World Politics, Power and Ethics: Conflicting Realities, Contrasting Theories - Essay Example

World Politics, Power and Ethics: Conflicting realities, contrasting theories. List of Questions Compare and contrast the assumptions about international phenomena made by Liberalism and Realism. What assumptions about the nature of world politics are advanced by each tradition? What accounts for the rise and fall over time of their relative popularity as paradigms for organizing the study of International Relations? 2. War is often said to be rooted in multiple sources located at various levels of analysis. Select two levels of analysis (individual, state, or global) and compare the contributions that theories at each level have made to our understanding of the causes of war. 3. In attempting to explain the persistent underdevelopment of the Global South, some theorists direct attention primarily toward what happens within these countries while others focus on the position of developing countries in the global political economy. How does Dependency Theory explain the causes of the economic gap between rich and poor countries? Do you find it convincing? Why or why not? 4. How important are individual leaders in determining the content and direction of U.S. foreign policy? What factors limit the influence of individuals? Cite specific examples from class where leaders were influential and specific examples of constraints on leaders’ decisions. 5. Neoliberalism believes that international law, organizations, integration and democratization are the best approaches to preventing armed conflict in Global Politics. Compare and contrast this approach with the Realist approach of Balance Of Power. Which approach stands a greater chance of producing peace in the international system? Answers: Realism, being a view point that holds up the sovereign “political authority” of the state above all the other factors in international political scenario, has suggested that at any time, the struggle for dominance, the exercise of power by the strong states over the weaker ones, and “a constant possibility of war” constitute the international political scene (Kegley and Blanton, 32). The making of alliances is very crucial to the realist approach just “because each state is ultimately responsible for its own survival and feels uncertain about its neighbors’ intentions” (Kegley and Blanton, 32). At individual level, realism has propagated the view that “people are by nature selfish” and as an extension of this thought to the nation-level, it has been concluded that each state is justified in giving primary importance to the protection of the selfish interests of its people alone (Kegley and Blanton, 32). According to the realist perspective, “in a condition of anarchy, state pursues the national interest” but in practical world politics, it has been seen that even when “territorial and political integrity were not at stake”, a nation like the United States “pursued a policy of the ‘national interest’” by interfering in other states’ affairs (Bromley, 30). It is from the inability of realism to explain phenomena like this that liberalism emerged (Bromley, 30). Liberalism, at individual level has stressed on the moral value system that can influence and change individuals towards a more humane approach, and replaces power-seeking with ethics and struggles involving military with institutional control (Kegley and Blanton, 37). From such a view point, for example, the actions of the US can be explained either based on a sense of ethical responsibility or based on a felt lacuna in the institutionalization of the world political equations. To be more clear, the US actions can be either justified by its supporters as representative of a sense of moral responsibility in giving leadership to the world or can be refuted by its detractors as the wielding of unauthorized power in the absence of a powerful international institutional set up to ensure equality among states. The realist world view has preceded the liberalist one and has dominated the international political discourses until the notions of human rights and individual freedom gained greater attention (Kegley and Blanton, 38). Liberalism has been adopted by a majority of contemporary critics because as Rushdie has pointed out, in a time when power turns into hegemony, “one didn’t have to like people to believe in their right not to be squashed by the United States” (4). This is a liberalist position that even as acknowledging the self-defeating selfishness of humanity, stands upright for the freedom and human rights of each individual. 2. At individual level, war can be viewed as an expression of the basic aggressiveness of human nature as the realist school of thought would argue and it can be added to this perspective that “all humans are born with an innate drive for power” that prompt them to indulge in war (Kegley and Blanton, 253). Following the footsteps of the theory of evolution also it has been argued that war was a manifestation of the “survival of the fittest,” the victory of the strong above the weak (Kegley and Blanton, 253). But the liberalist theory has explained individual human behavior based on ethics and argued that “human beings are wired to seek consensus, not conflict” (Kegley and Blanton, 253). This theoretical view has also held that morality and ethics “have adaptive value” (Kegley and Blanton, 255). Liberalism has relocated human beings as an end rather than means to achieve a political goal, which again is a result of growing awareness of human rights and individual freedom (Kegley and Blanton, 545). The realists had argued that as international character of politics can be summed up as “a war of all against all, the notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have there no place”” (qtd. in Kegley and Blanton, 545). The individual level of analysis has always put the responsibility of wars on individual leaders but the liberal world view has paid more attention to the social conditions that surround each nation (Kegley and Blanton). At global level also, different theories have cited different reasons for the eruption of wars. It is from a liberalist perspective that it is argued, “Ethics of power is identical to the ethics of destruction” (Marcos, 129). Towards the end of 20th century, neoliberalist theory evolved as a response to the neorealist theory which centered its arguments on the notion of international anarchy to explain wars and conflicts (Kegley and Blanton, 35). Neoliberalism was an extension of the liberalist view point with a quest for a more peaceful earth and it has taken into account the multiple sources of war and more importantly, peace (Kegley and Blanton, 42). Globally, even the definition of war has been changed by the neoliberalist view point. For example, the leader of the Mexican Zapatista revolution, has drawn attention to the limitations of the conventional definition of ‘war’ (Marcos, 67). He (Marcos) has said that instead of calling his people’s legitimate self-defense, war, “the one waged by the political system” against his people and against democracy, “justice” and “liberty,” be called, ‘war’ (67). The advent of neoliberalist thought thus invalidated the supremacy of state or nationhood over individual’s freedom and human rights. 3. Dependency theory has stated that the reason for the underdevelopment of the Global South lies rather in “the global capitalist system” than in “the internal problems of the Global South countries” (Kegley and Blanton, 118). This argument emerged in refutation of the adoption of the westernized model of development as the sole path to progress (Kegley and Blanton, 118). It is the unequal rules of trade imposed on the Global South countries by the global capitalism that is to blame, for the less developed condition of these countries, according to the dependency model (Kegley and Blanton, 618). The result is that poor Global South nations become dependent on rich Global North nations for financial and developmental support (Kegley and Blanton, 618). An example for this could be the export and import tariff regime that is in existence world wide (Kegley and Blanton, 466). The world tariff structure has been designed by the powerful Global North countries in favor of their interests and it is not supportive of growth in the Global South countries (Kegley and Blanton, 466). As many Global South countries have only underdeveloped infrastructure, market access and technologies, they have been forced to remain only suppliers of primary raw materials for the Global North (Kegley and Blanton, 128). And these factors can explain why there is an economic gap between rich and poor countries. As early as in the 1990s, Diamond has also reiterated this view point by detailing how guns, germs and steel, which came into the possession of the Global North populations created the environments that brought about global supremacy of the Global North. Cultural penetration by the Global North has been seen as yet another aspect of domination that enhances the dependency of the Global South within the purview of the dependency model. And it is in this light that Marcos has said, “Today we suffer a new world war, a war against all peoples, against humanity, against culture, against history. It is an international war, of Money versus Humanity” and led his people’s struggle against this dependency based world order (173). And it is in the same vein that Rushdie has talked about the neo-colonization of Nicaragua by the United States. The dependency model is convincing because it is capable of explaining why despite having the world’s greatest spectra of natural resources, the Global South has remained poor as compared to the North. This theory has incorporated many aspects of human life, power, politics and nationhood under one umbrella while explaining the causes of global inequality between nations, thereby providing a comprehensive method to explore global realities. 4. The individual leaders of the US have only a peripheral role in determining the foreign policy of the nation as is evident from the fact that the policy of America has been consistently in tune with American supremacy, ideology of the domination of the strongest, and the “national interest” as is explained in the National Security Strategy documents of the US (The White House, 7). The foreign policy of the US before the Cold War had a set of paradigms which changed as Cold War ended and a new set emerged, focusing on terrorism and the resource quest for the MNCs (The White House). This is an indication that irrespective of who ruled as President in the US, the policy was set on the realistic model of world politics because it has been the national interest, that is, the selfish interests of the American people as is delineated in the realist model, that was always at play (Kegley and Blanton). Arming many poor countries in order to further the revenues from weapon trade and interfering in the Middle East to ensure the “free flow of oil,” have been two typical examples of the realist model of foreign policy that the US had been adopting irrespective of who sat in the chair of the President. (The White House, 30). Other examples have been the way in which Ronald Reagan financially supported the counterrevolutionary forces in Nicaragua, and the similar way in which the US government supported the dictatorship in Mexico during the period of Bill Clinton as the US President (Rushdi, 89; Marcos, 177). But Bill Clinton was influential in changing the hostile no-debate policy of the US towards the Palestine issue and Clinton was successful in changing, though for a brief period, the policy of supporting only Israel (Kegley and Blanton, 110, 248). Contrary to this, George W. Bush, as the US President was instrumental in creating a war-frenzy against Islamic nations in the US and eventually was successful in initiating a series of wars in the name of national interest (332). The US President Richard Nixon had stated that there was no conflict in the world between rival powers because all of them were “armed” (qtd. in Kegley and Blanton, 274). This was a typical realist stand as far as world politics was concerned and almost all Presidents of the US had stuck to this stand (Kegley and Blanton). For example, the US President Eisenhower had said, “until war is eliminated from international relations, unpreparedness for it is well nigh as criminal as war itself” (qtd. in Kegley and Blanton, 312). And this approach had its roots in what President George Washington said, “no nation is to be trusted farther than it is bound by its interest” (qtd. in Kegley and Blanton, 321). In this manner, each President is seen to parrot what had been said by his predecessor when it came to foreign policy matters. And last but not least, Barak Obama has been viewed as a President who represents the transformation from realism to liberalism, his individual stamp being there in this change, and his rhetoric has been stressing more on international cooperation than the realist view of defensive aggression (Bardes, Shelley and Schmidt, 19). 5. The neoliberalist approach that draws its conclusions from a multi-faceted paradigm of global politics is in many ways more relevant than the realist approach in the current scenario. The neoliberalist approach has at its core, the notion: Influences such as democratic governance, public opinion, mass education, free trade, liberal commercial enterprise, international law and organization, arms control and disarmament, collective security, multilateral diplomacy, and ethically inspired statecraft can improve life on our planet (Kegley and Blanton, 42). Cooperation has been the motto of this approach and it is asserted that the welfare and freedom of the human being has to be given the centre stage in any arguments about world politics (Kegley and Blanton). It is in line with this approach that the international organizations like the UN have been called for to be strengthened and the role of NGOs as well (Kegley and Blanton, 141). But the realist approach has been historically older and the more accepted one worldwide (Kegley and Blanton, 320-323). This approach is based on the basic assumption that human beings are “selfish” and not led by any moral considerations (Kegley and Blanton, 32). In such a scenario, the realism model calls for each nation seeking its peoples self-interest and act accordingly (Kegley and Blanton, 32-33). If this argument is furthered a little more, it naturally arrives at the conclusion that each nation must build its military strength so that it can protect its self interest and prevent any aggression on it (Kegley and Blanton, 321). This is known as the “balance of power theory” and this theory professes that “if one state gains inordinate power, …it will take advantage of its strength and attack weaker neighbors, thereby giving compelling incentive for those threatened to align and unite in a defensive coalition” (Kegley and Blanton, 321). As realism propagates a world political system that is anchored on “suspicion, competition and anarchy,” it is bound to invite constant conflicts in the form of wars and arms race among nations (Kegley and Blanton, 321). On the contrary, neoliberalism has its faith resting on international institutions and consensus (Kegley and Blanton, 141). While realism puts trust in alliances among states, neoliberalism looks forward to alliances among the civilian society in the form of institutions, and a free market (Kegley and Blanton, 141, 42). It is the survival of the strongest that governs the principles of realism while it is the considerations of ethics and human rights that form the principles of neoliberalism (Kegley and Blanton, 545). To be more precise, “the human rights revolution has advanced moral progress by breaking states’ monopoly on international affairs and over citizens” (Kegley and Blanton, 545). The international laws are changing, global awareness is building and global organizations are emerging, on these lines. Hence, as compared to realism, neoliberalism has a greater chance of producing peace in the international system. The anti-colonial, anti-dictatorship struggles that have been going on in countries like Nicaragua and Mexico, and the international support that these fights have been getting, can be seen as manifestations of the adoption of neoliberalism as a major political paradigm for assessing world political scenario. Works Cited Bardes, Barbara.A., Shelley, Mack.C., and Schmidt, Steffen.W., “American Government and Politics Today: The Essentials”, London: Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Bromley, Simon, “American Hegemony and World Oil: The Industry, The State System And The World Economy”, Pennsylvania: Penn State Press, 1991. Print. Diamond, Jared.M., “Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies”, New York: W.W.Norton & Company, 1999. Print. Kegley, Charles W. and Blanton, Shannon L., “World Politics: Trends and Transformation”, 13th Edition, London: Cengage Learning. 2011. Print. Rushdie, Salman, “The Jaguar Smile: A Nicaraguan Journey”, Random House: New York, 2008. Print. The White House, “A National Security Strategy of Engagement and Enlargement”, 1995. web. 14 December 2011, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/national/nss-9502.pdf Marcos, Subcomandante, “Our Word is Our Weapon”, (Ed.) Juana Ponce de Leon, Seven Stories Press: New York, 2001. Print. . Read More