• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics


View: https://bsky.app/profile/mattgurney.bsky.social/post/3lc3sdvqtxl2t

Shearer tackled the question directly, and so perfectly that I think his answer has changed my view of the situation. It hasn't changed my opinion, but it has changed how I'm going to describe it. Here's what Shearer said (I've tidied up the quote a tiny bit for clarity, but you can watch the whole thing around the 39-minute mark of this video). For context, the panel was about the so-called "CRINKS" — China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, and the challenge they are posing to the Western alliance. I'll include Coomarasamy's question, and then show you what Shearer said that made me go "Huh."

Coomarasamy: Are we in a world now where we can't really talk about a rules-based international order, but two separate, competing ones?

Shearer: That’s a big question. I think the rules-based order, frankly, turns out to have been, in hindsight, a power-based order. It was unchallenged U.S. military power that made possible the liberal order of the last 50 years. With all its benefits for so many countries. Was the U.S. always a perfect hegemon within that system? Occasionally not. It would shift its weight around, and there were consequences from that. But overall, it worked because the United States was a relatively benign hegemon.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top