Multi polar world

[myata]

From the recent conference on security in the world (February this year), here's two comments that highlight two very different approaches to international security and cooperation in this time:

#1

Republican Senator John McCain: "... must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions at home and abroad conflict fundamentally with the core values of the Euro-Atlantic democracies."

#2

Russian President's Putin spokesman Dimitry Peskov: "Until we get rid of unilateralism in international affairs, until we exclude the possibility of imposing one country's views on others, we will not have stability"

So what is the way to go forward: make partnership (and on occasion, peace and security) in relations with us (West) conditional on accepting our "core values"? Or agree that in the multi polar world no one holds special right to the truth and the relationships should be build on the grounds of non interference and mutual benefit, regardless of possible conflicts between value systems?

[M.Dancer]

From the recent conference on security in the world (February this year), here's two comments that highlight two very different approaches to international security and cooperation in this time:

#1

Republican Senator John McCain: "... must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions at home and abroad conflict fundamentally with the core values of the Euro-Atlantic democracies."

#2

Russian President's Putin spokesman Dimitry Peskov: "Until we get rid of unilateralism in international affairs, until we exclude the possibility of imposing one country's views on others, we will not have stability"

So what is the way to go forward: make partnership (and on occasion, peace and security) in relations with us (West) conditional on accepting our "core values"? Or agree that in the multi polar world no one holds special right to the truth and the relationships should be build on the grounds of non interference and mutual benefit, regardless of possible conflicts between value systems?

Given that Putin is a ruthless quasi totalitarian.....I'll take the core values of the west.

[myata]

This is not the question though. No matter what we think about others value systems, does it mean that all meaningful cooperation with them should be conditional on their accepting ours? How likely it is that this approach will be successful or more benefitial in the long run?

[M.Dancer]

This is not the question though. No matter what we think about others value systems, does it mean that all meaningful cooperation with them should be conditional on their accepting ours? How likely it is that this approach will be successful or more benefitial in the long run?

No I don't think that is the question. McCain didn't say theu must accept our beliefs, just not conflict with them.

In other words, in a merger and acquisition we should use the western approach, rather than the russian method of kidnapping the competing bidders children.

Simple, ain't it?

[M.Dancer]

This is not the question though. No matter what we think about others value systems, does it mean that all meaningful cooperation with them should be conditional on their accepting ours? How likely it is that this approach will be successful or more benefitial in the long run?

No I don't think that is the question. McCain didn't say theu must accept our beliefs, just not conflict with them.

In other words, in a merger and acquisition we should use the western approach, rather than the russian method of kidnapping the competing bidders children.

Simple, ain't it?

[myata]

With that "conflict" widely open to interpretation, I'm wondering if that is exactly what Senator McCain means.

[AshNazg]

From the recent conference on security in the world (February this year), here's two comments that highlight two very different approaches to international security and cooperation in this time:

#1

Republican Senator John McCain: "... must understand that it cannot enjoy a genuine partnership with the West so long as its actions at home and abroad conflict fundamentally with the core values of the Euro-Atlantic democracies."

#2

Russian President's Putin spokesman Dimitry Peskov: "Until we get rid of unilateralism in international affairs, until we exclude the possibility of imposing one country's views on others, we will not have stability"

So what is the way to go forward: make partnership (and on occasion, peace and security) in relations with us (West) conditional on accepting our "core values"? Or agree that in the multi polar world no one holds special right to the truth and the relationships should be build on the grounds of non interference and mutual benefit, regardless of possible conflicts between value systems?

Unfortunately the core values of the Western world are no longer adhered to by the West itself. In today's world, trying to imitate the West means trying to imitate a dying culture and a failed government system.

This Canadian is going to take his chances with the BRIC countries. Rather live in an anarchy state than in a police one.

[marcinmoka]

This Canadian is going to take his chances with the BRIC countries. Rather live in an anarchy state than in a police one.

Bon Voyage!!!!!! (Even China seems a rather *unique* destination for an Anarchist).

But yeah, feel free to e-mail me some pics from the ciudad de deus.

* At least before they shoot you for your camera*

[AshNazg]

* At least before they shoot you for your camera*

At least it'll be a quick death

Beats being tortured in g-bay.

[Higgly]

With that "conflict" widely open to interpretation, I'm wondering if that is exactly what Senator McCain means.

He means "If you're not with us, then just shut up." Sort of a diplomatic Bill O'Reilly.