Session 16: Rags to riches

This piece gives a fantastic insight into the way capitalism rose and became popular amongst the populace; it explains in a methodical manner the way the system progressed, developed and finally became flawed.

Immanuel Wallerstein brushes upon the point that countries have a dwindling supply of raw materials and thus have to open up their horizons to ensure that their production mechanism is not hampered. This is the very reason East India Company was established in 1600 to soak up resources from sub-continent and squeeze them into England which ultimately helped them in the industrial revolution and established them as the regional hegemons of the era.  And just as the author had stated, the large scale manufacturing created an urban proletariat that subsequently nurtured a desire to improve their living conditions, pressing for greater rights and disturbing the stability of the state through the formation of trade unions and socialist parties. This meant that the Europeans had to let go of their colonies to redistribute their surpluses to allow for a smooth operation of the country.

As opposed to this notion, Marxism believes that capitalism is highly flawed since it contradicts the very principles that lay the foundations for it.  Immanuel beautifully sums this in the following words; “Short-run maximization of profit requires maximizing the withdrawal of surpluses from immediate consumption of the majority, in the long run the continued production of surplus requires a mass demand which can only be created by redistributing the surplus withdrawn”.

However, contrary to the beliefs of the author, I advocate for capitalism since it has practically proven itself as a system that has gained popular support and sustained the numerous challenges during its development. An example of powerful capitalist state would be of US that has left no stone unturned to make certain that it claims the throne of international hegemon. In a nutshell, capitalism despite its inherent flaws is a more viable system than communism. 

As U.S. and Iran Seek Nuclear Deal, Saudi Arabia Makes Its Own Moves

David Kirkpatrick, As U.S. and Iran Seek Nuclear Deal, Saudi Arabia Makes Its Own Moves, 3-30-15
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/world/middleeast/saudis-make-own-moves-as-us-and-iran-talk.html?_r=0

AEC Dream's Failure 'Still A Success'

Anthony Fensom, AEC Dream's Failure 'Still A Success', The Diplomat, 3-28-15
http://thediplomat.com/2015/03/aec-dreams-failure-still-a-success

Session 15: Liberalism & The Leaning Tower of Peace.

Michael Doyle’s paper on liberalism is an interesting one. Where we see many theorists either completely against Liberalism, and or completely in support of it. Michael Doyle’s takes the road in between, he does not argue that the only path that mankind has to follow if it needs to attain peace is Liberalism, in fact the notion of eternal world peace is subtly disqualified in his arguments, he rather constructs his arguments through the examination of three different Liberal theorists, Schumpeter, Machiavelli and Kant and tries to persuade the reader towards accepting Liberalism as a “better path”. The first theorist that Doyle discusses, Michael Schumpeter argues in favor of liberal Pacifism, his arguments dignify the liberal states as propagators of peace. Schumpeter identifies Democratic capitalism as the central cause of the peaceful nature of Liberal states, however Doyle argues against him, through the presentation of works like J.D Singer, in showing how Democratic Capitalism or the mere existence of Liberal States is not solely sufficient to dignify Liberalism as a Peaceful Ideology. Next, Doyle takes up a theorist who argues much to the contrary; Machiavelli’s theory of Liberal imperialism identifies the freedom of a republic as a necessity for imperial expansion. He argues that a liberal state should employ measures to control the recklessness of the masses which if left on its own would result in a collapse of the state if threatened by foreign conflict. Liberal Imperialism is rather sufficiently supported by historical empirical evidence. Kant’s Liberal Internationalism focuses on the bigger picture, he argues that the behavior of states cannot be studied in isolation and thus the nature of the states and their systematic relations have to be studied simultaneously if we are to conclude liberalism as a rather peaceful ideology. Doyle explains how Kant’s ideology is perhaps a more accurate representation of a liberalist view on International relations, he says that “Unlike Machiavelli’s republics, Kant’s republics are capable of achieving peace among themselves because they exercise democratic caution and are capable of appreciating the international rights of foreign republics”. Conclusively Doyle’s paper does not highlight the Liberalist ideology as the only road towards peace, but what he does highlight are theories that are a step towards its attainment, which I think is sufficient foundation for a more thorough framework.

Session 15 - Institutionalist Theory

The article "The promise of Institutionalist Theory" by Robert Keohane and Lisa Martin is a response by the authors to Mearsheimer's critique of the institutionalist theory as well as his view of realism. The article also talks about the promising future of the Institutionalist theory as well as the many new dimensions that it shows which are yet to be tested against the empirical evidence.

The article notes that Mearsheimer does not believe in the importance of institutions. Infact, his prediction that European Council which is now the European Union and NATO will loose their importance in the future given the threat of Russia is taken out does not even come close to the reality as they are stronger than ever.

Moreover, the authors believe that realism as advocated by Mearsheimer is vague in the sense that it does not specify under what conditions it holds true. In contrast, the institutionalist theory lays down the conditions under which it becomes applicable.

The article stresses the importance of institutions in the international system. It questions the realist view that states will only create and invest in such institutions if they are able to see the advantages that such institutions will provide them and if they see their gains to be greater than those of others. And they will opt out of such institutions if their gains are not clear.

In my view, the realist perspective is too pessimistic and current international scenario also does not validate this view with EU being the perfect example. The fact that many countries have sought its membership and its membership has actually grown lends intitutionalist theory credibility while negating the realist view.

Session 15: #Liberalism #Peace #Critique

Michael W. Doyle believes that liberalism translates into peace and therefore states should promote it. Liberal pacifism, liberal imperialism and liberal internationalism are the three types of liberalism perspectives discussed by the author. Though I agree with some of his points, but there are certain claims which are hard for me to accept.

The writer claims that war machines which are initially made to maintain peace in a country end up taking control over the state. He backs his argument by giving the example of ancient Egypt army. It was created to drive out Hyksos from Egypt but ended up taking control over the state. A similar situation is experienced Pakistan, where the army has intervened in the state businesses several times. However, he also claims that capitalism and democracy are forces for peace. He does a fairly good job of explaining the ways in which the combination can lead to harmony, but fails to give concrete examples which can back his argument. Also, capitalism suggest that production continues for which resources are required. And the mere desire to acquire more resources compels the states to go to war. Then how can capitalism act as a shield against war?

Moreover, Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin talks about Institutionalist theory and highlights the erroneous belief behind realism. Afterwards, they point out the work of Mearsheimer with regards to realism pointing out how his earlier works have contradicted his later contributions. They do a fairly good job critiquing it but fail to acknowledge that a person’s beliefs and ideas can be molded with time. Amidst all the realism discussion, the point regarding NATO interested me the most. Mearsheimer believed that “institutions have no independent effect on state behaviour” and stated that the balance of power had succeeded in preventing the third world war and not the institutions. Though, I have not further delved into the topic but it was something that caught my eye and I would like to investigate.

Liberal Internationalism - A wolf in sheep's clothes?

In his 1986 piece entitled ‘Liberalism and World Politics’, Michael W. Doyle talks about the elements of liberalism that encourage and discourage states from going to war. He analyses three facets of liberalism; liberal pacifism, liberal imperialism and liberal internationalism. He introduces the explanations of these three through the eyes of three political theorists; Schumpeter, Machiavelli and Immanuel Kant.

Schumpeter talks about liberal pacifism in which he argues that a liberalist mix of capitalism and democracy will be the ultimate deterrent for war. Doyle aligns these views with those of Ronald Reagan; economic interdependence and a true democracy will promote wide ranging peaceful  interests rather than the war mongering of a few. Most of Schumpeter’s arguments are based on imperialism being the complete antithesis of capitalist democracies. He talks about the three reasons behind imperialism and how they encourage war and strife in the international system. The first reason is the concept of the war machine which raises the classic ‘who will guard the guards’  paradox as described earlier by Plato and Juvenal. Armies are created to end wars but in order to continue their own life, armies will also influence the state to pursue more wars through imperialism. Another is the inherent warlike disposition of states and the international system. Last and most important for Schumpeter is export monopolism. States pursue imperialistic goals for economic reasons to expand their markets. Capitalist democracies want peace because it is the interest of the state to focus on economic profit rather than war making, even though sometimes it is the same thing.

Machiavelli on the other hand argues that republics are best suited to expanding their influence. He has a very classical realist perspective in some ways. He does not believe in a completely democratic state but instead argues for a mixed state that has all the social equality and liberties of a democracy but not in the traditional way. He believed in a Roman system where the consuls served as executive kings, the senate as a bureaucracy and the assembly as a source of strength. It is a threadbare version of the modern system of checks and balances whereby the consuls threaten with tyranny and the masses threaten with their veto power. Free citizens show strength by equipping large armies and providing soldiers for national glory through expansion. Political survival is only guaranteed through expansion of power.

Liberal internationalism as presented by Kant is an explanation of Kant’s theory of growing peace among liberal states which signaled a coming ‘perpetual peace’. A burgeoning ‘pacific union’, said Kant, is proof that liberal states are the true champions of peace in the international system. Liberalist states usually side with each other when all-out war breaks out but they have a tendency to wage war against bellicose and undemocratic states. Kant argues that this is usually when the non-liberal states pose a certain threat or outwardly display aggression, even though liberal states like Britain were openly pursuing expansionist wars till the 20^th century. The three definitive articles of peace that will widen the pacific union and lead to the eventual  perpetual peace are a theory presented by Kant as a vital condition for international peace. The first article states that the state should be republican in its ideals; this guarantees the rights of its citizens and provides a system of checks and balances that helps prevent wars. The second article posits that the pacific union will guarantee the rights of its members and this will maintain peace. The third article says that a cosmopolitan law among this union will ensure that no state oversteps its bounds. Kant argues that the international system needs a teleology; a specific goal oriented outlook for there to ever be a hope for peace. International law adds a guarantee of respect for the rights of all the liberal states. Furthermore, asocial sociability creates a need for men to come together and leads to the formation of republican governments to make the peace. Interference in other countries will require an executive free from checks and balances.

Doyle’s article is very well-structured and he presents good arguments for liberalist policies to create even a modicum of peace. However, the lack of original ideas makes the impeccable structure thoroughly uninteresting and  highlights rather than distracts from the gaping holes in liberalist pacifism and internationalism. These holes, such as the aggressive interventionist policies of the United States in the late 90s and onwards, as well as British colonial expansion, present a starkly different view to liberalism and its apparently pacifist nature. The presence of any original arguments for these ideologies makes liberalism a hard pill to swallow. 

Session 15- Instituions

Robert Koehane and Lisa Martin in this week’s reading highlight the growing importance of institutionalization and criticize some of the Realist views that exist in the international system. Institutions in their eyes are seen as an imperative mechanism that has its roots dug deep into the essence of the international system. While there maybe many loopholes and flaws in their efficient functioning, institutions can be effective in curbing anarchy and war in the international sphere.

While we have continuously spoken about anarchy in the international system, what many don’t realize that states are self centered and self interested, for them their survival is the primary aim. States are egoistic creatures in the international system and they will never be ready to bow down to another state. In times like this, the dire need of the situation are institutions, who can act as the over arching bodies to ensure that there is peace and harmony in the international system. There exists a certain amount of interdependence between states, whether it is strategic or economic, states base their actions and are involved in a convoluted relationship with many other states. This is when institutions come in the play their role of highlighting the interdependence and showing the positive aspects of the institutionalization. Similarly, through the help of institutions, all states can find out about the true intentions of the other states. If not completely, they will have a certain idea about the views, standings and the capabilities of certain states, thus this is another positive aspect of institutions in the international arena which many fail to register to. Thus it is safe to conclude, that through efficient functioning of institutions, peace and harmony can exist in the international system.

Session 15 - Kant the pragmatic one.

Kant’s Liberal Internationalism talks about the concept of liberal democracy, and even though it sounded a bit too simplistic, as he did not take into account many practical flaws present in the international sphere when it comes to institutionalization, he aptly paints a picture of the international system which we can say exists today. Kant needs to be lauded for his efforts to break away from the omnipresent concept of war and anarchy. Even though Doyle in his article put forwards the views of Schumpter’s liberal pacifism and Machiavelli’s liberal imperialism, Kant’s theory for me personally stands out as being more rational and pragmatic.

One of the main assumptions of his theory was that liberal states maintain peace amongst them but are likely to engage in war against non liberal states. This shows the realistic and the pragmatic nature with which Kant handles the delicate issue or war in the international arena. What really makes sense in his argument is that like the other extreme Liberal theorists, who call human nature peace love and paint a very rosy picture of the world, and claim that the chances of war are unlikely and there exists a constant harmony in the world, Kant does not support this absurdity, but rather he brings into view the distinction between liberal and non liberal states and how if you belong in the latter, you can still get involved in war.  Thus through his views, he does claim that there are chances of peace in the world, compared to the Realists we had constantly been studying about who continue crying about anarchy and war in the international system. Kant moves from that view and gives us a view that peace and war can exist in the system together. This differentiation between non-liberal and liberal states and its ripple effects shows that even though states can maintain peace and harmony, there does exist chances of war with the opposing nations.

Session 15: Institutions as the harbingers of peace?

What is particularly striking is the fact that realism has been received by American policy makers with much hostility as demonstrated by the authors of "The Promise of Institutionalist Theory". By critiquing John Mersheimer's Realist dissertations made in the 1990's, Robert Koehane and Lisa Martin have identified the logical fallacies in "realism" which ultimately reiterate the importance of institutions in the political, economic and military spheres.

One of the most important assumptions made is regarding the idea that "States are rational egoists operating in a world in which agreements cannot be hierarchically enforced and that institutionlists only expect interstate cooperation to occur if states have common interests". Looking through the lens of Realism, how would the authors reconcile with the reality that the UN in fact is an institution which does operate within a system of hierarchy and, since its very inception, has been giving the stronger nations relatively more power than the others. William Easterly in his book "The White Man's Burden" highlights the hierarchical mechanism present within institutions making the UN, EU, WHO the "Planners" that have been unsuccessful in implementing poverty alleviation policies. Therefore, it would not be completely correct to credit institutions as the harbingers of peace, but rather to recognize their significance as those entities that disseminate information as Koehane and Martin have suggested throughout the course of their article. However, again reassessing the credibility and efficiency of institutions all around the world, it would be better to adopt Mearsheimer's realist stance and to view institutions with a degree of skepticism since information has always been and will always be asymmetrical given the security dilemma. For example, the roots of the Cold War lie in the information asymmetry espoused by the institutions and State agencies at the time. 

The idea that the Cold War and every other security dilemma can be alleviated if the State puts faith in institutions forms the basis of the articles argument which seems a little idealistic given historical evidence. Authors critique Mearsheimer's "loophole" which asserts institutions are only limited to the political and economics spheres. Further extending the debate, Koehane and Martin suggest that institutionalist theory becomes more applicable when the states are economically interdependent because of which they need to coordinate to maintain an equilibrium. Here institutions act as the "constructed focal points" which actually enable trade and make reciprocity the linchpin upon which good foreign policy is fostered. This seems like a more tangible perspective but given the tone of the article, the authors are perhaps overstating the importance of institutions.

Koehane and Martin identify that "Realisms insistence that institutions have only a marginal effect" makes it difficult to understand why there are so many international economic, political and military institutions which nations put their faith in. Their take on the existence of institutions like NATO, EU and GATT is that "coercive cooperation" is plausible because of the collective action these institutes endorse which makes it possible to impose sanctions as in the case of the Falklands War. The thought this article aims to leave us with is the idea that if we were to put faith in institutions and reassess Mearsheimer's realist perspective, we would be able to coordinate peace - a thought that is hard to fathom given the economic, political and military asymmetry in the world. However, the idea that one should elicit from this article is that if realists were to recognize the importance of institutions in more than just the political and economic sphere, it would be beneficial. 

Liberalism and Peace

Liberal theories proposed by different philosophers has provided us with a holistic view of the characteristics of a purely liberal state. For that it is important to understand what exactly liberalism is. Liberalism is most commonly characterized by values of liberty and equality, An interesting dimension studied under liberalism is its involvement with war. Many argue that states use the principles of liberalism to hide their actual intentions and explain agression through liberal reasons. Come to think of it, if the United states is such a liberal state, then how will it explain their involment in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the United states was such a true believer in the principles of freedom of speecg, equality etc. then techinically it had no right invading these countries especially Iraq. However it just not about wars, United states continued attempts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons is just another example how they do not believe in equality. One could however obviously argue that it is necessary to maintain peace, but that still does not  give United States the right to sanction states looking to develop nuclear weapons.

Another interesting fact which can be seen through certain examples is that liberal states promote peace with other liberal states. United states strongest allies mostly infact are liberal states while on the other hand the two major wars mentioned above have been against non-liberal ones, But the question then arises that how effective is liberalism. It is somewhat  evident that liberal states might not be able to co-exist with non-liberal states which can be a dangerous scenario in the international arena. That leaves me with only one question in mind at the moment. Is liberalism a good enough school of thought?

Session 16: Will Marxism really win over Capitalism?

In “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System”,  Immanuel Wallerstein talks about Marxist ideology and how certain problems in the capitalist system will ultimately lead to its fall. Considering this paper was written in 1974 while the largest of communist countries, the USSR saw its demise in 1989 at the end of the cold war gives insight into how the conclusion of two clashing “world-systems” was unpredictable. Marxist ideology is a means of analysing societies, focusing on class distinction and social conflict whereas; communism is the applied form of this idea.

However, the author believes that there are three stages of development before a country can reach the idealist communist structure of government. These include a post-revolutionary government, a socialist state and ultimately, communism. Therefore, some scholars are of the opinion that USSR was never really an ideal form of communism but could be seen as a country striving under Marxist ideology which lends some veracity to the content of this paper, especially with the rise of China into the International power dynamics.

Currently, China is not only economically sound but, it is also building up its military in order to compete with major world powers such as the US. Hence, there is great apprehension throughout the world, among democratic nations in particular about the rise in power of a communist state. This leaves open the possibility of “future demise of the world capitalist system” as even capitalist systems are not flawless.

However, the author also points out that the struggle for Marxism “will never end”. Does this mean that it is not really possible to attain a government or economy run by Marx’s principles? Furthermore, his emphasis is on the economic aspect of both systems under discussion while the political system has not been discussed as much, both of which are greatly intertwined. 

Session 15: A Different Path.

In 1995, the famous political scientist, John J. Mearsheimer wrote an article named, ‘The False Promise of International Institutions’, which basically highlighted the strengths of realism and the weaknesses of liberal institutionalism. In response to this piece of writing, another article was published in the same year co-authored by Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin. This article is called ‘The Promise of Institutionalist Theory’. The authors have based their entire writing criticizing the Mearsheimer’s argument and defending the liberal institutionalism theory.

Keohane and Martin have negated Mearsheimer’s argument that states must remain in constant restlessness assuming that other states are conspiring against them, which ultimately leads to the concept of security dilemma. Unlike realism, liberal institutionalism does not place emphasis on factors such as military capabilities and security issues. The two authors have shunned down the theory of relative gains of power and have argued that absolute power should be considered instead.

Moreover, the authors have given the examples of international organizations such as the European Union and the United Nation, which focus mainly on soft power instead of hard power. These organizations are mainly based on rules and norms that help govern the interaction between the state and non-state actors. Issues such as human rights or protecting the environment are discussed and this leads to the non-state actors being brought back into the world affairs.

Liberal institutionalism focuses on the role that states play in the international arena and like realism, it acknowledges that the international system is anarchic in nature and that sovereignty is still of utmost importance. However, there are other major differences and political scientists have debated over these differences for decades. Supporters of liberal institutionalism claim that it can be tested against ‘real evidence’ and it takes into account domestic politics and outside players. Globalization has had a major impact on the international relations and we will further dissect this school of thought in the upcoming sessions seeing how liberal institutionalism has played its role in world politics and how it will further shape the international society.​

Session 15: Liberal Democracy = Peace?

Peace. It is the ever elusive destination; the big question in the sphere of international relations. For long, scholars have tried to come up with mechanisms for peace. Michael Doyle provides a good literature review in his piece titled, 'Liberalism and World Politics'. For Immanuel Kant, the recipe for peace is liberal democracy. He argues that liberal democracies have established a state of peace among themselves because they find it far more beneficial to do so in accordance to their capitalistic and ideologically liberal nature. He presents fair evidence for this which is quite convincing. However what makes Kant’s theory stand out from other liberal peace theorists like Schumpeter and Machiavelli, is Kant’s recognition that this peace only exists between liberal states while against non liberal states, liberal states remains just as war like as any other.  In my opinion, this assertion is the most relevant in world politics today.

Let’s take the example of the United States of America. It’s the most powerful liberal democracy in the world. It is interesting to note how many wars the US has fought over the years to liberate people of other countries from tyranny of their autocratic leaders. This is exactly what Kant has predicted. How a liberal state like America has used liberal values as the reason for waging of wars. Examples include the Korean, Vietnamese as well as the recent Iraqi war. But this liberal rationale is more often than not just an excuse used to justify wars, rather than being the actual reason. The US mostly fights wars because of its own interests in various areas. An interesting look at US foreign policy in regards to its relations according to regime types of countries and other factors is attached below.

Kant also argues that “liberal states assume that non liberal states, which do not rest on free consent, are not just. Because non liberal governments are in a state of aggression with their own people, their foreign relations become for liberal government deeply suspect.” Nowadays this is very aptly applicable to the relations between China and most of the liberal world. The rise of China has buzzed many alarms and the Chinese still suffer from a bad reputation due to their domestic authoritarian rule, so China remains on the ‘suspect list’ of many liberal countries. Even in the study of international relations, China has become a great case study for prediction on how peaceful it’s further rise will be. This in turn has coloured foreign relations of many liberal democracies with China, with whom they are willing to trade but still have a deep seated suspicion towards. Whether it leads to war one day remains to be seen.

In conclusion this piece by Michael Doyle was interesting to read because it does try to provide recipes for peace, which has been something that I have been looking forward to discovering and exploring. Kant’s theory was the most interesting to study but still the problem of non liberal states remains and in my opinion, even though Kant recognizes this problem, it felt like it was not given much importance because today this remains the biggest cause of war and to think that one day all these non liberal states will transform to liberal states still seems like a long shot and thus perhaps there needs to be exploration of other mechanisms for ensuring peace which encompass and directly challenge this problem.

Will Pakistan join forces with Saudis to fight the rebels in Yemen and reinstate its previous government?

Saudi Arabia has aided Pakistan, especially Nawaz Sharif's government, in many ways and also during difficult times. Provision of weapons and oil grants and the list goes on. Will Sharif and Pakistan return the favor?  What backlash will Pakistan expect ones it decides to join in this fight against the rebels in Yemen? If this fight isn't stopped from spreading in the entire Middle East, like if Iran, Iraq and Russia also decide to join in and help the rebels, then I believe that Pakistan could suffer severe consequences. Best bet would be if Pakistan plays the role of promoting peace talks between Saudis and the rebels Yemeni rebels and bring them on one table to sort out this conflict. 

Make-up Blog: The Individual or the Crowd?

I've come across two philosophers that recognize the need of a plan for mankind and then propose their solutions or plans. The first that I came across was Immanuel Kant and the other being the great madman Nietzsche. Kant in his “Idea of a Universal History of Mankind from a Cosmopolitan Point of View” states that nature has a great pedestal in store for man, but that man should earn it in order to fully appreciate whence he reaches there. Kant then classifies all that is happening whether good or bad, as a culmination of processes that will lead man towards his pedestal; call it a kind of building up and learning from errors method. He then proposes that in order for man to reach his pedestal he must first succeed in attaining a ‘perfect civic constitution’; wherein there is justice for all. Don’t quote me on this, but I think in Kant’s opinion this could have been achieved by the ‘league of nations’. By the league of nations Kant did not mean an overarching government, but rather a union wherein the states retain their sovereignty and treat those from other states with respect.

On the other hand Nietzsche talks about how when subjectivity arises; as we see after the world war 2, that this leads to Nihilism and consequently the death of the society. For Nietzsche the ‘death of God’ meant the absence of a central moral authority due to which ultimately the society would crumble. The meaning and implication of Nietzsche’s work cannot be reproduced here. However, the interested can visit ( https://spursinn.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/nietzsche-and-nihilism/ ) for a brief and better understanding. Nietzsche’s solution was then for humanity to strive towards making the Ubermensch. Ubermensch, in essence is the last man whom would be transcendent than the rest and would provide the world with moral values.

My understanding of Nietzsche is very weak, but in my opinion the difference between his and Kant’s solution is that whereas Kant focuses on making a league or a collective organization; Nietzsche stresses the individual and believes that it would be the best solution for humanity to strive towards. That is striving towards creating the Ubermensch. I know at this point all of this is very confusing. However, the point I’m trying to make is whether the solution is in the herd or the individual. It’s kind of democracy vs Plato’s philosopher king.

Make up blog posted on behalf of Sana Navi : Another Great Debate

In ‘Another Great Debate’, Hans Morgenthau attempts to segregate morality and politics by focusing on the foreign policy of the United States and more specifically on the the illusion of pacifism projected to the American public by the government.

A realist assessment of foreign policy is impossible without the mention of notions such as self-interest, which in turn dictate the actions of states. Morgenthau is of the view that every political action is meant to either display or increase power though the means of achieving these goals may vary according to the prevailing international structure. Foreign aggression was far more acceptable and in fact was a vital cog in the medieval structure where empire building through outright conquering was the norm. However the manifestation of an aggressive foreign policy can no longer be considered as a viable option for a hegemon in the post World War era and hence the tactics used by the United States to maintain it’s position as hegemon have evolved. This evolution could be seen even in the Cold War era where the US used other states as proxies for their liberal democratic ideals against the Communist roots being planted by the Soviet Union.

The liberal democratic ideology preached by the United States continues to be at the core of the international system in modern times. With a neo liberal economic model to boot, the US has managed to fashion the global political arena to it’s own liking which can perhaps provide an explanation for why it is now capable of packaging self interested actions as humanitarian attempts to achieve peace. The invasion of Iraq for example could be presented to the American citizens as a necessary measure to rid the occupied country of the dictator who posed a risk to American national security, though the real motives behind this action could have been related to resource exploitation.

Make up Blog: The Security Dilemma

 Robert Jervis and John Hertz have both touched upon the idea of whether the security dilemma can ever be solved and have tried to decipher what leads nations into this web of insecurity. The idea that Robert Jervis wants us to elicit from this article is the fact that the security dilemma will always be a prevalent issue because States are inherently conditioned to indulge in a system of state-making, war-making and protection. Similar to how humans are naturally selfish, states too are a conglomerated reflection of human nature which makes them perpetual war inciting entities.

The concepts that Robert Jervis presents in the article depict the policy making mechanisms within a State and he identifies the primary causality of the security dilemma to be the unwillingness of every State to disarm and their natural instinct towards non-compliance. States have their own interests at stake which they pursue at the expense of other nations because the nature of the world has an underlying sense of Darwanism. Defensive Realists state that more than power its about security and maintaining a status-quo, however drawing tangents from the reading on "The Cult of The Offensive", it is suggested that rather than being its main aim, Germany's main scapegoat was the security dilemma. This example takes on the perspective that the security dilemma is perhaps an important aim but not the most important aim of every nation.

Robert Jervis also highlights the idea that there is an inherent lack of trust which plays into why there is an existing security dilemma and it is perhaps too idealistic to assume that it can be solved especially since every nation has this preexisting condition of 'Prisoners Dilemma' which means that there can rarely ever be a win-win situation. The outcome of the entire debate reaches this consensus that maybe the security dilemma can be solved through economic interdependence. The China v.s the United States is an apt example of the Security Dilemma which somehow highlights the idea that states can compete whilst simultaneously engaging in trade and economic alliances. 

Make Up Post

This post will be expounding upon the concept of the term ‘legitimacy’ in relation to the state and the international system drawing from Milner’s The Assumption of Anarchy.  In political science and international relations legitimacy is defined as the belief that a certain ruler or institution has the right to govern. This definition suggests that the individual is not a mere passive creature. This is also evident in how as Milner argued there are more civil wars today then international wars. The belief that states cannot maintain authority without legitimacy hence is quite true. 

Now how is this legitimacy established by the states? Political legitimacy is essential to maintain authority within a state or within any relationship. Without this acceptance/approval of a certain institution there is very little chance that the institution would be able to perform. There are several ways a state establishes legitimacy domestically one of them is popular support was the reason that legitimized Hitler’s regime and that is the case with most regimes around the world. Without this civil wars ensue. The Arab Spring and various other revolutions are tantamount to the importance of recognized legitimacy. With a government that is considered legitimate there is a strong assumption that with it comes  social order which in turn leads to peace. 

Would it be possible to have an international government? Now due to the assumption of anarchy in the system, some argue that if there is an international institution that can govern the actions of the states we might be able to achieve peace. However, the government according to Weber is ‘the use of legitimate force’ thus can an international institution gain legitimacy in the international realm? One can say that the United Nations has to some extent been recognized as a legitimate international institution. Yet there have been major UN violations and a general discontent with it’s action (and in some instances it’s inaction) Moreover, the UN is not an international government. An international government in my opinion and of many others I assume, would never be able to gain legitimacy as it contradicts with the idea of state sovereignty. However, that leads to another question. Why are individuals ready to give up their sovereignty to a state government? There are various differing perspectives on why this is so. Some might say that it is not giving up their sovereignty but it’s a way to protect it. But then why won’t states in the international realm consider this course of action? For now I’ll end with these questions hoping by the end of this course I’ll have the answers to them.

Make up post: 'Balance of Power'

In, ‘The Balance of Power: Prescription, Concept or Propaganda?’, E Haas  attempts to showcase the multitude of definitions regarding the aforementioned concept through the lenses of eight separate authors. In this sense the piece is essentially an explanation rather than a critique, yet the clarification is valuable in its own right considering the confusion that surrounds the balance of power theory.

Some of the authors that Haas mentions include Quincy Wright, and Hans Morgenthau. Wright discusses the theory by dividing it into two parts: static, which is the general balance that exists in the prevailing system and dynamic, which describes the events that ensure the system remains static. Haas uses the explanations of other authors to come up with his own list of the functions and meanings of the concept including as peace and stability, war and instability and as propaganda. Unfortunately, in his quest to be as thorough as possible the authors leaves a confusing mess in his wake with far too many uses and definitions being thrown about.

The concept of balance of power can be considered interesting due the very multifaceted nature that Haas is attempting to decipher. Perhaps so many definitions exist precisely because the theory has significant scope and a higher degree of applicability to real world scenarios. It’s use as propaganda can be found in innumerable instances including a case discussed in class regarding Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel’s campaign to alert the world about the imminent nuclear weapon that Middle eastern countries including previously Iraq and now Iran are allegedly on the verge of possessing; a devastating campaign that has continued for a decade and led to conflicts and embargoes despite no weapon emerging.