Last week’s debate assignment was really challenging because
it is not easy to answer the question if the international environment can be
fundamentally remade. During this week’s class we talked about what change
really means and how important it is to define what “fundamental” means in
order to address this question.
While I was doing research for the opening statement, I came
across an interview of Professor Videla at the University of Navarra in Spain.
Professor Videla points out that “the world is undergoing a fundamental change”
and that the world is going to experience a transformation over the next few
decades (IESE 2013). He thinks the world economy has already experienced significant
changes during the last few years with the rise of China as an economic power
as well as India and Brazil, and it is going to experience even more changes
over the next few years (IESE 2013). However, while for Professor Videla these
changes are fundamental changes, for others these changes are not fundamental
at all because, while the world economy changes, the international system, as
we know it, does not change.
The world has already experienced very significant changes
with the creation of the UN and its institutions as well as the creation of
regional organizations like the EU. On top of that, globalization has created
the interdependence between states. As Professor Videla points out, the
economic changes the world is going to experience over the next few decades will
lead to even more interactions between countries because “countries don’t
compete, they become more commercial” (IESE 2013).
However, I think that there will not only be more
interactions to generate more wealth between the states, but also more cooperation
between the states to address the issues that accompany globalization and
interdependence. Transnational organized crime and human trafficking, for
example, are issues that need to be addressed by all countries, which require
more cooperation. Therefore, the world will undergo more and more changes in
the future, which might lead to fundamental changes.
References
IESE. 2013. “The World is Undergoing a Fundamental Change.”
Accessed October 15, 2016. http://www.iese.edu/en/about-iese/news-media/news/2013/march/the-world-is-undergoing-a-fundamental-change
Christine,
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, and it was so helpful in class to name the challenge that we never really defined what change was. Without defining change and deciding what counted as fundamental, we ended up just talking around each other in the debate. Even if things like the EU, UN, trade deals, international security cooperation, etc. are consented to because of rational decision making, it doesn't mean that these aren't changes. And I think this is what Wendt was talking about. The system is changing based on our calculations of interest. And also what Onuf was proposing, which is that change is possible through the slow changes in rules, norms, and practice. Fundamental change won't happen in an instant, and Wendt and Onuf provide theoretical frameworks through which to see observe and interpret change over time.
Erica,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comments. I definitely agree with you that fundamental change takes a long time to happen. But that does not mean that it can't happen. As you mentioned we already have seen so many changes in the world, especially the creation of the UN and the EU, as well as the increase in cooperation between states. I think that Alexander Wendt is right: the system changes because of states' calculations of interests.
The debate was fun, but a definition of "change" and "fundamental" would have definitely helped in addressing each other's arguments.
Christine, I would argue that at a deeper level fundamental change happens only in response to states most base instinct, survival. As international unit has changed from families to tribes to city-states to nation-states, each change happened because that unit of organization could not adequately defend its people from internal or external threats. When other actors realized the new organizing system was more effective/efficient they adopted it, as you say, in response to a calculation of interests. However without that initial existential threat, no 'ground zero' change would have occurred.
ReplyDelete