This is a common argument, that I've seen at lot here on HN as well. It boils down to "every country should act in only its own direct best interest, and assume that every other country will or should the same". If I'm not mistaken, that's called classical realism[1] by political scientists.
Now, why do things have to be this way? Are you certain that, even while we the people are perfectly capable of being nice to each other, the countries that represent us must act like immorally self-centered egoists? Why is that a justification for crap behavior?
Despite all its flaws, the EU has shown that it does not have to be this way. Countries can cooperate and look beyond their own immediate interests. I'm not saying that that's the only right way, and I'm very much not saying that the EU is doing it right, but classical realism isn't the only approach to international relations out there. Saying that something must be so "because countries should act in their own interests only" is a sloppy argument.
>>Now, why do things have to be this way? Are you certain that, even while we the people are perfectly capable of being nice to each other, the countries that represent us must act like immorally self-centered egoists?
That is a very common opinion (yes, I'm calling you naive).
You are making an analogy between civil society (where people are nice) to states, where there is "realpolitik".
You forget that there is a violence monopoly (police etc) to keep rule of law in a society, but not between countries. Before states that enforced a violence monopoly, there were clan societies.
Simplified for clan sovieties think vikings, Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan/Iraq, etc. Not so nice... in fact, you can probably do good analogues between (especially non-democratic) countries and big clans.
(Yeah, the above is a bit simplified -- democracies are e.g. quite nice as long as the opinion at home cares. The point should be clear.)
Edit: AnthonBerg, ok it was not necessary to point out that an opinion is naive. I used to have that opinion myself, so it irritates me. (I grew up reading Swedish media; stupid and simplified world view.)
Then explain the EU to me? Especially the beginnings of it? E.g. France, UK and Germany, mortal enemies for centuries, shifting focus from self-interest defense thinking to collaboration?
Or was it collaboration in defense of their self-interest? After WWII Europe was in ruin, the USA and USSR had taken over as the world powers, and the sentiment "never again" clearly had not proven to strong enough in the past. Making the same mistakes as after WWI was not an option this time.
Furthermore, Western Europe found in the USSR a common and real enemy. As Germany was divided into four (later two) parts, the power balance between France and Germany favored France at that time. That allowed for the idea of a collaboration that would connect the re-development of Germany to the development of Western-Europe as a whole. As a result, so hoped the Europeanists, France and Germany would become co-dependent to that extent that a military solution would not be in the interest of either country. To keep that balance, however, neither country could afford to annex some of the smaller countries. That would make the European idea attractive to these smaller countries.
All idealism aside, all this can be explained from a Realpolitiker point of view.
PS It has been a while I since studied International Relations and Modern History, however, so take the above more as informed speculation than historical analysis.
My point was that your argument was naive, since you did an analogy between individuals in rule-of-law societies and countries. I pointed out that there is a much better analogy.
You have nothing to say about my point, except demanding that I should explain a single example of cooperation?
And about your example: Can you first show that the cooperation isn't in the economical or political interest of the countries? (That would make it realpolitik -- in this case, it is good to be nice.) Or at least for large lobbyist groups? Or the personal interest of the ruling politicians?
If you can show that, you have a counter example. [To an argument about statistical behaviour...]
If I should suggest a more... thoughtful opinion for an idealist -- how about looking reality in the eye, then trying to organise the world, so it is in the self interest of countries to be nice and tolerant?
Start by looking up "the democratic peace theory".
And note that you can make an analogy between this and how societies went all the way from clan warfare to the welfare state. (if welfare states really are workable is another discussion that (a) also would upset an idealist and (b) I really don't know enough to have an opinion.)
Now, why do things have to be this way? Are you certain that, even while we the people are perfectly capable of being nice to each other, the countries that represent us must act like immorally self-centered egoists? Why is that a justification for crap behavior?
Despite all its flaws, the EU has shown that it does not have to be this way. Countries can cooperate and look beyond their own immediate interests. I'm not saying that that's the only right way, and I'm very much not saying that the EU is doing it right, but classical realism isn't the only approach to international relations out there. Saying that something must be so "because countries should act in their own interests only" is a sloppy argument.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_in_international_relati...