[FONT="]Richard Devetak argues that the future is no longer conceptualized within the parameters set by past experience; rather, the future is seen as a horizon which can be shaped by forces and ideas yet to be experienced (1995, 31). He argues that future is a horizon which can be shaped by forces of the futures. He failed to further explain what kind and type of forces will shape future horizon and how these forces will born and which factors will shape and influence these forces. Political, social and economic events of the past had shaped humans societies for thousands years and it will shape humans thinking, belief, and actions in the future as well. Religions, traditions, norms, and cultures shaped human societies and it will continue shape human societies in the future. In last two centuries humans experienced extraordinary modernity in materialistic terms, but mentally humans still trapped in past. In some countries like European countries and in the US people faith in religious values decreased, but their belief in nationalism and other values such as freedom and democracy increased. Today, many scholars, politicians and experts around the world, especially scholars of liberal academic institutions advocate global community and global culture. They think global community is a solution for all human problems and argue global values will reduce or even eliminate socioeconomic and sociopolitical problems. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Devetak, argues, there is a strong sense that modernity is preparing the way for a great political body of the future, without precedent in past (1995, 31). However, these scholars failed to mention characteristics of the future political body and also failed to mention who will manage, control and run future political body. Not to mention which laws, norms and values will constitute the future political body. They might argue that this body will be managed by the new global values, culture and law. Are the new global value, culture and norms going to be the combination of existing values, cultures and traditions or the emergence of a new culture? If it is a combination of existing values and cultures then which of the current values and tradition will dominate the new culture, but if the new culture is totally a new culture then how it could be a new culture, while it still constitute by same people (humans) who were the sole owners of the old culture. Historical events and development shows that no matter how modern a human society become it still hold traditional values, norms and culture that make them different than others. These differences create us and them attitude and divides human societies in different parts and sections. [/FONT]
[FONT="]For example, today, in Palestine both Israel and Palestinians are modern, but this modernity still not sufficient enough to bridge difference between the two communities. People in the West, especially people in Europe and in the United States are modern, but their point of view is different towards different people. For example statistical data shows that Americans are less sensitive to acquisition of American firms by European nationals, but they are very sensitive when an Arab company purchases an American firm. Devetak failed to mention these differences in people point of view and to explain how this will affect and shape future horizon. The author quoted Kant who believes that human continuously progress morally. However, conservatives will disagree and will argue that human became polluted and changed the definition of morality to justify changes in the social doctrine. The question here shouldnt be how human moved from savage and lawless freedom towards civilization, but the question should be, if a human society can tolerant another human society despite religion, cultural and political differences. Thinkers of modernity believe that homogeneity in human societies will increase tolerance and will reduce conflict among humans. This theory is same as the liberal theory which believes liberal democracies around the world will promote peace because sisters democracies dont fight each others. [/FONT]
[FONT="]To me this theory is the main source of the current conflict between the West and the Muslim world. The United States and its core allies in Europe believe liberal democratic values are the solution for all socioeconomic and sociopolitical problems in the Muslim world. On the other hand majority of Muslim believe modernity and liberal values destroys their traditional values and culture. This mistrust and deviation in solution to problems in the Muslim world created tension and mistrust between the two communities (civilizations). If all the factors that constitute and manifest tension and mistrust between these two civilizations remain the same which probably will, then what kind of global body that will promote a global community the author is talking about? The theory of modernity is same as new liberal order which states that states will become less important in international affairs vis--vis international institutions and non-governmental organizations. It is true that International Organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, Immensity International, Red Cross and other organizations became more active and their influence increased at the international level, but we still far away from a stage in which people will think of themselves as global citizens rather than a citizen of a state. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Nationalism and the tendency of us against them is the fundamental aspect of human nature and will continue to be like that in future. International organizations are doing great job in promoting peace, stability and economic growth, but these international organizations depend on nation-states for fund and personals. This dependency makes these organizations an instrument of influence for rich countries. The United States has great influence on international organizations because the United States is a number one contributor to the UN in terms of money and resources. The biggest obstacle towards adopting a new theory of conducting foreign relations is rich countries like the United States not poor countries like Nepal. For all the above reasons mentioned here this paper states with substantial confidence that national interests will dominate and determine foreign policy decisions of almost all nation-states in the future. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Devetak, argues, there is a strong sense that modernity is preparing the way for a great political body of the future, without precedent in past (1995, 31). However, these scholars failed to mention characteristics of the future political body and also failed to mention who will manage, control and run future political body. Not to mention which laws, norms and values will constitute the future political body. They might argue that this body will be managed by the new global values, culture and law. Are the new global value, culture and norms going to be the combination of existing values, cultures and traditions or the emergence of a new culture? If it is a combination of existing values and cultures then which of the current values and tradition will dominate the new culture, but if the new culture is totally a new culture then how it could be a new culture, while it still constitute by same people (humans) who were the sole owners of the old culture. Historical events and development shows that no matter how modern a human society become it still hold traditional values, norms and culture that make them different than others. These differences create us and them attitude and divides human societies in different parts and sections. [/FONT]
[FONT="]For example, today, in Palestine both Israel and Palestinians are modern, but this modernity still not sufficient enough to bridge difference between the two communities. People in the West, especially people in Europe and in the United States are modern, but their point of view is different towards different people. For example statistical data shows that Americans are less sensitive to acquisition of American firms by European nationals, but they are very sensitive when an Arab company purchases an American firm. Devetak failed to mention these differences in people point of view and to explain how this will affect and shape future horizon. The author quoted Kant who believes that human continuously progress morally. However, conservatives will disagree and will argue that human became polluted and changed the definition of morality to justify changes in the social doctrine. The question here shouldnt be how human moved from savage and lawless freedom towards civilization, but the question should be, if a human society can tolerant another human society despite religion, cultural and political differences. Thinkers of modernity believe that homogeneity in human societies will increase tolerance and will reduce conflict among humans. This theory is same as the liberal theory which believes liberal democracies around the world will promote peace because sisters democracies dont fight each others. [/FONT]
[FONT="]To me this theory is the main source of the current conflict between the West and the Muslim world. The United States and its core allies in Europe believe liberal democratic values are the solution for all socioeconomic and sociopolitical problems in the Muslim world. On the other hand majority of Muslim believe modernity and liberal values destroys their traditional values and culture. This mistrust and deviation in solution to problems in the Muslim world created tension and mistrust between the two communities (civilizations). If all the factors that constitute and manifest tension and mistrust between these two civilizations remain the same which probably will, then what kind of global body that will promote a global community the author is talking about? The theory of modernity is same as new liberal order which states that states will become less important in international affairs vis--vis international institutions and non-governmental organizations. It is true that International Organizations such as the United Nations, European Union, Immensity International, Red Cross and other organizations became more active and their influence increased at the international level, but we still far away from a stage in which people will think of themselves as global citizens rather than a citizen of a state. [/FONT]
[FONT="]Nationalism and the tendency of us against them is the fundamental aspect of human nature and will continue to be like that in future. International organizations are doing great job in promoting peace, stability and economic growth, but these international organizations depend on nation-states for fund and personals. This dependency makes these organizations an instrument of influence for rich countries. The United States has great influence on international organizations because the United States is a number one contributor to the UN in terms of money and resources. The biggest obstacle towards adopting a new theory of conducting foreign relations is rich countries like the United States not poor countries like Nepal. For all the above reasons mentioned here this paper states with substantial confidence that national interests will dominate and determine foreign policy decisions of almost all nation-states in the future. [/FONT]
