The Ethos of Global Intervention

Despite presence in world of a great many particularist movements that would split societies into smaller units, there is also a powerful drive toward consolidation, powered primarily by an international leadership that has adopted an ethos of meliorism. In effect, philosophy is that everyone's business is our business. Important voices in United States have expressed a desire for some constraints, but even these have called for a wide scope of world intervention. All of is very much at odds with traditional American foreign policy that prevailed until 1898. Now that Cold War is over, author says, it is time for a serious reexamination of premises underlying both new and traditional policies. Key Words: International affairs, American foreign policy, world intervention, meliorism, culture. Powerful opposing forces - some centrifugal and others centripetal - are contending for preeminence in world today. In their recent book Beyond Westphalia?: State Sovereignty and International Intervention, Thomas Weiss and arat Chopra interpret as a continuation of anti-colonial breakup that followed World War II: decolonization process that began in Africa and Asia continues not only in former Soviet empire but also within newly independent states, as ethnic particularism and subnationalism surface....1 They would almost certainly agree, however, that fragmentation goes far beyond what can be attributed directly to breakup of earlier colonial system. A centrifugal flying-apart into fragments occurs in movements that in many places passionately seek local autonomy, often even secession from larger entity to which they have belonged. A short list of areas in which local peoples are asserting themselves in a great many parts of world would include United Kingsom, Spain, Corsica, Italy, Balkans, Russian Federation, Canada, Sri Lanka, Kashmir, southern Mexico, Indonesia, Philippines and many parts of Africa. The centripetal tendency, on other hand, leads toward consolidation. It entails an all-encompassing outlook that is premised implicitly on assumption that everybody's business is world's business, and presumes a proper role for policing and social welfare. Historian David Callahan speaks of an project as a whole that is backed by liberal internationalist opinion.2 The past century has seen growth - even though unevenly and with much interruption - of a global community. It often holds definite opinions about what is right and wrong, and is willing to take action to mold world, as best it can, in direction it finds desirable. Cultural historian Samuel P. Huntington says the term 'universal civilization' is used to speak of the assumptions, values, and doctrines currently held by many people in Western civilization and by some people in other civilizations. He suggests that this might be called Culture. The name comes from a very tangible presence: Each year about a thousand businessmen, bankers, government officials, intellectuals, and journalists from scores of countries meet in World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Huntington tells how Davos people control virtually all international institutions, many of world's governments, and bulk of world's economic and military capabilities.3 The meeting is, of course, just most recent sign of a consensus that has long existed among (and here I use elite in a neutral sense that denotes those in professional classes who hold most prominent positions). The name Davos Culture is useful, but consensus is much older and more expansive than could possibly be suggested from a single annual gathering. Even those who point to influence of Tri-Lateral Commission or Council of Foreign Relations, which are essentially parts of what Huntington is referring to with his term, are speaking too narrowly. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.