What a great class discussion we had last night!
When we were initially assigned into groups, I
wondered how we’d assume our roles and argue our points if we sometimes agreed
with the opponent? Would that necessarily be a bad thing?
Is fundamental change possible? The answer to me is
obvious, which is why it was a huge relief finding out I was in the Pro group!
But then, does that mean I do not see any actions of any states as a realist?
Not at all!
With the 44th G7 Summit coming to an end, we have
managed to polarize the rest of the world just a bit more. Well, maybe not all
of it. The question at the heart of this blog is, why are we interested in
bringing Russia back onboard? What have they done lately that earned them a
spot back in the club?
As we lash out on our allies and engage in trade wars
with them, we arrange meetings with ruthless dictators. Using the 2-by-2, it is
no mystery where we fit in, along with North Korea and Russia. After all, don’t
each of us do “what we want” and “when we want” with our hard boundaries and
autonomy? Hard and impermeable, right now we are the billiard balls in the
upper left corner of the 2-by-2.
The truth is, there are different types of
actors, and that is at the heart of the questions about change. I look forward
to exploring this further in my paper, but one thing I found interesting last
night was the discussion of definitions. Democracy, war, borders - aren’t they
all open to interpretation? In a monolithic world we would have an entirely
different discussion, but we are lucky living in the world that has seen many fundamental
changes!
No comments:
Post a Comment