still studying.
“Bismarck is thus an important model, having been able to achieve national unification without provoking adverse international reactions.”
But how long can one sustain this if national interests (successfully achieved from national unification) are at odds with other hegemonies/ sovereign states? (Assume that the nature of national interest is that it is not an egalitarian international interest (duh), and thus is self-serving). Every state’s goal is to advance national interest (being driving factor of my thesis). So how to do this without eventually provoking international reaction? Unless one is creating an autarky or imposing self-isolation (see DPRK) , it would be impossible to participate in a globalized world without tension of conflicting national/ political forces.
Assume practical working reality, requiring the participation of the state in international relations. This tension would then invariably disseminate onto a population, thus introducing/ reinforcing diversity, which requires a pluralistic response (ideally speaking). Diverging opinions, amidst efforts at pluralism, would probably create an underlying current of dissent, thus triggering the deconstruction of the national unification that has already been achieved.
So back to the question: how long can you sustain national unification without provoking other powers? (Yes, I realize difference: the process of unification vs. the state of unity) Bismarck perhaps then a model for the initial success of unification without provocation?
Hmm.
**
“Political outcomes are determined by power rather than appeals to history.”
**
To take a primarily defensive posture, yet “…growing global interests also require the projection of global power.”
**
Non-zero sum game can be delineated in four ways:
- Absolute advantage
- Comparative advantage
- Free trade
- Gains from trade
