The Impact Of The Traumatic Events Of International Relations

Currently, the international system is in a critical period of transformation, and the international community is facing numerous challenges. Various traumatic events in history are constantly turning into real hotspots threatening international peace and stability and adding to the difficulty of the transformation. Some weak actors, due to frequent insults in history, are suspicious of and resistant to international system, which is not conducive for maintaining the stability of international system, and even more damaging for its peaceful transformation; some strong actors, after being hurt by traumatic events like the American hostage crisis in 1979, have adopted policies confronting the weak victimizers, which turns some of them into challengers of the system. Policies by major powers, as a result of traumatic events have intensified their relations so as that the necessary consensus for its transformation is not available. Therefore, it is a meaningful job to conduct a research on the rules that traumatic events have impact on international relations.Traumatic events like World War One, World War Two, the Cold War and the 9/11 produced not only material but also psychological impact. This dissertation includes all these events into one category defined as traumatic events so as to give adequate consideration to the psychological aspect of them. Neither materialists nor emotionalists could adequately explain the impact of traumatic events. Materialists presuppose human actors as like computers, which could precisely calculate the changes of power; emotionalists analogize human actors as animals, whose behaviors are completely driven by emotions. Materialists and emotionalists are at two opposite directions. Observation of the impact of traumatic events on international relations should be based on fundamental natures of human beings. That is, human behavior is motivated by cognition rather than driven by emotions. Human beings can make inferences and judgments. It is by changing the victims' modes of cognition, behavior and interaction with the external world that traumatic events do make differences. Since traumatic events usually contain information of threat, as a result, victims tend to interpret any information of the victimizers, their similars and even the whole external world as threatening because of the mechanism of cognitive consistency. Such cognition modes would further result in confrontational behaviors and spiraling of negative interactions.It is changing Americans' modes of cognition of Iran that the 1979 Iranian hostage crisis becomes a significant issue in US-Iran relations. As a product of the crisis, the US would always interpret any information about Iran as threatening: Iran has been regarded as state sponsor of international terrorism, Iran's regime as militant, Iran's decision making mechanism as irrational, Iran's nuclear program as for military purposes, Iran's capturing British pilots as hostage crisis. Logically, the US has adopted policies such as economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation and military threatenings, which pushed Iran's support for Hamas, Hizbollah, and Iraqi shiite militias in response. The Iranian threat, to a great extent, is a self-fulfilling prophecy.The pattern that the hostage crisis affects US-Iran relations could also be applied for analyzing other traumatic events. The modes of cognition as a result of western colonialists' invasions, conquerings and exploitations in Africa are still obstacles in the development of relations between Africa and western developed countries and newly rising market economies like China, and are even negative on the interaction between them and the international system. The US modes of cognition based on terrorism represented by the 9/11 will in a rather long time play a substantial role in its decision-making regarding the Islamic world and interactions between the two. The Cold War Mentality, heritage of the Cold War, has greatly contributed to the current US-Russian strategic conflicts, and the US policy toward China - a combination of precaution and containment, and will have a shaping role in the future global geopolitical structure.The dissertation has three conclusions: firstly, the way traumatic events like war and terrorist events affect international relations lies in changing the victims' modes of cognition, behaviors and interactions with the external world; secondly, victim mentality not only might cause mishandlings in diplomacy, but, together with other factors, could also shape international geopolitical configuration and set international agendas, and even lead to global disasters like World War Two. Full and comprehensive interactions, channel for sending more information, is vital and not replaceable in brigding reconciliation.