Can the war on terror be understood in terms of realism - Essay Example

0 Summary This paper seeks to evaluate the nature and the concept of war on terror. It delves into seeking to understand the manner and the level in which the realism theories and ideologies explain the war on terror. How do these two inter twine? What is the logic behind understanding the war on terror from a realist’s perspective? These are some of the questions that this paper seeks to address. In the quest to understand and clearly explain the understanding of war on terror from a realist’s angle this paper shall be divided into six main parts. Part I shall be introductory chapter. Here the will be no deep analysis but rather introducing the subject matter. Here the paper shall be generally giving an overview of what shall be later broken down and explained in nitty gritty. The second Part is dealing with Realism as a school of thought. Here the paper shall delve into what actually is the scope of the realism school of thinking. The paper shall also discuss the proponents of this school of thought as well as their contributions. The third part shall be tackling war on terror itself. Here the paper talks about what components are considered when we are discussing the war on terror. The paper shall examine why is it that terrorism is treated as a war and not just a crime. The next part shall be assessing the dilemma that exists between war on terror against the desire to protect human rights and the rule of law. Why is it that the proponents of realism theory especially on war on terror are normally in conflicting opinions with the human rights activists? After the analysis the paper gives position as to how human rights can be understood from the realist’s perspective. The next part is now explaining how the concept of war on terror is actually understood in the realism school of thought. It gives the understanding of the war on terror from the angle of realism. This also seeks to establish a nexus between the war on terror and the realism school of thought. The last part is the conclusion summarizing the core idea of the whole paper. The conclusion in a very brief manner answers the question whether war on terror can be understood from a realist angle? 2.0 Introduction Global safety is normally something that is of concern to every country. This awareness has quite increased since the 9/11 bombing by Al Qaeda. This was not the first bombing as there had been others. However, after that the American government declared war on terror the question being asked is whether the average American feels safer than before or if there is paranoia. This war on terror extended to Afghanistan. For sometime people that this war would only lasts a few days or months but it took years. Some analysts began to view it as a political war. Then the human rights activists began questioning the legitimacy of the means by which this war on terror was generally being conducted. Debates emerged trying to explain the reasons and rationale for the wars. Several schools of thought emerged. Realism also emerged but has faced criticisms from other scholars especially whose with a bias towards human rights activism. What relationship is created between realism theory and the war on terror? Some scholars such Mearsheimer argues that war on terror is actuated by the fact threats exist and people are not safer than earlier before. It is for the this reason that Meiseshemier actually propounds that united states have used the realism school of thought as United State requires security. This is the reality according to Mearsheimer. Stephen D. Kranshen propounds that realism is all about international relations. These two theories as much as they are from the same realist angle they vary in meaning. However a critical analysis shows that there is a nexus between these two. 3.0 Realism as a school of reasoning Realism is a school of thought which in political science and a philosophical sense seeks to offer explanation on the foreign policy that has remained consistent and is still existent over a long period of time. The realism theory is a proponent of why countries and sovereignties have had different relations, whether good or bad, for over a long period of time. Realism underscores ideologies and philosophical positions that exist independent from the observers or beliefs and stereotypes. It is important to note that different scholars have advanced different views with regard as to what actually forms the backbone of the realism ideology. Some scholar, leading by example is one Stephen D. Krasner who is a proponent of the idea that realism is about international politics and how they balance. Another view is advanced by John J. Mearshiemer, who is of the opinion that in United States the idea of realism and its centrality is to make sure that United States is secure and has security in dangerous times. The theory as explained by Mearsheimer suggests that the world general is an aggressive place and security is quite a vital aspect of existence. Taking realism from a legal perspective, it refers to a concept that believes that the law is indeterminate and therefore necessitates the judicial officers to have to consider extralegal affairs and environment in order to come up with a proper interpretation of the law. Judges and the other legal officers therefore go ahead and make considerations beyond precedent and procedure. The legal and judicial officers become the sole interpreters of the law in the context of legal realism. Political realism talks of existence of factors that explain the way certain sovereignties react. The most relevant to the war on terror is the fact that it is a realistic proposition that sovereignties are always in competition to acquire military superiority and also build up their armoury. A good illustration of this is the fact that the United States has continued to secure their land, building their military and have a bigger budget for their armoury even years after defeating their enemies in the world war. The same is also for other nation. Even in the most peaceful state you find that there is always a budget for military and buying weapons. This position has been explained by Professor Mearshiemer in his theories of “offensive realism”. I his offensive realism Mearsheimer talks about the aggressiveness that most states are headed towards because of the fact that there is competition in terms of developing weapon and state arsenal. This can be shown by a look at the budgets countries come up with in regard to acquire more weapons. In a political realist’s perspective, we can therefore say that it is normally the country with the most sophisticated weapons that is the superior. The superior states are the ones which have the power and the responsibility to protect not only it but also the other nations from terrorism attacks. It is upon this foundation that America has always acted as the custodian of the world peace. It is important to note that advancements by Mearshiemer sparked lots of debates as well as controversy. 4.0 War on terror The war on terror is a terminology coined to fight all forms of terrorism. It is appreciated universally that the terror is a common enemy. All nations have the right and obligation to combat terrorism. Organized terrorism, also known as international terrorism is characterized by the following features among others: They have undergone intense military training. Have a well established networking and links Sometimes they include religion beliefs to support their actions. The war on terror has been going on for a while now. However, in recent times the American president Barrack Obama declared that the global war on terror has ended. In the previous regime, George W. Bush, the then president had coined the phrase global war on terror and this was used as the basis to send troops to Afghanistan for the purpose of weeding out the Al Qaeda. This war lasted longer than it was expected. The scholars who were opposing the fight in Afghanistan normally pose this question; now that the war on terror was declared ended is America safer than it was before the awakening after 9/11? President George W. Bush was one of the famous realists. In his words during a speech, the president explains what he views as an existing threat to the security of America. The war on terror means combating terrorism. It includes weeding out terrorists and their supporters from the roots countries. It is upon this calling that the United States armies went to Iraq. They were seeking to combat the Al Qaeda terrorists who claimed responsibility for the 9/11 bombing in America. Further down in Africa, Kenyan army is in Somalia seeking to eliminate an Al Qaeda linked group who go by the name Al Shabbab. This group has been responsible for bombing in Uganda as well as numerous piracy cases on the Shores of East Africa. A criticism has also emerged that the war on terror is normally politically motivated and not really rooted in the securing of a safe America. This is open to debate. Realist scholars such as Ignaiteff suggest that the war on terror exists because the threat also exists. To support this view, another scholar John J. Meishemmer is actually concerned with the level which countries are actually acquiring weaponry. 5.0 Dilemma between war on terror and Human rights Striking a balance between staging a war on terror and protecting human rights is normally quite tricky. Human rights activists have advanced an argument that war on terror is itself a deviation from the tenets of the rule of law. Human rights activists state that when countries start war on terror it is undemocratic. This is because, they argue, whenever democracies fight terrorism; they view terrorism as a war and not a crime. During the war, the rule of law is normally likely to be disobeyed. Another argument advanced by the human rights activists is that the people are the sovereign. The people have the right to live in peace without any violence. This is however breached when violence is used to stage the war against terror. Since the state want to stop terrorism because of its violent nature it should not do that by the same means that they are against. William Schulz (2006) from the Amnesty International US chapter questions the war on terror by asking how we can defend the rule of law by means that are contrary to it. The way on terror he argues is a means that actually disregards the rule of law itself. He gives the illustration that while standing tall towards the war on terror has been quick at using undemocratic means against perceived terrorists and going ahead to even violation of the same. The human rights activists describe the irony that the fight against terror has gone to the extent that it requires use of violence. The fight then is actually destroying what it is actually meant to achieve. The big question then arises; what is the realists take on these arguments? Realism has also advanced several arguments in the support for the war on terror. Realism explains the need to fight terrorisms as an existent factor that must always be considered. Realists believe that terrorism exists. They also believe that world peace has to be achieved at all costs. The realists also appreciate the threat that terrorism poses and are opinion that this should be averted. The dilemma has existed for long but a proper understanding on the realism view of war on terror gives the clear picture that is propounded by the realists. 6.0 War on terror: A Realistic perspective While there is need to uphold the rule of law and democracy there is also need to protect the rights of the citizen. Among these rights is the right to personal security. The realists compare the personal security to national security and say that the only difference between national and personal security is the level at which they are enjoyed. While personal security is individual the national security is actually enjoyed at the national level. This right is as fundamental as the other rights and deserves to be protected by the state. How can this be achieved if not by combating terrorism by its horns? The war on terror is therefore legitimate and pivotal in the enjoyment of rights. Ignaiteff (1997) criticizes the human rights activists by saying that dogmatically they have missed the point. He goes ahead and adds that human rights are privileges that are meant to limit government action to an individual. He adds that these rights are revocable in times of need, risk or danger. The issue now remains what forms a time of necessity, risk or danger. Again here is where realists answer using the legal realism that had been explained earlier. In legal realism, it is upon the judicial officers to determine what the law is. Thus here the judicial officers have been given the power to determine what and when exactly are these limits revocable. Realists are also of the opinion that rights are revocable in case where the lesser evil shall be the result. What forms the lesser evil? Again this can be answered based on the legal realism perspective. The judicial officers determine when the lesser evil is to be achieved. Here normally the consideration the lesser evil and not the majority benefit. Thus if rights of a few can be legitimately stripped off in order to avert a greater evil, then no violation has occurred. This is actually the position being held by the realism. The balance between the human rights and the war on terror is when a lesser evil is upheld. In clearly establishing this, court has normally stripped terrorists off their rights. For instance, in a case of Eichmann v AG of Israel, despite the fact that rights of the accused had been violated the courts overlooked this and sentenced him. The international court has also come up with a principle of universality which actually aims to promote the war against terror as it give the states power to prosecute terrorism matters regardless of jurisdiction. The realists like Mearsheimer have argued that the war on terror is well explained under the realist theories. In the human rights argument, he counter argues that sometimes necessity may call for trading of rights with general good. Thus in defense of democracy, sometimes it might be necessary to employ some methods that are actually undemocratic in a way. However, there must be a clear definition of circumstance that may bring such instances. People like George W. Bush, former president of America understood the threat that were posed by the terrorists and that is why Bush was all out in combat with terrorism. As much as people who want to uphold democracy would consider his ways of doing this as a bit divergent from the rule of law, the realist sees this as what has to be done. There being no option President Bush has to use force in order to eliminate the threat that could bring great evil to the American people. This explains the role of America in ousting the Afghanistan government that was being lead by Saddam Hussein, the late president of Iraq. 7.0 Conclusion The core motive of the war on terror is actually to offer security to the citizens of America and the world at large. The war on terror is explained to be a reaction to the security threats and experience. The realists however are in a collision with human right activist who claim that the war on terror amounts to terror itself violating upon the rights and privileges of the perceived terrorists. This is countered by the realists who say that in light of situation that call for appropriate action some personal rights can be traded for sake of averting a greater evil and attaining a lesser evil. However it is important that such situations are carefully and well defined failure to which violation of human rights occurs. There is belief that realists are normally concerned with common good and will always commend good policies. This explains why in war against terror the realist thinking is willing to sacrifice a few individuals’ rights in order to avert occasions that would create even greater harm. From this point of view sometimes in war on terror democracy as well as the rule of law is not followed to the latter. This however is not considered a very bad thing since the intention here is to avert a grievous harm that could occur. The public good that must be protected is security both personal and national. One way of doing this is through war on terror. My final and conclusive position is affirmative that the war on terror can actually be explained fully through realism. This is because they are in parity. While realism insists that there are threats to security, it also provides that it is upon the state to protect personal and national security of the individuals. The realism theory also explains that these securities (the national and personal) have to be protected at all costs. In fact if need arises the right of a few can be traded with averted a greater evil. This is in congruence with Mearsheimer’s (1983) view that realism’s centrality is about America feeling safe on their land. On the same note, we can tag this to Krasners (1992) interpretation of the realism. He believes that realism is actually about international relations. Since Mearsheimer (1984) talks about security, this can be explained only in relation to other nations. Therefore realism as propounded by these two great scholars actuates that indeed war on terror can be explained through realism. References Ignaiteff, M. 1997. The Warrior’s Honor: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience. New York: Henry Holt. Krasner, S. D. 1992. Realism, Imperialism, and Democracy: A Response to Gilbert. Political Theory 20.1 (February 1992): 38-52. Mearsheimer, J. J. 1983 Conventional Deterrence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Mearsheimer, J. J. (1984). Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence in Europe. International Security 9(3): 19-46. Read More