Discussion Five: Future of International Order

We begin this fifth and final roundtable with a brief summary of the ideas we discussed in the previous four roundtables, then move into a discussion of the future of international order.  What will the world look like as we continue into the 21st century?  How will leaders respond to the inevitable shifts in state interests and in the balance of power between states?  Will our current order evolve to accomodate for and respond to these shifts without descending into violence?  We will analyze these questions with special consideration for the issues of war, integration, and scarcity.

What we see as central to the future of international order is: how will the world respond to the rise of China?  Will China’s rise remain a peaceful one?  Will China integrate into the order that the US and the western powers crafted in the wake of WWII?  How would a potential transfer of hegemonic power between the US and China play out? If it is peaceful, as we hope, it would be the first time in recent history that such a transfer of power has occurred without conflict.

Click here to listen to our final roundtable discussion.

To access the readings discussed in this podcast, click here.

Our discussion follows the following outline:

Framework for thinking about international order discussed in our seminar

1. What is new about our present condition and what is not new? Many struggles are perennial.
2. What can be changed and what cannot be changed?
3. What should be changed?
4. What should be prioritized?  What causes matter most?
5. What strategies should be employed?

In the context of China’s rise, we discuss the following questions

1. Is China’s rise new or are their similarities between China’s rise and the rise of present or former hegemonic powers?
2. Assuming China is indeed rising, can we influence the process of its rise?
3. Should we try to influence China’s rise?
4. How should we go about trying to “manage” China’s rise?  What should we prioritize?  Human rights issues?  American interests?
5. What are potential strategies for managing China’s rise so as to achieve the goals we have prioritized?

Discussion Four: State Sovereignty in the Context of International Integration

In this podcast, we discuss the importance of individual leaders and their ideas as these apply to the structure of the international order.  In particular, we discuss the ideas contained in “What Did We End the Cold War For?,” a piece written in 1996 by Mikhail Gorbachev, Margaret Thatcher, George Bush, Francois Mitterrand, and Brian Mulroney.  This piece covers a lot of ground, laying out the structure of state interests and the international system as perceived by the leaders who were instrumental in the conclusion of the Cold War.  We concentrate on these leaders’ varying conceptions of state sovereignty and self-determination, particularly as these conceptions remain relevant in the context of international integration.

Click here to listen to our fourth roundtable discussion.

To access the readings discussed in this podcast, click here.

Our discussion follows the following outline:

Leaders’ Views of State Sovereignty and Self-Determination

1. Thatcher
   1. Loyalty to the nation-state
   2. Empire is over
   3. Supported state sovereignty and self-determination so long as it aligned with British interests (ie not necessarily in the case of a unified Germany)
2. Mitterand
   1. Must protect the diverse groups that emerge after the fall of empire
   2. Need to affirm individual personality, sovereignty and rights
3. Gorbachev
   1. Sovereignty should be a gradual process and is not the be all and end all
   2. Cannot grant immediate sovereignty to all of the groups within the USSR
   3. Subjugation of sovereignty in favor of a pseudo-federalist system such as existed under the USSR positive in terms of the federation’s provision of common public goods
4. Bush
   1. Supported state sovereignty and self-determination

Context of International Integration

1. Thatcher
   1. Independent nation states operating in common markets
2. Mitterand
   1. Synthesis needed between international integration and the protection of individual groups
   2. Must create a rule of law that protects minority groups while allowing for increased integration
   3. Sovereignty for each distinct cultural group is unfeasible
3. Gorbachev
   1. Must balance our needs for international integration, global security and economic cooperation with a protection of cultural diversity and the rights of all groups