Postmodernizing IR can only end in war

The dialogue is intended to illustrate the impotence of postmodernism in international affairs. Postmodernism makes mutual understanding across cultural divides difficult, if not impossible. In so doing, it destroys inter- national dialogue and diplomacy. The postmodern rejection of universal moral principles robs us of a common humanity that may be the basis of mutual forbearance. It leaves us with no common ground, as if there is nothing that human beings from different cultural backgrounds and traditions could share. Asserting the existence of universal moral prin- ciples is not asserting anything fancy or complicated. Universal moral principles have been called "thin" as opposed to "thick." I am inclined to call them negative in the sense that they involve a universal rejection of obvious evils, iniquities, and injustices that human beings universally abhor—torture, cruelty, arbitrary power, domination, exploitation, and genocide. Without these shared principles, there can be no negotiations, compromises, or peaceful settlements of disputes. In short, there can be no diplomacy. The latter requires argument; and argument in turn means appealing to principles the legitimacy of which opponents will recognize. In the absence of these principles—I am tempted to call them sentiments—there is no common denominator that would serve as the basis for diplomacy. Where diplomacy, compromise, and mutual under- standing are impossible, the result is war. This has indeed become the normal way in which America deals with her enemies. In this way, post- modernism mimics religious sensibilities that dismiss the enemy as so evil as to be unfit for dialogue, but only for destruction, In many ways the postmodern approach to international relations is more heartless and inhumane than the most strident realpolitik. The latter tells us that international politics is a state of nature, as nasty as it is brutish, as cold as it is cruel. Every nation has as much right as it has power. So, do not expect justice where international affairs are concerned. But the realpolitik approach does not tell us that there is no such thing as justice, or that might makes right, or that those who triumph create truth and justice by their success. It does not rob us of the language we need to express the magnitude of our loss and suffering. But postmodern- ism does just that—it makes launching credible objections to the triumphant forces—be they cultural or military—futile if not impossible. This explains Said's intellectual impotence in the face of Rory's triumphant ethnocentrism.