For lxx years, U.S. commentators have, past times together with large, supported the thought of a U.S.-led, rules-based international order. Yet recently, to a greater extent than together with to a greater extent than scholars together with experts, including the political scientist Graham Allison writing in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, stimulate got started dismissing it every bit a “myth.” Their declaration has to a greater extent than than academic significance: given the accelerating develop on on the institutions together with practices of the postwar gild past times politicians around the world, the thought that the organisation is to a greater extent than mythical than existent implies that the U.S. tin dismiss larn along perfectly good without it.
Yet these critiques typically conflate 3 unlike orders: the postwar institutional order, the components of that organisation that conjoin liberal values, together with the U.S.-led global armed forces gild amongst its destination of U.S. primacy. Allison rightly worries that a “surge of triumphalism” later on 1989 tempted the U.S. to overreach inwards promoting liberal values together with inwards its ambitions for primacy. But the foundational postwar gild isn’t responsible for that overreach. Allowing that gild to melt away would sacrifice possibly the greatest competitive payoff that a leading ability has ever enjoyed.
NO ACCIDENT
Allison’s thoughtful seek makes many of import points but goes incorrect inwards 3 related ways: it misreads the history of the postwar order, exaggerates its goals, together with mistakes undue U.S. global activism for the functioning of the gild itself.
Start amongst the history. Allison argues that the gild was an “unintended consequence” of the Cold War, essentially a historical accident. It emerged out of “fear” together with the pursuit of a residuum of power, non whatsoever intention to reshape the world politics. It was, he implies, e'er a realist ability catch dressed upwards every bit a agency to spread liberal values.
That is at best a one-sided portrait of a complex history. Different officials held unlike views of the gild every bit they went almost edifice it, but broadly speaking, the U.S. inwards the 1940s invested inwards the United Nations, the international merchandise regime, and
Buat lebih berguna, kongsi:
