Global International Relations - Coursework Example

International Relations Introduction In definition, international relations refers to the study of the international (global) fraternity which is made up of territorial countries which are bound together by an acceptance that no state is superior to the other. The acceptance revolves around matters which the global member states perceive of as being vital, and which include cultural, economic and political relationships which are ever undergoing changes. Under international relations, there is usually interested in revealing why some issues such as conflict occur, what consequences such occurrences have on the international cohesion, and in the light of such devise means of countering them. International relations date back to the time of Greek historians to the eras of World War, and are still holding in the contemporary world. In the light of this, vast means of explaining or expressing concerns over international affairs exist, such as literature (text) and which address vital emerging issues with reference to international relations theories. This student text will evaluate an online literature which addressed a vital international relations issue and reveal how it relates to concepts of international relations theories. The featured issue in this case study is the Iraqi war of 2003. The war was initiated by a U.S. and U.K. led invasion force in Iraq, upon which some forces opposing the invasion joined the war to oppose the invasion, resulting in an intense war. The invasion was inspired by the U.K and U.S’s claims that Iraq under the Saddam Hussein rule was in possession of chemical weaponry capable of causing mass destruction, and that Saddam was taking part in most of the terrorist attacks in the world. Including 9/11. The invaders used heavy artillery and military force to weaken and take out the Saddam administration. By the time the last U.S. convoy left Iraq in 2011, civilian deaths outnumbered tens of thousands in addition to thousands of military men casualties. Iraq was left in rubbles with only a new government to gain from the 8 years of grotesque living. The end of the war initiated the beginning of important discoveries; that Iraq had dropped its nuclear weaponry programs way back in 1991, and there was insufficient proof that Saddam Hussein was a sympathizer of terrorist acts on the globe. This has left the world wondering what the motive behind the invasion was, and why the Iraqi people had to suffer. Similarly to many other concerned political authors, Raymond Hinnebusch in 2006 published an article seeking to reveal the underlying torments that Iraq underwent, and what this had on the perspective of world politics from an international relations perspective. The article titled The Iraq War and International Relations: Implications for Small States is based on the ideologies that the politics of today are unbalanced in that superpowers such as the U.S. and U.K. have no respect to universal codes of conduct. This, Hinnebusch definition, is a mean way of pursuing individual interests and is made worse by the fact that they apply dense military forces to subordinate economies and impose their regimes on inferior states. With regards to small states, the article argues that by associating with bigger states (hegemonies), they actually gain mileage in their affairs such as development, but when the tables turn and the Hegemon states turn against them, it becomes an overly unfair affair. These are the instances where international relations codes of conduct become violated by hegemonic powers. This statement is important in that it reveals the salient issues which Iraq raised after the oppression and relates them to the expected conducts in the international relations disciplines, and how the world perceived of this particular war. Raymond Hinnebusch’s stance towards the Iraqi War is that the U.S. led invasion was hurriedly organized without proper investigations conducted in prior. Owing to its mode of execution, Hinnebusch adds, the war can be equated to the other ancient world conflicts such as the Cold War in that it ignited some changes in the conduction of world politics, and which will remain for ages to come. In the international relations perspective, the war in Hinnebusch’s view violated the acceptable set IR (international relations) disciplines. The invasion was merely a masquerade to pursue hidden agendas unknown to everyone but the invaders themselves. Finally, the author believes that what the war did was to prove to the world that world superpowers underestimate IR disciplines by their application of hegemony on small states or rather, overlooking the internationally accepted constraints of power. This article was published after the investigations of the concluded Iraqi war unearthed mysteries such as what had inspired it since it was to be later revealed that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. The author Raymond Hinnebusch is based in Scotland, England at the University of St Andrew’s, and this particular text was published by Routledge under the Taylor and Francis Group in 2006. Online, it is hosted by the Cambridge Review of International Affairs. The article is influential as is evident with the numerous times it has been used as a reference to understanding of international relations issues and the impact of the Iraqi War. From this trend, it is sufficient to conclude that the number of times it has been downloaded outnumbers the number of times it has been used in citing other texts. The first international concept that this particular invasion seemingly undermined is the realism ideology of international relations. Under this ideology, it is prohibited for any state to act above another and try in any means to regulate its way of doing things, influence their decisions, or in any way inflict some form of dictatorship on it. Realism further suggests that all states are of a united system and none should interfere with another as it seeks to pursue self-interests. Finally, realism acknowledges that while building up a military is mandatory for any independent state, it should not be applied in case any dilemmas with security orientations. In the light of this, the U.S. led invasion of Iraqi perfectly offers a practical application of this scenario. The United States is a world superpower and in comparing it to Iraq, there exists a significant wide abyss between them. In addition, the claims of Iraq posing as a threat to the world for allegedly being in possession of weaponry with mass destruction abilities were just that; mere allegations that could not be proven. The irony in this is that the said superpowers, the United States and the United Kingdom included, are known to openly boast of their advancements in developing scary artillery but were against any other country doing the same. This scenario violated realism’s aspect of equality and the intrusion of foreign affairs as is set by the UN’s humanitarian laws of international relations (United Nations n.p.). According to Hinnebusch (451), this war was decided based on individual interests by the invaders and it did not consider any IR regulations. “The Iraq case throws light on the determinants of the war, exposing how wars are driven by systematic factors as opposed to domestic values and interests”. In his view, this would best fit a title of offensive realism. In an IR understanding, the invasion should only be allowed when it is evident that a particular state of political ideology is oppressing another, or there is an open manifestation of human rights violation. This therefore raised Hinnebusch’s question as to whom or under what circumstances did the invasion get the green light to “neutralizes” Saddam Hussein? The second aspect of realism undermined by the Iraqi invasion was the use of dense sophisticated military force. In neorealist perspectives, power should be equally distributed across all the constituent states of the world, and in the event that one state gains extra power above the others, it should have restrictions on their use. Concisely, this means that even if a superpower has all the unrivaled military ability, it should not unnecessarily use it in appraising or gaining advantage over smaller states. The point of having military power in the IR perspectives is that a state can defend itself from external invasions or calm powerful unrests emerging from within it. The IR’s recognized systems state that no one state should try and maximize its share of world power, even in the instances where hegemony is inevitable. Bodies concerned with the observation of such as is the mandate of the United Nations, such acts should not be allowed, and when any state fails to observe such, then the act becomes offensive and is punishable (Dunne, Milja & Steve 78). A dilemma emerges here as to why the UN allowed the invasion to continue whereas it was known that it did not support it. In addition, it had the power to intervene and further subject the invaders to legal measures. This could indicate a lapse in the UN’s mandated roles since it could not inflict its power constrain abilities. Hinnebusch states, “ when the system level ceases to be the major constraint on behavior, as expected by neo-realism, there is much more scope for domestic determinants to drive policy- that is, for powerful states to do as they please at the expense of small ones” (Hinnebusch 452). In a nutshell, the invasion was an open act of contempt for international law. Closely related to the uncontrolled use of power is the notion of democracy at a global context. Democratic matters in foreign policies are quite sensitive and that is the salient reason why the IR guidelines are designed to address intervention when it comes to foreign affairs. In this Iraq-U. S. The situation, the rule of democracy was allocated blind eyes and numb ears. Wherein democracy demands equality, openness and most importantly a government by the people, America’s invasion was not anywhere near these principles. In fact, it crossed from democracy and went overboard in violating the commercial peace theory under liberalism. Liberalism seeks to address or enlighten on what factors would contribute to, or threaten world peace. The commercial peace theory is oriented towards free trade and what this can influence in the IR context (Sitaraman 15). This article reveals the violation of liberalism in what can be the hidden motive of the invasion; interests in control Iraq’s resources, and particularly oil. “... the very particular interests embedded in this coalition... of certain oil/armament interests...” (Hinnebusch 452). These claims may be far-fetched, or maybe incorrect, but with the Bush administration unable to provide sufficient reasons for their invasion, they left the world with nothing but an open window to construct assumptions such as these. Whether true or false, the invasion as the author’s stance supports was not genuine, and had been orchestrated from long ago. The evidence is in that even after the Saddam administration has been stripped of power, the United States extended their stay in the tattered Iraq. There may be some instances where IR considerations may have been considered such as the US calling for humanitarian aid to save the civilians, but this, like the invasion might have been another masquerading tactic. Upon its extended stay, the U.S. went on to “help” establish a “peoples” government, which to the globe was nothing but a government constructed by them, in favor of their interests. Democracy and the theory of commercial liberalism were both undermined by this act, and rather than acting as a diplomatic mediator in the Saudi Arabian region, the United States assumed the title of orchestrating political imbalance and indirect control over foreign resources. This to the author means the US democracy was inspired by mean or individual interests thus amounting to corruption. It is this corruption that went on to look down onto IR principles and disciplines hidden behind a fake mask of allegations which Hinnebusch refers to as “weapons of mass destruction deception”. The corruption in this scenario was that toppling Saddam would not have required unauthorized, excessive force, and exploitative strategies. For instance, why is that close to 6 years after Saddam’s ousting the U.S still controlled much or Iraq through an inflicted government? In the text’s conclusion, Hinnebusch found some clues. One, that America has proven that the Hegemonic Stability theory was ineffective, or rather; any state could do as it pleased as long as it possessed the power over another. Second that the U.S’s imperialism had shifted from coercive to decisive in that as long as it had made a decision, further consultations with the international community was irrelevant. Third, that excess power was a global threat, irrespective of who held it; that no one can be entrusted with power. Finally, that democracy and power balance is no longer guarded by respectable values, but by greed or selfish individual interests. In restoring the credibility and dignity of international relations, the text recommends that the League of Nations should restrain the aggression of weak states by bolder ones with more power. Conclusion In summing up, it is sufficient to conclude from Raymond Hinnebusch’s text that literature like other means of expression has the power to impact on current or emerging issues. In this particular article, the author successfully addresses the issue of the Iraqi War and interprets it in the international relations context. In the construction of the text, there is the definition of the issue or problem and this is followed by supportive reasoning as why the author placed it in the IR level. This can be expounded on as that the U.S. did not adhere to the set IR disciplines of engaging in war, and in its execution of the war, many innocent civilians perished, and Iraq was destroyed. This caused ripples on the globe in that if a superpower entrusted with the globe’s well-being could itself incite conflict, then no one was safe. In addition, why would humanitarian bodies such as the UN stop America? The overall notion addressed in this text is that no one state can be entrusted with world powers anymore. Works Cited Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. Oxford University Press, 2013. Print. Hinnebusch, Raymond. “The Iraq War and International Relations: Implications for Small States”, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2006. 19 (3), 451-463. Web 26 April, 2014. Sitaraman, Srini. State Participation in International Treaty Regimes. Ashgate Publishing, 2013. Print. “United Nations”. United Nations.org, 2014. Web 26 April, 2014. Read More