My Answers To Trend and Transformation 1

November 18, 2010

Two months of reading World Politics: Trend and Transformation, mind-boggling. I’m determined to conclude all these revised thoughts by answering all the questions raised in the last chapter. And will dedicate another post to UN issue. I deeply regret mocking on it hastily.

For the time being, the answer is yes. But that doesn’t mean it has to be this way. Through the reading process, I found a fundamental logic fallacy in mainstream realist theories. They just couldn’t get rid of the concept of statehood. They fear that deepening cooperation and globalization will harm the interests of states. But these trends don’t mean to serve the interests of states, but the interests of common people in the civil society. State or government, just like any other social organizations, when they can’t do the job they initially were meant to do, they should disappear. On the other hand, I don’t see a logic reason why there can’t be a global government above all the states, which has effective functionalities. We need state governments, why don’t we need global government. Why can’t we?

I’m more impressed by the liberal institutional approach than various realist theories.The frustrating security dilemma we today see, in my honest opinion, is a direct consequence of the current state of global anarchy. It becomes simple when imagine what happen if a country fails to protect its citizens. People would have to arm themselves all on their own. This is exactly what’s happening now on a global scale. States have to self-help to pursue their security. Unfortunately with too many independent countries, that goes into a never-ending spiral. This scheme isn’t capable to overcome the deadly defect within itself and we need a change.

State will no longer be the major actor in the future. States have to give up power gradually until a global government coordinates the competitions between regions(states) within an international legal framework.

Personally, it’s unthinkable for me that there’d be anything placed ahead of individual interests. The book tells me there was actually a time in history that people basically agreed citizens should sacrifice for national interests. It’s beyond my comprehension.

Throughout times, morality helps people understand that it maximizes personal interests to treat others the way you want others to treat you. Based on this principle, everyone today should be concerned with global interests. “Today all of us share the same air, only when we save others can we save ourselves.” Alternatively, broader definition of “individual interests” is required to fit our mind-set into the global scenario. By whatever means, global interests are vital part of every single one’s interests. And thus, certainly it should be placed ahead of national interests.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *