The paradigm that lost its way

Abstract

For those who call for a change in our approach to international relations ecause they doubt the capacity of the existing system to handle the problems hat lie ahead, the ‘paradigm’ they are seeking to ‘shift’ is usually some image of realism, that dates from Westphalia and beyond. Fortunately, the paradigm that actually shaped Western foreign policy behaviour in the last 50 years or so was a product of circumstances and personalities in the 1945–53 period that generated attitudes and behaviour patterns that became entrenched during the Cold War. In relation to the complex problems that face the international community, this national security paradigm is increasingly dysfunctional. However, because it comprises ‘attitudes’ rather than rules for action, and is non‐deterministic, we should find it easier to devise an alternative, more functional paradigm and to engineer the necessary shift. The historical review that comprises the bulk of this article describes the genesis of the paradigm and how the patterns of behaviour and underlying beliefs and attitudes became entrenched in Western foreign policy. Fleshing out the characteristics of the existing paradigm suggests an alternative approach to international relations, but the importance and feasibility of engineering the necessary shift will be argued in a subsequent article in the January 2002 issue of International Affairs

Explaining and responding to the Ebola epidemic

“…While we seemingly value freedom, human rights, progress based on reason, human dignity, democracy, competitiveness in free markets and economic growth, selective strategies and power relations have distorted the application of these concepts [ 16 - 18 ]. Notable contributions to these distortions and our unstable predicament include an almost unwavering belief in flawed economic dogma (until very recently), an extravagant sense of entitlement to endless consumption and acceptance of the ‘justice of deserved privilege.’…”

Lessons for Health From Insights into Environmental Crises

“…57 MccGwire has argued convincingly that a paradigm shift is necessary because times and threats have changed-and that successful transformation will be possible only if attitudes about relationships, diplomacy, power, and security can be reshaped. 58 In his view, the current paradigm emphasizes relationships characterized by exclusion, confrontation, domination, and enmity; diplomacy that is adversarial, intransigent, unilateral, vengeful, and exploitative; power that is used to maintain superiority through compulsion and punishment; and ideas of security that are based on inequality, deterrence, coercion, and national interests. He proposes that achieving the new paradigm will require shifts toward relationships characterized by inclusion, de´tente, and engagement; a form of diplomacy that is cooperative, compromising, multilateral, magnanimous, and reciprocal; new attitudes to power that would foster persuasion and reward; and security at an international level pursued through reassurance and cooperation on a global scale.…”

Paradigm Shifts, South African Defence Policy and the South African National Defence Force: From Here to Where?

“…MccGwire, (2001) drawing upon the work of Steinbruner (2000) and Rogers (2000), proposes an international system based upon co-operative engagement and consent to meet the challenges of a future security environment. 21 MccGwire premises his argument upon the notion that the current and dominant paradigm of exclusionary national security is no longer valid and begs replacement. He emphasises that future types of conflict and instability will not be sufficiently addressed by merely reconfiguring military forces geared for rapid deployments and long-range strikes.…”