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 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
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 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
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…