This helps to account for the deep resentment for western ideology and their principals. This clash between civilization is most conspicuous between the West an Islam. Largely to with secular over religious ideal, and partly to do with Western domination of the post colonial political structuring of the Middle East. (buzman) In “The Clash of Civilizations”, Samuel Huntington argues that the old bipolar cold war model of international relations is now being replaced by a model based upon competing civilizations.
This argument moves past the notion of ethnicity to examine the growing influence of a handful of major cultures–Western, Eastern Orthodox, Latin American, Islamic, Japanese, Chinese, Hindu, and African–in current struggles across the globe. Samuel Huntington sees the West in decline and faced with a resurgent Islam and a vibrant and growing East Asia with China as possibly superpowers. He argues for a genuine new multicultural world order based upon these post Cold War realities. Furthermore the hardships that the Third World faced under the strain of the I. M.
F and World Bank economic polices had caused grave poverty within these states. Thus it is the leading rationale for issue of migration. Migration threatens the cultural fabric of the northern states. The conditions the dominate role of the north in the south and the economic polices they are forced to carry out leads to massive influxes in to the core states. The New World Order is no different to the Old World Order before the Cold War as the Old World under British hegemony was attempting to spread the doctrine of economic liberalization before their decline.
In the New World Order, the United States has taken the realm. Movement of goods, capital, and technology: and creation and international environment conducive to Americana’s democratic values are attempts to perpetuate Unpopularity. The United States is pursuing essentially the same goals and the using the same means to achieve them that it pursued in it’s post war quest preponderance, preventing multi-polar rivalries, discouraging, the rise of global hegemonies and preservation of a co-operative and healthy world economy . (christorer layne)
While the overall bipolar structure may been altered because During the cold war era, Neo realist point to the fact international politics was profoundly shaped by the bipolar competition between the United States and the Soviet Union. Waltz testifies to the anarchical condition of the international realm which imposes the accumulation of power as a systematic requirement on states.. The ordering principal of the international system is anarchic with and absence of any overarching authority regulating the behavior of nation -states towards each other.
Nation states, unlike individuals in domestic society exist in a self-help environment where the quest for survival requires them to seek security through the accretion of military power. Burchill Neo realism recognized the possibility of system change although not peaceful system change by maintaining that multipolar systems were more war prone. Peace would endure because the superpower posses nuclear weapons. Waltz argued that by 1990 bipolarity was coming to and end.
He predicted the emergence of a multipolar system with all its-associated tensions or a system that will retain some of the benefits of bi-polarity because of the presence of nuclear weapons. . In a Hobbiesian world of realism Multi polar and bi-polar systems are anarchical ,the international system is still technically anarchical because there is not enforcement authority the allegedly inescapably consequence of anarchy have been largely overcome by a complex web of institutions that govern interstate relations and provide mechanisms for resolving disputes.
These institutions reflect and help sustain a consensus in favor of consultation and compromise that mute the consequence of power imbalances among states. In course of two generations a community of nations had evolved that is bound together by the realization that national security and economic well being require close cooperation and coordination with other democratic and democratizing states. For realist states cannot escape from the predicament of anarchy the best they can do is adapt to the underlying realties of international relations.
“Through all the changes of boundaries, of social, economic and political form of economic and military activity the substance and style of international politics remain strictly constant. ” The predictive claims of realist theory rest on the assumption that states do adapt and therefor respond in similar ways to similar constraints and opportunities. A similar process in on the way in international tradition. Throughout the nineteenth and first half of the twenty-century the great powers behaved like friends. Prodded by the examples of two destructive world wars and the possibility of a third that would be fought to with nuclear weapons.
Leaders sought way to escape from the deadly consequences of self-help systems they developed and nurture supra national institutions, norms, and rules that mitigated anarchy and provided incentives for closer co-operation among states. Gradually, the industrial democracies bound themselves in a pluralistic security community. The post war experience suggest that “atomist ” or “transformational ” conception of structure is more appropriate to the study of contemporary international relations among the developed democracies.
Postwar leaders changed the structure of international relations by developing new institutions, norm and rules. The concept of evolutionary structure recognizes the possibly of change in different directions. It may be that the community of developed nations may and will become more peaceful and generates structures that encourage peaceful behavior . It is also possible that unforeseen developments could bring about the return to a self help system and the kind of behavior identified with realism (richar dned lebow)
Richard Ned Lebow challenges the applicability of the realist concepts of anarchy and polarity to the post-Cold War world. He argues that the international system is still technically anarchical because there is no enforcement authority but that the concept of anarchy offers little help in explaining the character of present-day relations among the developed democracies. Lebow argues, , that the allegedly in-escapable consequences of anarchy have been largely overcome by a complex web of multilateral institutions that govern interstate relations and provide mechanisms for resolving disputes.
These institutions reflect and help sustain a consensus in favor of consultation and compromise that mute the consequences of power imbalances among states. To the extent that the principles that govern relations among the industrial democracies come to characterize relations between them and many of the countries of the former Eastern bloc, Lebow contends, this cooperative pattern of international relations will encompass most of the developed world.
It will coexist with the more traditional, conflict-prone pattern that continues to characterize relations among other former communist states (e.g. , Yugoslavia) and many lesser developed countries and between them and the developed world Note 1: Michael W. Doyle, “Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 12 (Summer 1983): 205-35; “Part 2,” (Fall 1983); “Liberalism and World Politics,” American Political Science Review 80 (December 1986): 1151-69; Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man (New York: The Free Press, 1992); Bruce Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).