasty. In Japan, the Tokugawa established a more enduring peace than Westphalia.
I would follow John Darwin's argument that there was a 'Eurasian equilibrium' until 1750, and that much of what people think of as the "Westphalian system" is in fact the pattern established in Europe after the Napoleonic wars and by extension of Greater Europe's empires to the world. This came with the 'invention of the West' - which defined Western civilization as the reference standard for the world.
I think this is the true breaking point represented by Russia, India, Islamic states, South East Asian states and China of civilizational diversity, including in political institutions.
Confucius says listen to a person for what he says then check what he does in reality. Despite my negative and hostile attitude toward China, I do agree with you that if China can actually achieve something for the rest of the world, then it is still a plus. So far I see China's behavior under Xi highly consistent with the traditions of the Warring Kindom period of China: diplomacy for the faraway places, military actions against the neighbors. Many of BRI projects carry imperialistic intentions although they in theory do benefit host countries. Some probably do but not reported by the Western media. Therefore, a lot of China's foreign dealings, especially for those under Xi, remains to be observed.
By the way, I don't see China as a whole being evil from hell. Not even the majority of the CCP card-carrying members. The evil is CCP institutionalizes many of the worst Chinese traditions into a system. Anyone able to rise to the top have to be bad enough, must have blood on their hands, must have participated in corruption, etc. Think the movie "Hostel II".
What China et al need, is as many guns and weapons as they can muster - and to start shooting anything that moves. It is the only solution. What is happening in Ukraine and Gaza, and Yemen, and Lebanon, and Syria, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan, Georgia, Moldova, Iran, the West Bank and inside Israel proper and North Korea, and across Africa is a sickening joke.
ENOUGH already - What you say Glen is nice in "theory" - but the USA-UK-Israel Nexus the Anglo-Saxons-Zionists are run by Psychopaths. You don't play nice with Psychopaths. You either lock them up or you kill them. No Quarter given. It's time to get real.
The whole “democracy vs autocracy” framing is a transparent sham as demonstrated by the coziness between several notorious West Asian monarchies and the Western powers.
Thanks to Glenn, China has a completely different ontological cosmology compared to the dualistic (colonial) Western tradition of a hard separation into white/black, for/against, good/bad. Central to a deeper understanding of Diesen's article is knowledge of the unique socialism with Chinese Confucian and Daoist characteristics.
If one is interested in China's geo-economic foundation and power base, i.e. China's strategic industries, transport corridors and financial instruments, I can refer to the unique and easily accessible 'Inside China Business' on YouTube
A greast article and thank you for sharing your thoughts and analysis.
My view is that between 1648 and 1948 the Westphalian System proved its weaknesses within the European sphere and those of its empires. It was a flawed systm and produced constant war and conflict, not everywhere, but there was enough tension between nation states to create imbalance, arguably culminating in WW1 which was a catastrophe for western civilisation. WW2 - again arguably - was simply round two.
I think there was a genuine attempt post WW2 to create a sane international system, but weighed down by the cold war and the baleful influence of tyhe Soviet Union. Whatever bad points the USA had - and there were many - it was infinitely better than the murderous Stalinist regime post WW2 and its less murderous successor regimes. The West was tainted by colonialism and the USA certainly supported de-colonisation. Whether this was to weaken Europe is a moot point, as by that stage the Empires were a drain not an asset.
Following the USA's victory in the Cold War there was a huge opportunity to engage with Russia and the ROW. A long term strategic plan of binding in Russia to the western system and in a mannner that respected and benefited Russia would have paid great dividends. The chance was lost over 30 years ago IMHO. The doctrine of hegemony, the US Empire and total dominance was adopted instead. Well that has worked out well...
So we now have a failing Empire, beset with internal problems, over-stretched and making enemies around the globe who are forming alliances against the USA to protect themselves from its abuse of power. To paraphrase Putin/Lavrov etc, the rules based order is not written down, no one agreed it - and taking Mr Diesen's point - really means a moral obligation to break the rules governing relations between nations - a definition that changes over time and is dependant on the caprice of whichever suit occupies the Oval Office.
I doubt very much a return to a multi-polar world where China and others are key players is going to change the arc of history all that much. Nations act in their interests, or at least their governing regimes [The EU vassal states being a notable current exception...]. Anyway, we will still have power politics, naked aggression, economic coercion and war. A world government simply means a world wide rebellion. But I live in hope that more serious people than the current crew in DC and European capitals might do a better job of regulating the worst of human nature as it applies to international relations. I am not holding my breath.
Is China the new Martin Luther?
Thank you - outstanding article
Excellent point about the essentials of the Westphalian order and its similarity to the Multipolar approach for social order. Refining the lesson of what works is no easy task I can see.
I think it shows people have no memory that doesn’t exist but in books history.
It’s a problem to consider.
Means no learning curve exists for this social creature , us.
We are not an ant nest yet, and will be never become one no matter hard our rulers try to evoke this social state through a primitive propaganda level describing our existence in the hegemony.
We are watching the alternative emerge to this social void which I find exciting .
Comes with the new social media available to anyone , anywhere.
It’s irrepressible.
I could be wrong but I think when trying to figure out a multifaceted, relatively complicated problem it’s sometimes best to keep it simple stupid, (which is summed up by the acronym KISS).
As I’ve said many times in the past, if the US had listened to the rational thinking peace activists in the 1950s and 1960s, and then to the logic of George Kennan and later John Mearsheimer we would be in a much better place. Being in a much better place would allow us to try to tackle all of the problems we all face as a species.
In my opinion, the biggest mistake we made was allowing fools to run the show. There’s no reason for me to rehash all of this stuff when all one has to do is listen closely to everything John Mearsheimer has had to say in the last few decades.
Having said that, it’s my opinion that if through very good leadership, the United States could try to get everyone to go along with having the US run the show that would be the best thing that could happen at this point.
In order to have that be successful and effective we would have to have the president of the United States speak directly to the citizens of the United States and to the world and start to do that which is honest, logical and the right thing. That person would have to try to use the power of the people (so to speak) in order to circumvent the interest groups that are counterproductive to where we need to try to be heading.
Having the US "run t he show" is what is bringing the curtain down with a crash.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t agree with you more.
But the reason you’re correct is because the US didn’t play its cards right when it had a chance.
The fact of the matter is that regardless of whether that ship has sailed, the top leaders in the US should have enough sense to talk and try to be friendly with both our friends and adversaries, instead we keep making the same mistakes…