Modern 'crisis'?

In the lecture podcast, Prof Jackson raised the question of whether we are currently in a similar ‘crisis’ to that which Carr describes. First, I think it is important to unpack what Carr sees as the crisis. On page 217 (Cox edition), he writes:

It is, however, useless to discuss these problems of power and morality in a nineteenth-century setting, as if some fortunate turn of the wheel could restore the old conditions and allow a reconstitution of the international order on something like the old lines. The real international crisis of the modern world is the final and irrevocable breakdown of the conditions which made the nineteenth-century order possible. The old order cannot be restored, and a drastic change of outlook is unavoidable.

On page 218 (Cox edition), Carr writes:

There may be other obstacles to the establishment of a new international order. But failure to recognize the fundamental character of the conflict, and the radical nature of the measures necessary to meet it, is certainly one of them.

So, as we discussed a bit in class, Carr is arguing that the ‘crisis’ of which he speaks is one of misunderstanding the international order—employing a 19th century mindset in analysis of the 20th century. He argues that the breakdown of the international order during the inter-war years was due to an improper post-WWI peace set up by the victors who paid far too much heed to the 19th century international order.

I think that there is, at least in part, a current ‘crisis’ of a similar kind in the interational system. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the bi-polar view of the international order ceased to exist not only as a reality, but also as a useful analytical tool. There was a need, therefore, for a better tool for analyzing and understanding the world. Though efforts have been made to this end (cf. Fukuyama, Huntington, et. al.), it seems as though these efforts remain unfinished, thus producing some misunderstanding about the international order.

This problem of misunderstanding/misdiagnosis has been prevalent in some of the US foreign policy decisions of the past five years (and probably in the previous decade, too). Many of the chief policymakers of the current Bush administration cut their foreign policy teeth in the Cold War, and that kind of mindset maintains influence today (cf. Manichaean/Dualistic view of the world, continued reliance on a global ‘balance of powers’ etc.).

Perhaps I am wrong in my assessment, but it seems as though there is a ‘crisis’ of misunderstanding much like Carr and his contemporaries experienced (though this ‘crisis’ seems to have ebbed since its initial outbreak). Carr’s recommendation: examine the realities of the international system and make sound academic analysis and policy decisions based on that reality. Also, make sure that those who practice foreign policy understand the nature of the world in which they live.