Comment by tokenadult | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tokenadult | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I have an American friend (we met when we were both living overseas) who has been all over the world because he works for the international travel industry. He hasn't lived in the United States for at least a decade. If I remember correctly, he hasn't even visited the United States for at least four years. He and I have both long been skeptics about the United States Department of State and especially the Foreign Service. But after the Wikileaks release of many United States diplomatic cables, he told me that his respect for the United States Foreign Service had increased enormously. The members of the Foreign Service are actually quite astute about what a clash in values is involved in maintaining peaceful, normal diplomatic relations between their free, democratic country and many other countries around the world. Diplomatic business has to go on day by day even while countries are painfully slow in their evolution to civil liberties and representative governments.

It's funny you mention this when a lot of these cables show how the US government was pressuring the Spanish government to join NATO and more recently to legislate in favor of the American media lobby. Obviously it's both parties fault, but I don't particularly like when my country and the people who are supposed to be my representatives are constantly subject to American wishes. They are definitely polite, but their requests and intentions are as selfish as it can be.

They are operating in their own interests. I would expect Spain to also being doing this, obviously some countries hold more sway than others.

This is a common argument, that I've seen at lot here on HN as well. It boils down to "every country should act in only its own direct best interest, and assume that every other country will or should the same". If I'm not mistaken, that's called classical realism[1] by political scientists.

Now, why do things have to be this way? Are you certain that, even while we the people are perfectly capable of being nice to each other, the countries that represent us must act like immorally self-centered egoists? Why is that a justification for crap behavior?

Despite all its flaws, the EU has shown that it does not have to be this way. Countries can cooperate and look beyond their own immediate interests. I'm not saying that that's the only right way, and I'm very much not saying that the EU is doing it right, but classical realism isn't the only approach to international relations out there. Saying that something must be so "because countries should act in their own interests only" is a sloppy argument.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_in_international_relati...

>>Now, why do things have to be this way? Are you certain that, even while we the people are perfectly capable of being nice to each other, the countries that represent us must act like immorally self-centered egoists?

That is a very common opinion (yes, I'm calling you naive).

You are making an analogy between civil society (where people are nice) to states, where there is "realpolitik".

You forget that there is a violence monopoly (police etc) to keep rule of law in a society, but not between countries. Before states that enforced a violence monopoly, there were clan societies.

Simplified for clan sovieties think vikings, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan/Iraq, etc. Not so nice... in fact, you can probably do good analogues between (especially non-democratic) countries and big clans.

(Yeah, the above is a bit simplified -- democracies are e.g. quite nice as long as the opinion at home cares. The point should be clear.)

Edit: AnthonBerg, ok it was not necessary to point out that an opinion is naive. I used to have that opinion myself, so it irritates me. (I grew up reading Swedish media; stupid and simplified world view.)

You're not a state. Be polite.

Then explain the EU to me? Especially the beginnings of it? E.g. France, UK and Germany, mortal enemies for centuries, shifting focus from self-interest defense thinking to collaboration?

Or was it collaboration in defense of their self-interest? After WWII Europe was in ruin, the USA and USSR had taken over as the world powers, and the sentiment "never again" clearly had not proven to strong enough in the past. Making the same mistakes as after WWI was not an option this time.

Furthermore, Western Europe found in the USSR a common and real enemy. As Germany was divided into four (later two) parts, the power balance between France and Germany favored France at that time. That allowed for the idea of a collaboration that would connect the re-development of Germany to the development of Western-Europe as a whole. As a result, so hoped the Europeanists, France and Germany would become co-dependent to that extent that a military solution would not be in the interest of either country. To keep that balance, however, neither country could afford to annex some of the smaller countries. That would make the European idea attractive to these smaller countries.

All idealism aside, all this can be explained from a Realpolitiker point of view.

PS It has been a while I since studied International Relations and Modern History, however, so take the above more as informed speculation than historical analysis.

My point was that your argument was naive, since you did an analogy between individuals in rule-of-law societies and countries. I pointed out that there is a much better analogy.

You have nothing to say about my point, except demanding that I should explain a single example of cooperation?

And about your example: Can you first show that the cooperation isn't in the economical or political interest of the countries? (That would make it realpolitik -- in this case, it is good to be nice.) Or at least for large lobbyist groups? Or the personal interest of the ruling politicians?

If you can show that, you have a counter example. [To an argument about statistical behaviour...]

If I should suggest a more... thoughtful opinion for an idealist -- how about looking reality in the eye, then trying to organise the world, so it is in the self interest of countries to be nice and tolerant?

Start by looking up "the democratic peace theory".

And note that you can make an analogy between this and how societies went all the way from clan warfare to the welfare state. (if welfare states really are workable is another discussion that (a) also would upset an idealist and (b) I really don't know enough to have an opinion.)

<3

The problem is that USA is too big. They succeed in in their pressure. Every time smaller countries think "we'll bend this time, it's not very important and we need USA to be friendly" and this ends up USA trying to shape the world on a grand scale.

It doesn't help the world and it doesn't really help USA that much.

I know man, what you gonna do? Someone has to arm thugs like Meles Zenawi and Yoweri Museveni, might as well be us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com