The Extent To Which States can Cooperate - Essay Example

The Extent To Which s can Cooperate Number Department Outline A. Introduction B. Cordial Cooperation Between or Among States C. Of Failed Cooperation among States D. The Extent to Which States Can Cooperate E. Conclusion Introduction State relations are fluid and can either be hostile or peaceful. On June 27th, 1914, the entire world was relatively peaceful, but the next day, on June 28th 1914, the assassination of the Archduke of Austria, Franz Ferdinand and his wife immediately polarized the world along the Allied and the Central forces, in the build up to the World War I. In respect to this fluidity, there are many factors that shape the nature of interstate relations in the diplomatic world. While others may cite historical and cultural heritage, the restrictions of international law as for instance enshrined in the United Nations (UN) Charter, economic and political goals and the quest for military might, many political scientists maintain that the cardinal rule in international relations is interests. On the other hand, there are others who use theories of international relations and diplomacy to explain the events and their patterns, which take place within the auspices of the international or diplomatic society, with these theories being mainly realism, liberalism, neo-liberalism and constructivism. Liberalism on the other hand has come to have many strands, of which neo-liberalism and liberal institutionalism are the widest known. This paper therefore takes to analyse how liberalism and neo-liberalism shape the extent and nature of interstate cooperation. According to Dobra (2010: 91), on one hand, liberalism is an ideology that acknowledges plurality among state actors as a reality. On the other hand, neo-liberalism refers to the remodelled version of liberalism, which calls for continued and more profound abstinence of the government from intervening, restricting or defining economic actors in the area of international politics. Therefore, the extent to which a state may cooperate in international politics largely depends on the theory that a state has adopted in international relations and its interests. However, as touching ideologies, social constructivism seem to attract states to participate more and readily in international relations and politics, as compared to realism, liberalism and neo-liberalism. Cooperation between States It must also be noted that according to Hoffmann (2009: 245), constructivism has come up as an alternative to the shortcomings of Realism, liberalism and neo-liberalism. Some of the thinkers in international relations and politics such as Michael Barnett see social constructivism as being occupied with the manner in which ideas construct international structure, the manner in which such structures the identities and interests of these states, and the manner in which states and non-state entities act to produce this structure. Constructivists see international relations as being underpinned and defined by tenable and persuasive ideas, social ideas, forces of acculturation and collective values. Against this backdrop, there are many who have championed for the triumphing of constructivism in international relations over ideals such as realism, liberalism and neo-liberalism. Many relations exist between or among states in the international arena and can be seen to have been underpinned by ideals of constructivism. In the first place, it is important to note that the era in which states started to cooperate among themselves does not only date back to as far as when the concept of a state was realised, but also expressly convey elements of constructivism. One can clearly see the manner in which the French Revolution (1789-1799) set off precedence towards cordial interstate cooperation. Seeking to maintain the balance of power; to restore legitimacy of rule; and to quash the revolutionary spirit from suffusing into the rest of Europe, the Concert of Europe was formed among Prussia, Britain, the Russian Empire and Austria. The movers and shakers of this Concert of Europe which was also known as the Metternich System or the Treaty of Westphalia were Lord Castlereagh, Tsar Alexander I and Chancellor Klemens von Metternich. According to Scheuerman (2009: 570), it is this above Congress System that would midwife many treaties up to the Berlin Conference and become revamped into the League of Nations, which was formed in 1919. Another instance in which interstate relations can be seen to have cordial or cooperative relationship is exemplified in the formation of Israel as a state. In May 1948, member states of the United Nations (UN) unanimously and successfully passed votes in favour of the creation of the State of Israel. The state of Israel would be created on May 14th, 1948. In like manner, through the Cold War era, interstate cooperation was exemplified in close-knit relationships that existed between states that were bound to the socialist Soviet Union by the Warsaw Pact and those that were allied to the pro-capitalist United States by the NATO pact or the Truman Doctrine. Jackson, Thaddeus and Daniel (2009: 920) emphasise that in the instance above, it is easy to see the reality of social constructivism coming into play. In the first place, the social construction is seen in the fact that the movers and shakers of the Metternich System were being moved by the notion that in order for socio-political stability to remain in Europe, the incumbent ruling class had to remain in power. The collectivism of their values is also seen in the manner in which they met, discussed and voted on their values. For instance, as an extension of the Congress System, the Berlin Conference had member states totally convinced in socio-cultural atavism, or the idea that European culture and tradition was the best and most refined to be inculcated into Africa through colonialism. There are others such as Cox and O’Neil (2008: 210) who try to counter the pulling effects of social constructivism by advancing the ideals of liberalism. Cox and O’Neil (2008: 212) maintains that one of the factors that thrust liberalism into the international limelight is its ability to allow for pluralism in international relations, and thereby, the ushering in of a more sober and less tense diplomatic atmosphere that comes as a result of interstate competitiveness and interests. For instance, in the events that took shape in Libya starting from February 24th, 2011 up to October 20th, 2011, neoliberal ideals seem to have prevailed. This is because, the Allies exacted the form of intervention into the Libyan Revolution but solely through another party, that is not a state- NATO. It is most obvious that the adoption of the neoliberal approach through NATO as a way of countering the brutal use of force by Qaddafi’s antirevolutionary forces was intended to assuage assertions and accusations of neo-colonialism by Qaddafi’s fighters, against the intervention by America and her Allies. The absence of realism and the presence of neo-liberalism in this instance are made express by the fact that the external actor on the Libyan Civil War was a non-state entity, NATO. Actually, political scientists such as Rosenow (2009: 500) classify this as a form of neoliberal institutionalism, since neoliberal institutionalism not only allows for political pluralism in international relations, but also sees international organisations (IGOs) as the conduits and agents through which a more stable and peaceful world order can be forged. Just like Nia and Mahdi (2010: 175), Scheuerman (2009: 566) also asserts the importance of liberalism by equating it to the most objective vehicle that can be used to harness state interests across the international spectrum. Particularly, Scheuerman (2009: 567) remains poignant that NATO similarly has seen many countries come to foster cooperation in international politics. Initially, this interstate cooperation among USA, France, Canada, Britain, Benelux, Iceland, Denmark, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Norway was mainly fostered so as to counter the spread of communism at the height of the Cold War. At the time, all these states had been conjoined together since April 4th, 1949, with the aim of advancing political, economic and military interests that were concomitant with capitalism, democracy and the interests of the US. The same development was in force among Albania, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland and East Germany who were members of the Warsaw Pact Treaty. All these members of the Warsaw Pact Treaty were adherent to the larger pursuits of the USSR in ensuring that capitalist ideals do not spread into the rest of Europe, especially in Eastern Europe. In a separate wavelength, Doyle (1986: 56) argues that from the above, the place of neo-liberal institutionalism can be seen in the existence, organisation and the operations of the EU. This is because, neo-liberalism is seen by Doyle and his intellectual proteges as the most feasible and tenable. At the heart of the matter, liberalism has it that the preferences of a state should be the chief determinant of the behaviour of that state, as opposed to the capabilities of that state. Not only does liberalism allow for plurality as an option to state-actors as the sole players in international relations, but it also considers the importance of low politics (engagement through organizational, commercial or/ and individual entities) alongside high politics (matters pertinent to politics and security). EU maintains the state-centred approach, while also leaving a room for pluralism as a non-state actor. Its state-centred aspect is seen in the fact that European Union is a conglomeration of 28 countries. At the same time, the aspect of neoliberal institutionalism is seen in the fact that EU is a supranational or exists as a supra-state entity. In this light, in the event that EU is disbursing financial (funds, grants or loans) and economic (advice) values to the Less Developed Countries (LDCs), it does so as a non-state actor, or a supranational entity. Van De Haar (2009: 37) waxes polemical that the implications of subscribing to the political dictates of EU by the member states have been seen to harbour far greater implications. For instance, both member and non-member states of the EU that are within the Schengen Area have had to totally abolish passport controls. This has been done with the main intention of ensuring that, all member and surrounding states allow and sustain free movement of capital, goods, services and people, and to consolidate common trade policies. Member states have also had to ensure the enactment of common agricultural, fishing and regional economic goals. These states have had to coalesce together into a monetary union known as the euro-zone, which was in turn founded in 1999. All the states in EU ascribe to the common security and foreign policies, which both modify foreign relations and defence measures. In the same wavelength, it is notable that the EU remains represented in all the spheres of regional and international politics such as the G20, the G8, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the UN. Thus, Waltz (1979: 54) cites liberalism as the best approach by maintaining that it allows working for absolute gains such as world peace and global economic stability through interdependence and cooperation. This interdependence can be seen in the coordination among members of the EU. However, even in the face of all these allegations, one can see the glaring pitfalls of liberalism and neo-liberalism on one hand, and the benevolence of social constructivism. The shortcomings of liberalism and neo-liberalism are seen in the fact that both of them remain unable to tackle the issues that have come up, especially after the 1990s and the dawn of the 21st century. This is because, neo-liberalism, liberalism and neo-realism concentrated on cooperating and solving conflicts which arose as implications of the Cold War. On the other hand, even after the Fall of Communism and the dissolution of the Cold War, the entire globe is still beset by globally-distributed phenomena such as terrorism, the disregard and infringement of human rights, rampant poverty, diseases, ignorance and serious environmental degradation. Herein is the strength of social constructivism seen, since it is when the underpinnings of social identities, collective and cultural values, and persuasive and informed ideas are put together that a definitive, structural and functional approach to these problems can be realised. The Failure to Foster State Cooperation in International Relations Nonetheless, it is not always that states will cooperate as is always wished. The dynamics of state cooperation is well epitomised in the considerable failures that were in, or have been extant in the League of Nations and the Kyoto Protocol, respectively. Largely, the objectives of the League of Nations and the Kyoto Protocol have been undermined because of overlapping with state interests. Young (2010: 47) postulates that fundamentally, the failure to adopt liberalism as an approach to international relation among the members of the League of Nations was the IGO’s own Achilles heel. This is because, this failure prevailed on policies being formed to the effect that only states could be actors in international relations. The gravity behind this failure is that with the absence of neo-liberalism, there were no non-state actors to moderate state interests that were also extant in the League of Nations. For instance, the League of Nations lacked a third party that could enforce sanctions against errand members, and thereby leaving its policies less binding. It is for this same reason that Japan and Italy openly defied the policies therein, and eventually made an exit. The absence of neoliberal approach in the League is underscored by the absence of instruments of coercion to tame bigger states. While the League had become very successful in bringing smaller countries into capitulation by 1922, other powerful states like Japan, Italy and Germany felt too important and powerful, and ultimately defied the League. Indeed, these countries went unpunished for their recalcitrance. Britain and France on the other hand stayed in the League but betrayed its policies. The failure to incorporate non-state actors as part of a neoliberal approach to international relations also led to the failure to curtail interstate competition within the League. This interstate competition was aggravated by the economic Depression that took place within the interwar period. This Great Depression compelled states in a cutthroat competition over power and land. The downside of this development is that member states in the League became worried about how to consolidate their wealth and power, in lieu of concerns about world peace (Donnelly, 2000: 231). To Mulligan (2010: 140), the same failures above have been seen to have accosted the Kyoto Protocol, which was formed in December 11th, 1997. The failure to adopt neo-liberalism is also seen to have nurtured competitiveness of member states, through the negation of non-state actors or pluralism. Despite the fact that the US has been the world’s chief polluter and emitter of greenhouse gases, it has never implemented the frameworks of Kyoto Protocol. Likewise, China, India, Indonesia and other countries reputed for being large-scale polluters have never had the power to take action over defiant states. According to Cozette (2008: 99), the following of state constructivism can also be seen to undermine the goals of Kyoto Protocol. At the intrastate level, the citizen and bureaucrats generally feel that the state exists to secure the interests of the nation. This ‘we feeling’ among citizens and state actors at many times has left a state feeling that it can achieve its goals, irrespective of international treaties. It is for this reason that other heavy polluters such as Australia have never entered the Kyoto Treaty, thereby leaving the US alone therein. This trend breeds the spirit of dissent, as great polluters feel cheated that they have to make restitution for their large-scale pollution and emission of greenhouse gases, yet there are other non-members who are equally contributors to pollution but are left to go scot-free. Contemporarily, bigger states feel that they can either circumvent the requirements and obligations of Kyoto Treaty or that the ratification of those obligations is ancillary to a state’s goodwill. At the same time, the Kyoto Treaty also remains devoid of ultimate success, given that despite being a leader in studying climate change, it failed to tackle and define the reality of free market competition. This leaves the members still amenable to interstate competition. The absence of any initiatives towards innovations of clean energy, as a way of staying abreast with changing weather patterns also remains some of the factors that are formidable enough to deal Kyoto Treaty a coup de grace (Drolet, 2010: 99). The Extent to Which States Can Cooperate As Chorev and Babb (2009: 460) would have it, the extent to which a state may cooperate with the international community and other states largely depends on the interests of the state. It is against this backdrop that realism mainly asserts that in international relations, the cardinal rule is interests. In light of this, in the event that a state perceives that it is bound to gain from a diplomatic or foreign mission, that state is likely to entertain the prospects of such an initiative. The converse is also true that any prospects of loss in a state’s interests are likely to have that state eschewing such an undertaking. Much recently, the situation has been exemplified in November 2011 when Russia maintained that it was not going to cooperate with sanctions and trade embargoes against Iran. The US and its Allies, the UN and the EU had been in unison with the move to curtail Iran’s nuclear ambitions and programmes, although Tehran Administration had asserted that its nuclear programme was restricted to civilian ends, as a source of energy. At the heart of Russia’s belligerence and defiance were interests. First off, Russia has been aiding Iran’s nuclear activities and goals by giving it the necessary technology. Initially, Russia vehemently denied facilitating Iran’s nuclear activities, until satellite photographs betrayed the presence of heavy-water reactors that were located in Arak on December 19th, 2002. These reactors are instrumental in the production of plutonium bomb. Other satellite photos showed other autonomously placed facilities in Nantaz, which would be used in the production of highly power-packed uranium. All these are essential in the production of nuclear weapons. The photographs further showed that larger portions of these uranium facilities would be placed underground, and thereby showing clearly that Iran was simultaneously pursuing both the plutonium and the uranium options. Having seen that the US had become privy to details on the ground, Moscow Administration changed tact by overtly and ostensibly compelling Iran to sign an agreement that it would return all the SNF (used nuclear fuel) accrued from the Bushehr reactor. Arguably, the SNF would then be reprocessed for the making of plutonium, in Russia. By repudiating the imposition of sanctions and embargoes on Iran, Russia was killing two birds with a stone by consolidating its financial interests while flexing its political muscles at the US and the rest of the world. In a nutshell, Russia would not back the sanctions and trade embargoes against Iran, since by so doing, it would be undermining its interests. Another factor that dictates the extent to which a society would cooperate is history. Countries that have had continued spates of bad relations have always remained suspicious of each other, even several decades after their contention is annulled. 2 decades after the end of Cold War, the Fall of Communism and the emblematic collapsing of the Iron Curtain, the relations between Russia and the US still remain frosty. There are many occasions in which Russia has in an outright manner, defied international cooperation. For instance, immediately after America led the West to prevail on Russia not to invade Georgia, Russia sent its 150 tanks to the rebel province in Georgia- Ossetia, and heavily bombarded it (Mulligan, 2010: 140). An array of reasons underpinned Russia’s actions, as is explained by Kelleher (2009:99). Political and international pundits maintain that having been called “A beacon of liberty” by then President George W. Bush, Georgia had been a Western-patterned democracy that was tilting towards the West and that Russia was devoted to ensure that Georgia does not join NATO. Although there can be no repudiation of the fact that the invasion of Georgia had other antecedent factor, yet, lucidity can be shown that the entry of the US into the gradual standoff between Georgia and Russia was the triggering factor to the war. The events leading to the war included President Mikhail Saakashvili buying weapons in large numbers in preparation to the war. Many political science observers maintain that this move showed Saakashvili was not only aware of the imminent war, but also thought that Georgia could win if military logistics were cleverly set. The gracing of Tblisi, Georgia’s capital with American intelligence and military also had helped fuel the tension between Russia and Georgia. In light of these unfortunate developments, Georgia was a country that was just caught up in the foreboding mistrust between Russia that was weary of having NATO’s influence in its turf, and America. Cultural and commercial factors also determine largely, the extent to which state cooperation can materialize. Countries that share in a race, language and ideology always have a higher affinity and easily cooperate. Most countries in the Middle East largely share in the Arabic descent and partake from the same Islamic ideology. This explains why such states cooperate almost to the last man, on matters such as the creation of an independent Palestinian state and the removal of US involvement in the Arab world and the Middle East. Likewise, capitalist countries are likely to foster trade ties compared to those that are socialist. Conclusion It is therefore easy to see that whenever states relate, the place of state interest cannot be sidestepped. Even in the event that constructivism, liberal and neo-liberal approaches to international relations are forged, it behoves all actors in international politics to bring interests into consideration. Both liberal and neo-liberal frameworks remain key to fostering international treaties, given that they allow for pluralism and other non-state actors to participate in international politics. The existence of non-state actors on the other hand remains vital in abating the cutthroat competitiveness among states for political and economic interests. Likewise, states and geopolitical entities that subscribe to realism face insurmountable difficulties of keeping conflicts of interests at bay, since only states are allowed to be actors in the diplomatic world. In turn, the bane of this state-only approach is the failure to stem interstate competitiveness. The veracity of this matter is underscored by the fact that the Treaty of Versailles, the League of Nations, the Kyoto Protocol and even the Non Aligned Movement all remained defunct because of the state-only approach to international politics and diplomacy. References Chorev, Nitsan & Babb, Sarah, 2009. The crisis of neo-liberalism and the future of international institutions: A comparison of the IMF and the WTO. Theory & Society. 38(5): pp. 459-484. Cozette, Murielle, 2008. What Lies Ahead: Classical Realism on the Future of International Relations. International Studies Review. 15(2): pp. 89-118. Cox, David & O’Neil, Andrew, 2008. The unhappy marriage between international relations theory and international law. Global Change, Peace & Security. 20(2): pp. 201-215. Dobra, Alexandra, 2010. Thucydides: An Author Still Relevant for the Contemporary Analysis of International Relations? Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations. 9(2): pp. 88-93. Donnelly, Jack, 2000. Realism and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 231. Doyle, M., 1986. Liberalism and World Politics. American Political Science Review 80(4). Drolet, Jean-Francois, 2010. Liberalism Betrayed? American neo-conservatism and the theory of international relations. Journal of Political Ideologies. 15(2): 89-118. Hoffmann, Matthew J., 2009. Is Constructivist Ethics an Oxymoron? International Studies Review. 11(2): pp. 231-252. Jackson, Patrick, Thaddeus, Nexon & Daniel, H., 2009. Paradigmatic Faults in International-Relations Theory. International Studies Quarterly. 53(4): pp. 907-930. Kelleher, Anita, 2009. Global Governance: From Neo-liberalism to a Planetary Civilisation. Social Alternatives. 28(2): 42-47. Mulligan, Shane, 2010. Reassessing the Crisis: Ecology and Liberal International Relations. Alternatives: Global, Local & Political. 35(2): 137-162. Nia, Mahdi Mohammad, 2010. Understanding Iran's Foreign Policy: An Application of Holistic Constructivism. Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations. 9(1): pp. 148-180. Rosenow, Doerthe, 2009. Decentring Global Power: The Merits of a Foucauldian Approach to International Relations. Global Society: Journal of Interdisciplinary International Relations. 23(4): 497-517. Scheuerman, E. William, 2009. Realism and the Critique of Technology. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 22(4): 563-584. Van De Haar, Edwin, 2009. Classical Liberalism and International Relations. Policy. 25(1): 35-38. Young, Kevin, 2010. Discrediting Alternatives to Neo-liberalism. NACLA Report on the Americas. 43(5): 45-50. Waltz, Kenneth, 1979. Theory of International Relations. Reading, MA: Addison–Wesley Pub. Co. Read More