Changing Theory of International Relations - Essay Example

Changing Theory of International Relations The calamities and catastrophes whether man made or natural have altered the course of international relations. Theories like co-existence, commercial and financial interdependence, peace and harmony, strength building and supremacy gained a new meaning post World War 2. For United States of America, the superiority came through her great military knowledge and strength, a strong dollar and a series of leadership that allowed the imperialistic theory to free flow. This was evident as America constantly regarded herself as the protector of the world. The image was not wrong as due to her entry the course of both the world wars changed to victory for allies. The crash of 1929 affected the economies world over. America had a lion’s share in shaping UNO and international policies. The ever strong Dollar always supported and dominated the world markets. Truly it was regarded as the “Land of opportunities” for people world over. The significant position was also due to her success in stopping the spread of communism. All over the Europe and especially the Eastern Europe America was considered as the protector of small nations, who were being protected from getting disappeared behind the “iron curtain”, the term Sir Churchill coined for the communist barricade constructed by Soviet Russia and her allies. It was during this time General De Gaulle and Sir Winston Churchill were talking of unifying Europe as one strong entity. Most countries in Europe did not favor the big American Bully. French were extremely apprehensive about constantly referring to the big brother cross Atlantic, and so were the English. At the outset the idea seemed preposterous and outrageous. Countries that had fought against each other for more than two thousand years, dynasties that had rivalries and animosities which ran down from generations to generations, to come together to form one supreme power was an idea that certainly sounded impossible. However the foresight of most leadership during the time saw it as an inevitable outcome of the time. Churchill for instance coined the phrase of “United States of Europe”. He spoke of common markets, common currency, and united interest in peace. Today after half the century down the line the dream turned into reality. The conquered and the conquerors came together to have a capitol, democratically elected parliament, a flag, an army and to top it all a common currency Euro which is already giving Dollar a run for its value in the international markets. It is now possible to move within the Europe, without having to exchange the money, never show your passport and even speak English. They are even unified by a common cell phone system, but most of all it has had the equations of power and relations changing all throughout the world. During the cold war era, the supremacy largely depended on the military strength and arms race and the technology that dominated the military intelligence. Very rightfully the European Union’s army projects itself as peacekeepers rather than war makers. From January 1, 2002, the success of the European Union was more than confirmed when banks and ATMs cross the continent started distributing the new currency designed. As explained in the book United States of Europe, any country to qualify for Euro membership, budget deficit cannot exceed 3% of its GDP. With such a stringent condition, the country doubles up its efforts to qualify and sustain. This further helps the Euro to strengthen its position. The might of the Euro is compelling and has a direct effect on American dollar. Reid also quotes examples to prove that American business circles have been underestimating the new powerful union. For ex: Airbus Industries have a better understanding and of the needs of tomorrow’s airlines and adapting a superior business plans. Even the European Space Agency has outdone the American space research agency with its research and technology advancements. The ESA promises to be a dominant force in space exploration. The startling point about European Union is that it is not only a grand economic success but also a social success. In the unified Europe life expectancy is higher, lower infant mortality rate, lower rates of heart diseases and cancer and health insurance that covers every person. Even when the poverty rates are compared, the Europeans are far more settled having less people below the margin than those in America. The psychology of an average American is highly individualistic claiming his position above the government and policies made by the government. This is perceived as a problem in United States. The most unifying mindset of an average European is the shared sense of the government’s social responsibility to everyone and the recognition of individual responsibility to pay for the social model. Long before George W. Bush took charge of the White House, the British knew him as the governor who issued maximum death penalties. The fact that such a person getting unanimously elected by the common subjects to the highest possible office of the state was not overlooked by most Europeans. This had an adverse effect on the mindsets of the Europeans long before the Iraq war and the execution of Saddam Hussain. This was especially evident when Attorney General John Ashcroft tried to garner support in possible extradition of alleged terrorist prisoners to America, hoping to inflict death penalties on them. It was truly surprising for the Europeans that the senior government official like him did not recognize the Europe’s charter on fundamental rights. With the expanding economic power of these countries put together, America can no longer afford to ignore or demean the influence of these social charters as well. The point is day by day made clear that the centre of the affairs or the world is no longer Washington D.C. Coming back to the economy another famous example that is quoted is the General Electric. The former Chief Executive of the company John F. Welch was heard quoting after his plan for a proposed merger with Honeywell fizzled out, “We have to do business with Europe, so we have no choice but to respect their law. That really is the way the world works now”. The merger did not take place due to insisting of anti-trust laws by the European Union’s Director General. It is now becoming an inevitable situation that United States of America respects United States of Europe. As per the popular view in economics we live in the world of one billion people in the rich countries and five billion people in the developing world. If this view is to be acceded then outside the West and Japan globalization and economic development has little to its effect. According to Paul Collier along with the billion in the rich world, there are now four billion people living in economies that are growing rapidly and that the progress of these economies is being felt directly by the people in these countries, which leave a billion people living in societies that are failing and for them the future remains bleak. The root cause as addressed by Collier is the states who are continually failing such as most African states, which he has categorized as “Africa+ countries”. He lists a couple of vicious cycles such as geography, governance, mineral riches, conflicts which forces these countries to go backward than forward. This not only affects their own progress but also gives a set back to the world as such. To address the problems in these developing but poor countries is far more difficult than the countries that are on the developing path. Benefits of globalization, liberalization, and foreign relations reach faster to developing countries rather than those that are under developed and are below poverty line. So are these countries to be left behind on the roads of development? The answer would be a stern NO. These countries are being left behind by others who offer cheap labor, stability to efforts, better infrastructure and governments which are willing to look into issues such as terrorism and gang wars. Collier also recommends that if necessary military intervention can also be the route to break the civil wars and get some law and order in place. Ironically this would further estrange these countries from development because this would be looked as policing by the West and ethical imperialism. On the other hand to deny theories such as, poor people don’t work hard enough and capitalism isn’t fair, we have countries like India, China, and from Asia as solid examples. These countries have pulled masses from below the poverty line, while embracing the principles of globalization. They have certainly not accepted the principles of capitalism but have established strong relationships with the world that is developed through trade, economy and foreign trade. Their relations with the world have greatly altered from what they used to be in the past. These countries are looked as vast markets, and future zones of highly developed economic and technological advancement. Collier lists a lot of issues which have become obstacles for the development of many countries. These are Conflicts, Natural Resources, and Landlocked with bad neighbors, badly governed etc. He suggests a few way outs though. An international set of rules needs to be put in place especially for the countries that are rich in natural resources. An open trade forum is required where the underdeveloped countries can strike deals with the wealthy countries. Collier also recommends revision in the tariff policies with these bottom billion countries. In today’s globalization era it is not possible to leave any developing country behind. It is not about money as Paul Collier has suggested. It is about investing and helping with vision and a genuine desire to help and take people along. Economic and trade equations have altered drastically over the years. The difference between the developed and developing and the rapidly developing nations is getting blurred at a high speed. In such case is it really possible for us to overlook a billion people who are left behind or countries from one continent to come together to form a powerful economic and political block? The question as is shown is answered by History itself. Sources: 1. The United State of Europe: T. R. Reid 2. The Bottom Billion: Paul Collier Read More