International Relation Around the Globe - Essay Example

Is IR Eurocentric? By 3rd March International relation is a that entails the connection of one country to another around the globe. It is a subject that raised importance from the close of the First World War. The first attempt at the formation of the international relation was to offer a balance of power that could see the nation have equal control of resources (Jones, 2006). The reason was changed some years later as collective security system became paramount to the relation. The change of the focus of international relation has raised a lot of questions since then as some of the nations became more powerful in terms of military actions than others. The European nations are said to have benefitted from the amendment together with the United States of America that other nations (Hobson, 2012). Inquiries have been raised about the global relations and the hypotheses behind the action. Theories explaining the amalgamation are seen to be Eurocentric in nature. This means that the theories have an effect on the European nations as the most benefiting from the laws governing the relation. The laws can me equaled to those that existed before the attainment of the independence of nations around the globe when European nations were the major beneficiary. In order to fully determine the truth of this matter, we will closely analyze some of the theories related to the international relations. The theories will tell us whether the international relations is Eurocentric or not, and we will give the conclusion of the case. Classical realism is one of the real hypothesis that have been sent to clarify the worldwide relations. Realism explains that every nation of the earth seeks to have more power than other nations. The arrangement of the nations according to the power is endorsed to have met the required benefits of the relation in offering collective security. Collective security, in this case, means that nations can come together in terms of forces and out do another nation that seems to disrupt peace in the world. The occurrence of the Second World War was seen as the lack of the unity among the nations that led to self-interests over the others (Acharya, 2014). It is explained that nations at that time had their strong army and wanted to have a say in the control of resources. There were no laws that could decline a nation from using excessive powers over another nation. Therefore, nations rose against one another to reveal their strength. From this experience, there was an importance that led to the creation of an organized security system in the world. This security system functions as the last resort in determining the country’s engagement in war over other nations. The established authenticity hypothesis offers a few provisions in the universal relations. The term ‘realism’ from the word ‘real’ can be based on the facts on the ground. It is a certainty that a few nations are more blessed with assets than others (Kayaoglu, 2010). Therefore, there are some countries that manufacture weapons while others can only afford to buy those military artifacts. In this notion, there is still a big gap in regard to collective security. The endowed nations seem to have the role of securing the fewer endowed nations. In this regard, the powerful nations can easily create some stands that would trigger tensions to the poor nations. When analyzing the classical theory towards the international relations, we are prompted to look at what is the kind of relationship that is in the organization. The worldwide relations have drawn out the enthusiasm of solidarity. In this regard, it is the rich who initiated the program and the poor joined them to feel protected. The worldwide relations accordingly took the estimations of the initiators (Hobson, 2012). They are the ones who made the laws, and they are the ones who typically execute them. Give us a chance to talk now about the part of the "rich" and "poor people" in this project. The rich states are nations of the west. A large portion of the western nations incorporates the European countries together with the United States of America. The western nation is a term that alludes to the geological area of the nations of the globe. The nations are rich in nature due to their involvement in the colonialism and the slave trade that massively affected the eastern countries. Since the western nations are the initiators and the implementers of the programs relating to the international relations, the factor of Eurocentric sprouts from the relationship (Jones, 2006). In this regard, a neo-classical theory is birthed out. The neo-classical in this regard will mean that the western countries, most of whom from Europe, uses the international relations for their benefits. A good example of the war in regulating the production of armories to some of the Arab nations. Since in international relations there is no a super power or a central government that controls other nations, the countries that see the action as a threat engages in controlling the military development of other countries. Considering this discussion on the classical and neoclassical theory it is a fact that the international relation is Eurocentric. An alternate hypothesis that clarifies the Universal Relation as Eurocentric is the liberal hypothesis. Liberal is a term that gives states to act on their preferences. Independent countries have a right to make laws, regulations and strategies that would see them make a step forward towards the development. In international relation, a country can opt to help another country on important things such as fighting poverty. The help need not to abuse the state of independence of the other state. However, the post liberalism have brought in some form of neo-colonialism where a country in need of help is forced to act in a way that would benefit the donors. In regard to the Eurocentric, European Union forms a foundation of donors to the states in need of funds (Acharya & Buzan, 2007). The states are forced to adopt a certain form of democracy, influenced to pick a certain leader, and also forced to make some development that is of choice to the donors. When looking at this relationship, it is a controlled union rather than a self-driven interest. Therefore, the international relation becomes more of Eurocentric rather than having a liberal foundation. Constructivism is an alternate hypothesis of worldwide relations. The hypothesis is in view of the social development. In any relationship, the social aspect of the relationship usually takes a great stride in determining the level of influence that a group has over the other. Culture and material riches fundamentally focus social development. In this regard, a group that has a rich culture and greater power of material wealth usually have an influence than the rest of the groups (Ling, 2014). Concerning our prospect to the European nations, they usually have a lot of influence on the rest of the nations. Their rich historic background gives them an effort to have a control in the international relation. In a given affiliation including a European country and a non-European country dependable results to an expert to a slave connection. The idea is reasoned from the activities that took place in the 19th century where the Europeans colonized the world. A good example of an existing relationship today is the Commonwealth family where all the countries that were colonized by Britain usually meet in the Council of the United Kingdom’s Queen. The role of these nations is usually passive as the United Kingdom takes the front. Therefore, this is an interrupted relationship that one group is undermined by the wealthy nation. Marxism theory on capitalism is also incorporated into the international relation theories. The neo-Marxism and critical theory explains the interest in the international relation as only concerned in gathering a lot of capital towards the rich nations. The European countries being the most beneficiaries of this relationship usually end up taking a lion share in the relationship (Tansel, 2015). Considering the Marxism criticism on capitalism, the super-rich European countries usually introduces their capital in the developing nations such as in Africa where they own huge industries. The Africans specifically produces an effort to these industries and are remunerated for the effort. The huge profit that is produced by the firm gets back to the European nations for development while the Africans who offered labor are left with just a small share that is mostly not enough to feed the households. In regard to the Marxism theory, it can be concluded that the international relation is Eurocentric. The functionalism theory is also accredited in explaining the international relation. The functionalism concept explains the function of different states involved in the relation. Most of the fewer developed countries that are mostly referred as the developing nations usually engage in the relationship in sourcing for funds for development. On the other hand, the developed nations engage in the relationship to look at a country that they can influence and sell their ideas. When focusing on this relationship we get the concerns and functions of different states (Kayaoglu, 2010). The wealthy nations usually make the laws while the poor nations are supposed to follow the laws. Reasoning in terms of the lawmakers and followers, we find out that the European nations are having a bigger influence. In this regard, the international relation is accused to be Eurocentric. The international relation have performed a major function in shaping the global politics and governance. Not every issue can be termed as done in the favor of the Europeans and the Western nations at large. There are a high strides that have been witnessed in the non-European nations in terms of economic and political development. The improvement of social right protection has in addition generated towards the improvement of human standards of living. Therefore, although the theories of the relationship are equally Eurocentric, they have benefited others positively. References Acharya, A. & Buzan, B., 2007. Why is there no non-Western international relations theory? An introduction. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 7(3), pp. 287-312. Hobson, J. M., 2012. The Eurocentric Conception of World Politics: Western International Theory, 1760-2010. Illustrated ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jones, B. G., 2006. Decolonizing International Relations. annotated ed. New York: Rowman & Littlefield. Acharya, A 2014, Global International Relations (IR) and Regional Worlds, International Studies Quarterly, 58, 4, pp. 647-659, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 March 2015. Ling, L 2014, Hobson’s Eurocentric World Politics: The Journey Begins, Millennium (03058298), 42, 2, pp. 456-463, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 March 2015. Tansel, CB 2015, Deafening silence? Marxism, international historical sociology and the spectre of Eurocentrism, European Journal Of International Relations, 21, 1, pp. 76-100, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 March 2015. Kayaoglu, T 2010, Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory, International Studies Review, 12, 2, pp. 193-217, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 March 2015. Read More