Why are some so vehemently opposed to a multilateral organization that seeks to promote international cooperation? As humanity moves into an increasingly interdependent and complex era,it is becoming clear that traditional national security predicated upon “security against” must necessarily evolve into common security, which strives to achieve “security with.”
A forum for international diplomacy to mitigate conflict among member states is a necessary step towards cooperation. What are your thoughts concerning the UN? For those of you who are opposed to the UN, how do you feel towards other international regimes, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons? Discuss.[/quote]
Because no group of humans in the history of the world have been able to benevolently cooperate even under the guise of international diplomacy or peace. Where humans are involved, you can guarantee there is going to be corruption, uncooperative actions, and clusterfucks. People do what is in their best interest for them and their own.
Western Europe after the Second World War is empirical evidence of embedded trust among nation states, which is beyond the continent cooperation you maintain has never transpired. As early as 1951, with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community, the example of post war Europe strongly contradicts your theists. It is not an an example of collective security (think alliances) , but a realization of a mature security community that has actually transcended the security paradox. You maintain that it is impossible for human communities (states) to beyond the logic of fear, while there are numerous concrete examples of cooperation, and a salient example of trust embodied in the European security community. You also make the mistake of ignoring the role the time that identity plays in formulating interests. Identities are not static and are constructed intersubjectively. In the example of Europe, once synonymous with war and Realpolitik, parallel "Is"became “we.” The development of the European security community is a remarkable event in history which profoundly and directly contradicts the fatalistic classical realism your argument is based upon. [/quote]
I’m not saying you’re wrong here, but is it really prudent to take a region so effected by significant warfare as a prime example of the point you’re trying to make?
I mean, should it not be taken with a grain of salt? Because if you remove WWII from the equation, does it still happen to this degree? If America isn’t an industrial power at the time, does it still happen to this degree? If the collective “governments” of the leftist states doesn’t have the foothold over their neighbors that it did, does it still happen?
I don’t know the answers to those questions, maybe you do, FP isn’t a strong suit of mine, but I can’t help but think those actions were a reaction and not really proactive, which doesn’t defeat your point, but rubs it with the preverbal grain of salt.