PRINSE ÎNTRE CONCEPTELE DE GLOBALISM ȘI DE INTERES NAȚIONAL. O DILEMĂ STRATEGICĂ A SUA SAU ADAPTARE LA REALITATEA COMPLEXĂ A SEC. XXI?
CAUGHT BETWEEN „GLOBALISM” AND „NATIONAL INTEREST” CONCEPTS. AN US STRATEGIC DILEMMA, OR ADAPTING TO THE COMPLEX XXIST CENTURY REALITY?

Summary/Abstract: We are preferring to start, within the present paper, from the premise that globalisation itself represents a multi-dimensional, objective process, an intrinsic feature of the XXIst century order, seen as compulsory to be taken into account by any actor wishing to attain the global dimension (by shaping its capacities to interfere and influence the global agenda). The main US challenge during the XXIst century is, thus, to notice this objective global feature of the XXIst century world, beyond the advance of neo-westphalism (as doctrine of national interest, of nation-state centrality), as new strategic guiding line under new Trump administration. The isolationist option (as a result of a radical understanding of neo-westphalism) would produce, in our opinion, the risk that US abandon any policy and initiative of global dimension, as well as the US retreat from any agreement and project perceived as global. In this way, we appreciate that it is a clear risk that US refuse themselves any continuity as global actor, allowing, instead, the development of alternative global projects by other actors and rather, preferring to search for a place within these projects. On a contrary, the persistence of America to act as one of the capable actors, wishful to shape the global agenda, would determine implicitly, the America strategic option to remain a global player in the XXIst century changing order. In our opinion, an isolationist option for America (seen as total rejection of any form of globalism) would provoke the premises for a rejection of the whole present order in its essence, and a fundamental world re-building on the basis of other, different strategic vision. According to our opinion, it is essential to prefer a moderate strategic direction, by pledging for US continuity within the contemporary global frameworks, by offering them the opportunity to influence the global game of power, as continuity of US active behaviour as global actor. By rejecting any globalism, in the name of an absolute national interest, it would not signify an implicit rejection of globalism by other actors but, on a contrary, the major strategic opportunity for them to re-shape the world according to their patterns of globalism (as non-American kind of globalism).

• Details
• Contents