"Now, for a different perspective..."

In my high school years leading up to my entry into college, I liked to think that I made myself a more open person.  I've certainly tried to consider opposing perspectives when making arguments to the best of my ability.  When placed on a world stage, however, where my views on whatever issue are rather inconsequential, keeping other perspectives in mind seem to fade away from the agendas of states when confronted with pressing global issues.  States, for the most part, believe that their perspective on any given situation is the correct one, and they are unequivocal in their resolve to promote that perspective among its people and others.  Consider the recent developments in the United States' moderation of the Middle East peace process.  The Israeli government insists that they're entitled to defend themselves from outside threats or forces.  Palestinians, on the other hand, feel as though their de facto sovereignty is being trampled on by the re-authorization of Israeli settlement building in the West Bank.  Two very conflicting perspectives.  Obviously there's no definitive answer in this question as to who's right or who's wrong, otherwise this issue would (probably) have been settled long ago.  But, just as evident in the article on Bretton Woods system, different perspectives on a situation can cause a disagreement to disintegrate into conflict, or even war.

As explained in the article, the undoing of the Bretton Woods system, which had essentially helped rebuild much of the war-torn world after World War II, seemed to start with differing perspectives on how the system was working.  "America felt its erstwhile allies could do more to reduce their surpluses by inflating or revaluing their currencies; the Europeans and Japanese, conversely, contended that it was the responsibility of the United States, with the world's biggest deficit, to take the first steps to correct the situation.  Both sides felt discriminated against" (6).  These views on the power of the United States in a system that, admittedly to other nations, was run by the United States, and the US dollar, began to become arguments, and soon deep rifts between nations, and soon the end of the system as a whole.  "The debate over asymmetries masked a deeper political conflict.  The postwar bargain was coming unstuck.  In the United States, concern was growing about the competitive commercial threat from Europe and Japan...Conversely, concern was growing in Europe and Japan about America's use of its privilege of liability financing - the "exorbitant privilege" (6).  So what is there to do?  Obviously different perspectives on the issue would eventually lead the system (and many other ways of thinking before it) to disaster, culminating with Nixon abdicating the US dollar from the gold standard in 1971.  Is it inevitable for such a system to work consistently when no two people or states share the exact same mindset?  We can't forget, however, that there were other suggestions in creating the Bretton Woods system following World War II.  Keynes seemed to have a different idea that wasn't expanded on much in the article; perhaps his theory could have at least lasted longer than the system that arose?  Either way, it's futile to think that there could ever be an "end" to incompatible theories.  We can only hope that, over time, the weaker and less-approved thoughts will eventually fade away, while the strong and comprehensive perspectives will prevail as we learn more about international relations and our world as a whole.

I don't want to get into a philosophy talk here, but if one perspective is deemed correct compared another, isn't that also a perspective?  A theory could be "accurate," but it all depends on who you ask.  For instance, some would argue that the US's presence in Iraq has been the accurate and correct policy, while others may argue that the decision to invade Iraq was a tactical blunder and was the wrong thing to do.  Ask someone on Wall Street whether they think the financial bailouts were an "accurate" assessment or perspective of the financial situation, and then ask a teacher if they feel the US government had a good perspective of the crisis.  Again, the perspective of situations is dependent on who is being asked.  There is no higher court to decide which perspective is correct or incorrect, at least in this country (so much as the Supreme Court has tried).

Citizens of the world, and states as the actors in the global international relations area, need to keep in mind perspectives of other peoples and other nations when crafting international policy within supranational organizations, such as with the Bretton Woods System.  Every rational theory should get its day in court, to be judged accordingly based on "accuracy."  When the strong theories remain (hopefully the strongest will survive), then can we move forward in discussing the "best" perspectives.  I feel that, given mankind's progression through history in discarding antiquated ideals and perspectives, this lofty idea is not totally out of reach.

I'll leave you with what I think is an appropriate quote from one of my favorite movies:

Badlands, 1973

"Listen to your parents and teachers.  They got a line on most things, so don't treat them like enemies. There's always a chance you could learn something.  Try to keep an open mind.  Try to understand the viewpoint of others.  Consider the minority opinion, but try to get along with the majority opinion once it's accepted.  Course Holly and I've had fun, even if it has been rushed, and... so far we're doing fine.  Hadn't got caught.  Excuse the grammar."