I’ve begun my researching for my project on NATO’s
membership expansion in 1999 and it’s been interesting to see the intersection
of what Dr. Jackson defined as “interest”, the well-formed calculation made
against the constraints and opportunities available at the time of the decision
and what he defined as “idea”, this broader set of normative conditions that
exist between actors as part of the cultural environment.
The Parties to this
Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of
the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all
governments.
They are determined to safeguard the
freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the
principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to
promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
They are resolved to unite their
efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security.
– Washington,
D.C. , April 4, 1949
So in one paragraph, NATO is
identifying with the principles of the UN, wherein all states desire to live in
peace and security and are promoting that idea in the North Atlantic coupled
with what the signatories see as the preservation of a common heritage and the
protection of the of the Western mode of government (individual rights, democrat,
belief in the rule of law) and to do so collectively via military means if
necessary. Each country must see some
level value to their particular state within the agreement, although there are
probably as many, if not more, reasons for doing so.
At this point, I would be inclined
to assess that interests must be developed from and defined by ideas. Using
NATO as the example, NATO members are rationally joining a regional security
effort to protect and preserve the ideas they see as important. Without those
ideas, what would be the need for NATO? Why would what is now 28 countries
agree to mutually support the defense of their co-signers without an idea that they
have in common? Without the idea, there doesn't appear to be a reason to sign the treaty at all.
As my research continues, it will be interesting to see how additional information and perspectives change my thoughts, if in fact they do change.
Scott, I think you bring up a good point. Your blog shows how difficult it is to differentiate between ideas and interest. This could also lead to a bigger question if they are able truly separate theories. From what you have posted, my previous post, and our class discussion, I think ideas help formulate interests. One's culture and social norms are inherent in them. Therefore, ones norms help formulate an interest or preference.
ReplyDeleteDori, I see it as a chicken and egg scenario. Do ideas drive our interests or do our interests drive us to ideas. To some degree, you have to go back to the earliest instances of human interactions. There appears to be even at our earliest some type of cooperative interaction between humans individually and as groups. What drove that cooperation? How was it decided that they were better off together versus going it alone? It's an interesting intersection of anthropology, philosophy and political science.
ReplyDeleteNATO
ReplyDeleteScott, I find it interesting that at the individual level commonalities i.e. ideas tend to have parallel
efforts. At first glance innate “individual” principles will run on one course while others would mirror
actions and behavior leading to crossover. This individual effort falls in line with nations that by
necessity partake and therefore become members of NATO or the European Union to support a now
collective need. Although the world stage was distinct from what it is today, cooperation was the
foundational premise needed by nations to remain afloat/secure militarily and certainly economically.
Changes are soon to come in NATO’s political construct. Layton suggest this rational by articulating
Russia’s attempts change the continent’s security posture through the “Helsinki’s plus Act” which
recommends major changes to the NATO charter. I’m looking forward to the rest of your research
as I see that changes to the NATO alliance will come especially as other nations will see the value of
becoming a member especially as the internet and web base technology/discussions increases.
http://ire.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/15/0047117813507734.abstract
Greg, Thanks for bringing the "Helsinki Plus Act" to my attention. I hadn't seen anything on it. I do find it interesting that Russia, a strongly anti-NATO country and not a member, believes that they will find success in getting NATO to significantly change their charter. I know that many of the new members joined NATO in no small part to counter what they saw as undue Russian influence in their internal affairs and their overall security. I wonder to what degree this effort is for domestic Russian consumption by Putin et al and not really expecting NATO to anything different. I look forward to reading the article you linked to.
ReplyDelete