Comment by kristianc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kristianc | Hacker News Reader

The theory as stated in the OP explains everything and nothing - either you say that every country's culture is complex (duh), and that bundle of cultural identities, when taken together provides a relevant guide to how that country will act on the world stage, or you give up all claim to culture being analyzable on the grounds of its complexity.

We do talk in broad brush strokes about how overarching cultural norms impact the way countries act in a way that does seem to marry up with reality. The way the US acts does marry up with a commitment to a broadly liberal international order, underpinned by the principles of the Constitution. The UK acts in a way that is informed by its history and a respect for the rule of law. China and Russia, on the other hand, act in a way that respects individual sovereignty and the 'international order' much less.

The English school has much to say, even if you acknowledge that it may not pick up finer distinctions, and is still tied to a Westphalian view of the world (both valid criticisms)

The "international" world order isn't international. It's american. It's called the american world order ( or pax americana ). Of course we support the "international" world order more than china or russia. It was created by us to benefit us. I'm sure china, russia and every other major power would love to establish their own world order.

The talk about constitution, rule of law, etc doesn't matter ultimately. The constitution or the rule of law are just things we follow when it suits our interests. It's why we broke every treaty with native americans and committed heinous genocides against them. It's why we enslaved blacks and then treated them as second rate citizens after slavery. And how many illegal wars have we been engaged in?

All the intellectual niceties are meaningless. At the end of the day, nations act in the way that the elites ( or a sufficient number of the elites ) of the nation want them to act. Nations are created by the elites to benefit the elites.

> The "international" world order isn't international. It's american.

This is a contingent fact that's only true as of the end of WWII. The international world order was British before it was American; it was French (however partially) before it was British - and indeed, French is still an international language in diplomacy and e.g. at the UN. It still was, and is, an international order, ruled by the same sort of basic principles and norms. Of course there are some opportunistic advantages to that stewardship role, but that's all they are - advantages. Nobody would rationally want to upset the apple cart, even though they might physically be able to do so.

There was no international order before ww2. Besides, the US was easily the largest economy and arguably the greatest naval power ( matching the british empire ) for decades before ww2. The pre-ww2 era was an era of major powers ( US, british empire, russian/soviet empire, germany, japan, etc ). And even then, it was the US forcing them to accept our version of the "international order".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty

French is an offical language of the UN, but so is mandarin, arabic, russian, spanish, etc. Using your logic, the chinese, egypt, russia, etc ruled the world?

There has been one international world order. The american world order. The british empire never created one. Neither did the french, russians, chinese or arabs.

What basic principles and norms? The international world order, like all order, is ruled by the fist ( or might ). A lot of people had to die and will continue to die for "order". "Priniciples and norms" are just fluff we make up to distract from or justify the fist.

Lots of people would want to "upset the apple cart". Do you really think the chinese or the russians or even the germans or japanese or eventually the indians or any other major nation wouldn't want to be top dog?

> There was no international order before ww2.

There had been two successive world orders before WWII. The first emerged at the 1815 Congress of Vienna and ended with WWI. The second was created after WWI and ended with WWII. See this Foreign Affairs magazine article for more explanations: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2018-1...

While not a world order, a distinct international order (which GP denies existing before WW2) is usually identified stemming from the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, as well.

The congress of vienna didn't set up a world order. It was a european ( great powers ) "arrangement" at best localized to europe. Claiming that set up a world order is like saying the creation of the EU set up a world order. You could argue it created a european order, but it was in no way a world order. A world order maintained by whom? Which currency? Which legal system? Centered where? It was more of a peaceful disorder than order.

There was no world order after ww1. It was great powers building up to fight. How anyone could claim there was an international order between ww1 and ww2 is beyond me.

I've read the foreign affairs article before. It's propaganda junk like all foreign affairs articles. Foreign affairs is published by a think tank ( aka propagandists ).

Take one of it's central thesis : "The American grand strategy that emerged in this era—continental expansion and internal development combined with self-righteous aloofness from the world beyond the seas—suited a commercial republic deep in the global periphery. It could work, however, only because the United States was protected by geography and British naval supremacy. "

The idea that america was "aloof" in the 1800s is laughably false. And the idea that we depended on british naval supremacy is also patently false.

Nevermind that we fought and won against the "mighty" british in the early 1800s and essentially forced our will on them in the western hemisphere, we were also busy partaking in the opium wars in china, destroying the spanish empire in the US and abroad and forcing japan to open its ports ( something the "mighty" british couldn't get japan to do ). We became a world power in spite of the british naval supremacy, not because of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/japan_1750_perry.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adams%E2%80%93On%C3%ADs_Treaty

Reply on news.ycombinator.com