The WSJ recently interviewed Charles Hill, a Yale professor with an extensive background in the U.S. Foreign Service, an adviser to Kissinger and Schultz as well as the U.N.. He sees a significant shift away from the international promotion of freedom to the more traditional and ancient "spheres of influence" or "empire."
Hill sees a progression in the international behavior of peoples from "empire" (Chinese, Mughal, Persian, Roman, Mayan) to "states." In fact he can date the change: The Thirty Years War between The Holy Roman Empire and the "States", Netherlands, Sweden and France. Old allegiances were abandoned--Catholic France joined Protestant Netherlands and Sweden. The first international law philosopher, Grotius, emerged. And the Treaty of Westphalia" ended the conflict with a probably inadvertent state system. He says, "Every modern war has been fought against this international system" (i.e. "empire").
It is a view not without irony. The concept of freedom of the sea, free trade, suppression of slavery--all essential to the integrity of states--was really enforced by the navy of the British Empire. The concern for the preservation of the "self determination" of states was shunted on to NATO and the U.N. with varying success. And, of course, there have been the Americans. But recent changes have created tension. The Chinese are growing in economic power and influence. The Europeans powers have abdicated without a substitute. (Hill says it was almost as if the Europeans, so sickened by the disasters of the last century coming from them, from Europe, like colonialism, imperialism, Stalin, Marx, Lenin and Hitler, have said "..No more. We are going to be the most moral people in the world. And the Americans who have been causing all these problems with us? They represent the past, we represent the future.") So in order for the states to be maintained and the empires suppressed there must be someone or something to promote liberal democracy and international order. Historically it has been first the British Empire. Recently it has been America.
But the Americans are withdrawing too. Pressed by economic matters, led by a peculiar man, the Americans seem to be less interested in being responsible for the international status quo. These new consulate attacks present a new problem. Withdrawl is attractive. And voids are always filled.
Hill sees a progression in the international behavior of peoples from "empire" (Chinese, Mughal, Persian, Roman, Mayan) to "states." In fact he can date the change: The Thirty Years War between The Holy Roman Empire and the "States", Netherlands, Sweden and France. Old allegiances were abandoned--Catholic France joined Protestant Netherlands and Sweden. The first international law philosopher, Grotius, emerged. And the Treaty of Westphalia" ended the conflict with a probably inadvertent state system. He says, "Every modern war has been fought against this international system" (i.e. "empire").
It is a view not without irony. The concept of freedom of the sea, free trade, suppression of slavery--all essential to the integrity of states--was really enforced by the navy of the British Empire. The concern for the preservation of the "self determination" of states was shunted on to NATO and the U.N. with varying success. And, of course, there have been the Americans. But recent changes have created tension. The Chinese are growing in economic power and influence. The Europeans powers have abdicated without a substitute. (Hill says it was almost as if the Europeans, so sickened by the disasters of the last century coming from them, from Europe, like colonialism, imperialism, Stalin, Marx, Lenin and Hitler, have said "..No more. We are going to be the most moral people in the world. And the Americans who have been causing all these problems with us? They represent the past, we represent the future.") So in order for the states to be maintained and the empires suppressed there must be someone or something to promote liberal democracy and international order. Historically it has been first the British Empire. Recently it has been America.
But the Americans are withdrawing too. Pressed by economic matters, led by a peculiar man, the Americans seem to be less interested in being responsible for the international status quo. These new consulate attacks present a new problem. Withdrawl is attractive. And voids are always filled.
No comments:
Post a Comment