To speak of a politico-diplomatic order is to think in terms of a set of rules that roll up the unfolding of events according to a predetermined sequence. In this sense, order means a protocol that is conceived in the abstract and recorded in the manner of an algorithm. But whereas an algorithm is used to guide the performance of a computer or a robot, a politico-diplomatic order is used to guide the behavior of human beings.
But there are differences. For
example, to a teacher in a classroom, order means one thing, whereas it means
another thing to a Speaker of the British Parliament. That is, to make sure
that a rowdy situation is not repeated, a teacher may recommend to the school
principal that the student or two who caused the breakdown in discipline should
be punished. Not so in the British Parliament. Why the difference?
The reason is that children
who go to school, do so to acquire something they don't have, which is
knowledge. When a student or two disrupt the orderly unfolding of the lesson,
they deprive the other students of what is owed to them. In legal terms, they
damage the interests of others. Thus, punishing the students who caused the
damage, would be the taking of a step towards ascertaining that justice is
done.
As to the case of rowdy
parliamentarians, they have a code of behavior they must follow. The code
defines what they cannot do, such as calling another member an SOB, for
example. Whereas in this case, the offending member is punished or even
expelled, the eruption of a general rowdiness is almost never punished even if
it can be traced to one or two individuals.
That is because, unlike the
students, the parliamentarians are not there to acquire something; they are
there to do battle on behave of their constituents. They get rough with each
other at times, but as long as they do not exceed certain limits, judged by the
Speaker of the House to have gone beyond the pale, the rowdy members are only
asked, at times forcefully, to restore order to the chamber.
These are only two examples of
how order is observed in real life. But the state of being orderly, falls on a
spectrum that ranges from the perfectly acceptable at one extreme, to the
absolutely detestable at the opposite extreme, and there are all kinds of
shades between the two. And of course, what is acceptable or detestable to one
person, may not be so to another person.
This makes it difficult to
determine how much someone has broken an existing code of behavior even if it
is done within the same culture. Now imagine how difficult it would be for a
dispute to erupt in a different culture, and you are asked to determine who is
at fault, and by how much they are at fault. Yet, this is what professor Joseph
S. Nye has tried to do in the article he wrote under the title: “Does the
International Liberal Order Have a Future?” It was published on December 28,
2020 in The National Interest.
No dispute to speak of has
erupted at this time, but it is expected that when this happens, the newly
elected President of the United States, Joe Biden, will be called upon to
intervene one way or the other. This is not something new to America; it has
been happening for at least a century.
It happened during World War
One that when Britain and Germany were fighting in Europe, American citizens of
both origins lobbied their American government to intervene and help “their
side” in the conflict. Before America could take that decision––based on the
arguments of the lobbyists––the sinking of the Lusitania off the coast of
Ireland, compelled America to intervene on the side of Britain.
In other circumstances, people
that fled their country of origin and became American citizens, lobbied their
adopted government to oppose the “old country” in every way possible so as to
help it overcome the tyrannical rule of the existing regime. This is the
situation in countries like Cuba and Iran, according to the expatriates from
these places.
And then there is the case of
Jews gathering from around the world and going to occupy Palestine, pretending
to be indigenous to the Land of Milk and Honey as the Dutch Afrikaners
pretended to be indigenous to South Africa. With this kind of confusion hitting
everyone in the face, how does the President of the United States decide
whether or not to intervene? And if yes, how and when to intervene?
There is only one way to do
this. It is called the process of elimination. You watch those that have an ax
to grind. If you see them take newly elected representatives to the Congress
behind closed doors, and “educate” them on Jewish sensitivities, or take them
to a European concentration camp, or take them to Israel, you know they are
criminally-minded blackmailing hypnotists who intend to abuse America by
corrupting its leaders. You eliminate them, or to use a modern term, you cancel
them.
This done, you tell the others to make their case public so that it can be fully debated according to the norms of civilized democracy. When they do, you make your decision, based on the outcome of the debate.