International Relations Theories and War on Terror - Term Paper Example

 International Relations Theories and War on Terror I. Introduction II. When Theories Wage War III. Conclusion “The book is not simply the object that one holds in one’s hand; and it cannot remain within the little parallelepiped that contains it: its unity is variable and relative. As soon as one questions that unity, it loses its self-evidence; it indicates itself, constructs itself, only on the basis of a complex field of discourse” ( Foucault, 2002, p. 26). Introduction There is usually too much dogma in many of the assertions by international relations theorists. From a Foucauldian perspective, it could be argued that no theorization is ultimate and all theories are essentially characterized by the presence of existing power structures and power balance within. International relations theory too is a field of discourse which corresponds to existing power structures and modes of knowledge production. When we challenge the unity, coherence and self-evidence of such theories from the perspective of actual sufferings and miseries of people who come in contact with the war on terror, the central postulates of these theories begin to collapse. The purpose of the paper is to critically examine the dominant theories in international relations against the context of the ongoing war on terror. The paper would give a general overview of the major theoretical assertions by different schools in a nutshell and would try to show that how limited and dogmatic they are in characterizing the war on terror. Moreover, an attempt to have a glance at the ways through which dominant international relations theories reproduces the prevailing schemas, power structures an inequalities is also the aim of the paper. Besides, some of the Gramscian tool will also be used in paper for deconstructing the actual forces behind the war on terror. II. When Theories Wage War Besides realism and liberalism, radicalism is considered as “the third overarching theoretical perspective to international relation” (Mingst, 2005, p.71). All of these theories have some way or other supported or initiated war efforts on different grounds. Some supports just wars while others support humanitarian intervention. Some theories see anti-imperialist war as just war and the humanitarian interventions by the West as neocolonial assaults. At present, many theorists from across the leading schools support war on terror based on many dubious arguments. In classical realism, order and stability are the determining factor of any global order based on nation state system. Change is considered as the accumulation of more capabilities and resources. The classic realist analysis of Iraq War is seen as a powers struggle between Saddam’s regime and American empire for establishing hegemony in the Middle East. The War on Terror, from a classic realist point of view, is nothing but geopolitical strategic game. The neorealist theories see hegemony as the product of the increasing concentration of power and capabilities with a single state or a coalition of willing states. Such a situation is marked for the ability of that single state or coalition to manipulate the whole global system for the protections of their narrow geopolitical interests. Neorealism therefore would see the war on terror as a result of growing unipolarity in the post cold war world where the United States and the NATO could attack any dissident countries at will. Moreover, the war on terror would be seen as an attempt by the hegemonic powers to maximize their control of raw materials and flows of capital and goods. Especially, war on terror was waged for protecting the American interests on the gulf oil. Structural realism is of the view that no amount of power is enough in securing stability and order in a chaotic international system which is characterized by the absence of legitimate global governance structures. Great powers have to deal with the emerging powers that could potentially challenge their powers from the very beginning itself. The notion of pre-emptive strike is emerging from this standpoint. It is important to remember that the idea of pre-emptive strike characterized much of the debate on war on terror. Major power wars are arising from competition for more power that would ensure the continuance of hegemony and dominance. However, it is a never-ending process as no power is enough to deter your enemy forever. This is what exactly happened with war on terror as the United States wanted to mobilize all its resources for waging war on terror. It was looking forward to make its global hegemony perpetual and unchallenged. But, Afghanistan and Iraq have demonstrated the weaknesses of American power and seriously challenging the American hegemony at various realms. The present popular uprisings in the Arab countries are certainly a response to collusion of the regimes in their countries with the American war on terror. Liberalism is tactical in its advocacy of soft imperialism. Liberals see just war and humanitarian intervention, masked by democratic ideals and credentials, are as the means of creating a true global hegemony. Therefore, the war on terror was portrayed as an attempt to civilize the unruly people of the Muslim world. Liberals speak in terms of freedom and democracy and end up in cruel occupation of other countries. Neoliberalism too is a catalyst of war on terror. War on terror not only involves military actions, but also economic sanctions and disciplining under the helm of World Bank, IMF and WTO. If a country stands outside of the neoliberal framework of development, it is seen as belonging to the axis of evil and thereby a target of war on terror. Marxism understands the international system mainly through the concentration of economic capabilities in specific countries. Marxists would argue that it is through economic crises, international system undergoes tremendous transformation. Form this viewpoint, it is possible to argue that war on terror was a response to the growing economic crisis and social stagnation in the West. It also involved the desire to stabilize the oil supply from the Middle East. Besides, twenty first century imperialism in general involves the making of empire without borders and thereby, unlimited war on the resources of the people from around the world. Critical theory, based on the theoretical wisdom of Adorno and Reich, would look at how the authoritarian tendencies in Bush’s personality have enhanced his quest to go for war. Constructivism examines how many of the prevailing ideas in international relations are not universal but mere social constructs. For instance, the conception of a monolithic Islam or a homogenous Muslim population wherein everyone hate freedom and democracy is merely a construct well nourished by the media that favor war on terror. The ‘us’ vs ‘them’ debates initiated by George Bush are also classic examples of how constructs enrich war efforts. The neo-Gramscian perspective, according to Cox (1993) is an offspring Marxist theories of international relations. However, it differs from Marxism on many grounds such as the roots of power, the impact of ideology and culture and the prevalence of consensus and hegemony. Gramscian insights are crucial in understanding the complexities of war on terror. It is not simply the existence of a unipolar world which offers no constraints American war efforts abroad. There exists a crucial but tactical consensus among the ruling classes of many countries on the question of war on terror. It is big lie that America is alone waging the war on terror. The United States is merely leading a willing coalition on war on terror that have varied interests in pursuing war. Mubarak in Egypt is a telling example; although not a formal ally, Mubarak regime sided with Israel and the United States while rhetorically supported the Arab cause. Mubarak’s primary interest was to perpetuate his rule while blackmailing the West with the specter of Islamic terrorism. III. Conclusion International relations theories does not see individual actions are fully based on individual choices as the ‘social world is one in which individuals exist within powerful economic, political, social, gendered, racial, linguistic, and moral structures” (Dune, Kuki & Smith, 2007, p. 2). Therefore, war on terror cannot be explained with a singe cause-effect; it is determined by multiple factors working in a specific conjunctures. Different theories give us different answers on same questions. Regarding the war on terror, it is possible to argue that the dominant theories of international relations have added to the war efforts for different reasons. Importantly, the war on terror could be interpreted differently, based on your standpoints and values. From a Gramscian Perspective, what is important is not to analyze the motives and causes behind war on terror. Rather, it is necessary to look at how the American hegemony, ruling class consensus and civil society consent made the war on terror possible. War on terror must be defined as the passive revolution of the American imperialism and its strategic allies to continue their dominance and hegemony in a unipolar world. References Cox, R. W. (1993). “Gramsci, Hegemony and International Relations: An Essay in Method”, in Stephen Gill, (ed.), Gramsci, Historical Materialism, and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 49-67. Dunne, T., Kuki, M. & Smith, S (2007). International relations theories: Discipline and diversity, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Foucault, M. (2002). The archaeology of knowledge. Trans. Sheridan, A. London: Routledge. Mingst, K. A. (2005). Essentials of international relations, New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Read More