CONFLICT AND COOPERATION

THE narrative everywhere. In Richard Dawkins asserted that we are genetically predisposed to conflict; that we are not biologically inclined to be cooperative. Cooperation is nurture; so “let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish,” he argued. In literature, conflict is one of the fundamental elements of a story. The key aspect of storytelling that keeps audiences interested.

Conflict is also the hegemonic narrative in the study of international relations. Accordingly, “international affairs are seen as a sum of activities of nations as they try to safeguard their respective interests and enhance their power positions in the world while engaging in negotiations and preparing for possible clashes of interest,” historian Akira Iriye pointed out in of conflict is

But just like any hegemony, this too invites resistance.

Using the narrative of cooperation, Iriye tells another story about 20th century world affairs. The themes are order, connection, and interdependence. The main actors are not sovereign states but international organizations. Their activities create “an alternative world, one that is not identical with the sum of sovereign states and nations.” A world that is not falling apart but gathering together. Gathering to form a global community, “a wider world over and above separate states and national societies, and that individuals and groups, no matter where they are, share certain interests and concerns in that wider world.”

Iriye fills the void in scholarly historical research on international organizations. By taking a transnational and historical approach, Iriye succeeds in highlighting their role in shaping the world. His work encourages us to regard modern world history beyond the conflict paradigm of international relations, and to read that history through a narrative of cooperation.

Iriye focuses on two types of international organizations: intergovernmental organizations and international nongovernment organizations. The former are established by nations and their government representatives; the latter, by private individuals and groups. Iriye excludes private

for military purpose, and for religious reasons – except those whose activities have a strong secular component. Furthermore, Iriye restricts focus to international organizations dealing with these activities: humanitarian relief, cultural exchange, peace and disarmament, developmental assistance, human rights, and environmentalism. His limits organizations for manageability and feasibility reasons; while the six areas were chosen because

- affairs.” ence in international Comprehensiveness is not the main goal, he says, “but to illustrate the roles that international organizations play in shaping the contemporary world.”

However, it’s not really international organizations that are the main protagonists in this story. They only perform a supporting role to an intangible force: global consciousness, which Iriye uses interchangeably with internationalism, its ideological form.

Global consciousness is global community in idea form. It is the awareness of shared interests, objectives, and commitments. A necessary condition, Iriye asserts, for the proliferation of international organizations and their expanding activities. International organizations, he continues, are its “institutional form.”

Global consciousness becomes more alive through the activities and proliferation of international organizations. More international organizations mean more transnational networks. In turn, the more transnational networks there are, the more the global community takes shape. Iriye pursues this series of consequences as he moves from chapter to chapter, progressing from decade to decade. Each decade shows global community in its different shapes, reflecting the quantity and level of integration of transnational networks.

Focusing on the role of international organizations provides a new way of seeing the world. As the unit of analysis, international organizations allow us to see the world not just as an arena of the will to power but also of the will to cooperate. But we must avoid romanticizing the latter and fully demonizing the former. Cooperation is not always admirable. The success of war, genocide, ethnic cleansing, mass rape, torture, environmental degradation and other atrocious acts require people’s cooperation.

Like power, cooperation is an instrument. Its ends are determined by its users. Both the will to power and will to cooperate need to be directed by conscience in order for them to be redirected to the common welfare of humanity. This implicates the need for a global conscience, and this implies standardization of moral reference.

Nonetheless, this standardization also rouses conflict because individual, cultural, religious, and national consciences differ. Now, even if ends are agreed — such as human rights — the varied means of interpreting and achieving them provokes a clash. This brings us back to a state of conflict. Is there a way out of this?

We need another kind of will to prevent us from being stuck in conflict; otherwise it might lead to a violent resolution. I will call this the will to coexist. The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer expressed this will in its individualist form, the will to live, which is the motivation to survive. The will to coexist, is still expressed by the individual. However, this time it’s not just the motivation to survive but the motivation to survive together with others.