A neo-communitarian approach to international relations: Rights and the good

New communitarianism is important even to those who care little about academic disputes. A greatly altered communitarian position lays the foundation for an international legal framework that is more comprehensive than the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is more attentive to beliefs in the East, and enhances the ability of nations that adhere to different values to find common ground on policies ranging from humanitarian interventions to fighting terrorist groups. The article first examines criticisms leveled against communitarianism and then highlights the ways a neo-communitarian approach has overcome these criticisms. The question of under what circumstances one nation may interfere in the internal affairs of another, especially to advance human rights, using means as different as cross cultural moral judgments to armed humanitarian interventions, serves as a litmus test for distinguishing the new from the old communitarian approach.     

REINDUSTRIALIZATION OF AMERICA

If the United States is to sustain a fairly high level of economic growth, seven functional needs must be met: transportation, communication, power, innovation, human resources, financialbegal institutions, and capital goods. Attention to these elements amounted for the successful development of the infrastructure and the capital goods sector during America's first industrialization, roughly from the 1820s to the 1920s, providing the foundation for a strong economy able to mass-produce consumer goods and services. In the decades following World War II, however, roughly from 1950 to the late 1970s, insufficient resources were dedicated to maintaining and adapting these seven elements, and in varying degrees all but one deteriorated. The result was economic underdevelopment. For the United States to regain i t s economic vitality, steps must now be taken to serve these basic needs of economic development more effectively.     

The Global Importance of Illiberal Moderates

In contrast to the claim that the most significant fault line in contemporary global affairs is between the civilisation of the West and all others, this essay argues that the schism between those who advance their values through violence and those who rely on persuasion, both of which are present in all civilisations, is the greatest source of conflict in the post-Cold-War era. Moderates come in many stripes: some are liberal, such as Reform Jews and Social Democrats, while most others are illiberal, including many Muslim religious leaders. All moderates, however, share in common a principled rejection of violence. Polls and reports from around the world bear out that a conviction of the value of persuasion over coercion does not depend on faith in democracy or secularism. The West should ally itself with such moderates, no matter how liberal or illiberal their orientation.