Introduction to International Politics. International Conflicts - Essay Example

International Conflicts Formal Introduction When we discuss International conflicts there are changing relations that determine numerous variables of what type of conflicts there may be on the international scale; social, economic, political, technological, etc… The list as seen can go on for ages as to the reasons why they occur and to which extent they will expand. International conflicts are mainly a stage of opposition, basically when a disagreement or different views and values between two or more states are seen. The term "international conflict" means that conflicts between different nations, organizations, and people are fighting for independence or increased social, political, or economic power (Bercovitch, 1996, p. 8). In this prospective paper international conflicts will be defined as a mechanism that will continue to exist as long as people on this earth will continue to inhabit it. International conflicts can be divided into two theoretical perspectives: Realism and Liberalism, both paradigms have different views on how to go about international conflicts. Methodology The methodology in this paper outlines the realism and the doctrines that it established as well as the theory it follows. Secondly we will be looking at liberalism and its theories in which it practices and preaches to the political community. Those two theoretical perspectives will be viewed in the first body paragraph. In the second body paragraph we will discuss the two types of international conflicts: the private area and the public area of international conflicts. Evidence will be provided with articles of the argument at hand. In the third body paragraph we will analyze which of the two theoretical schools can better explain international conflicts. For the last part which will be the conclusion, it will summarize the thesis and argument into a whole and provide the implications that followed throughout this paper as whether it was theoretical or practical. Realism vs. Liberalism Realism Realism in definition is a school of international relations theory. Realism, as described by Jack Donnelly, a professor of history in international relations at the University of Cambridge, mentions that it is not just an explicit set of assumptions and ideas but rather it is a general orientation: “a philosophical disposition”(Donnelly, 2000, p. 6). There are four propositions which include: International anarchy, States are important actors, States are unitary rational actors and State survival (Donnelly, 2000, pp. 7-8). Realists think that humankind is not inherently benevolent and instead they are self-centered and competitive. This view, is shared by a great theorist named Thomas Hobbes, he mentions that human nature is not necessarily selfish but an individual's intuitive nature is made up of anarchy. This is where self-interest comes to play, and the best summarization of human nature by Hobbes is that “And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1651, chapter XIII). What this comes down to is that this view contrasts with the approach of liberalism to international relations. Within the Realism school of thought States accumulate power to ensure security in an anarchic world. The term Power emphasizes the material resources needed to fight and win wars. By accomplishing the national interest and avoiding imminent threat a State is then regarded by the international community and is then understood or proclaimed in terms of its military capabilities. Donnelly mentions as well that a key concept as a system polarity under realism is that international distribution of power which refers to a unipolar system which is dominated by a single power or hegemon (Donnelly, 2000, pp. 23-24). Even if all states seek hegemony, under realism in order to ensure their own security, other states try to prevent the emergence of a hegemon through balancing. An important factor for States as well is Sovereignty. Since under realism the system is an archaic, states are left to their own measures to ensure their own security. Realists in this case believe that Sovereign states that have larger powers, have more influence on the international stage. Donnelly also explains that States are inherently aggressive and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing states (Donnelly, 2000, pp. 28-29). However, this leads to a security dilemma where if one state increases its security it may cause even a greater instability as an opposing state will build up its own security in response. Thus, the security problem becomes a game where only relative gains are seen as the only way. Liberalism Liberalism theory within international relations is a school of thought that emphasizes a state should use its internal political philosophy as the main goal for its foreign policy. Rawls begins to say that Liberalism holds that the primary determinant of state behavior should be focused on state preferences, instead of state capabilities and that liberalism allows for plurality in state actions (Rawls, 1993, pp. 21-22). Depending on factors such as culture, economic system or government type, liberalism is not limited to the political security or economic culture. The international system has plenty of opportunities for cooperation between states. Barry, Osborne, and Rose mention that one of the assumptions is that absolute gains with the liberalist ideology can be made through co-operation and interdependence which in turn peace can be achieved with other international states (Barry et al. 1996, pp.21-22). This in turn is seen as contradicting to the realist theories which is now one of the great disputes in political science. Keohane raises one argument that the economic interdependence between trading partners and acting states less plausible, but in contrast realists emphasize that it is exactly the reason of economic interdependence increases the likelihood of conflict (Keohane, 1993, pp. 271-272). Differences between Realism and Liberalism The two theories that this essay looks at realism and liberalism are very notorious for the disputes that follow them in regards to their ideologies, state roles, political power, and human nature as we saw and discussed above. A great quote describes this relation of the two theories “When you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." - William of Ockham (Rowe, 2010). So just to quickly review both perspectives, Liberalism views states as being interactive with other states through peace treaties and by resorting to conflict lastly. Realism on the other hand has a priority on states as principal actors which no one governs them or is above them and that mankind is selfish, brutal and egoistic. Watson states that liberalism has “focus on individualism, that the individual is more important than the majority and the group. The voice of an individual should not be supressed by the majority” (Watson, 2012). By the state of nature we clearly see that it is how the behavior of the state is affected and controlled with these conditions. Furthermore Watson says that with realism the states will be wary of each other thus trust will be non-existent and that collective gains will be seen as a threat and only absolute gains is what will drive the state (Watson, 2012). Power is the key factor in realism and that with it security follows through hand in hand by expanding on military force which will guarantee a safe and secure environment for the state since it is unforeseen when an imminent aggression or strike on that individual state may occur. In order to conclude the differences between these two schools of thought and the different paradigms that guide their ideologies we must ascertain the experiences that both theories have gone through. Liberalism in essence is the truly new theory that most can relate to nowadays. It holds its place on the political scale since wars are at a minimal and that democracy is closer to peace between states, but still there is speculation of tensions from those states that are in less power. Realism may be an old facet of theory and failed to forecast the future of wars and conflict. In essence it stills holds a foot in the door in international politics, since there are small wars that continue to foster the theory that democracy isn’t all that peaceful. Private and Public areas of International Conflicts Private International Conflicts In terms a private international conflict happens when a disagreement between international business enterprises occur from different countries. A perfect example would be a conflict between a Canadian gaming company such as BioWare which was founded in 1995 and it specializes in role playing video games. Also let’s take a Japanese company such as Sony that supplies the discs in order to play these games on a specific platform: Sony Playstation 4 for the Canadian Company. If Sony the Japanese company or the BioWare the Canadian Company do not fulfill the contract, that would cause a private international conflict. This in turn would have to be handled by an international organization such as IMF (International Monetary Fund) in order to sort out the legalities in which both companies will have to get to a consensus so that there will be no reciprocity or animosity between the two companies. Karns and Mingst apply the notion that global governance is important and that it will help guide “problem-solving arrangements and activities that states and other actors have put into place to deal with various issues and problems” (Karns et al. 2004, pp. 4-5). When looking further in the matter at hand, the question is: which of the two schools of thought apply best to the private international conflict? As stated by Karns and Mingst “Although the idea of global governance has ancient roots, post–Cold War liberalism and globalization have heavily influenced contemporary conceptions of global governance” (Karns et al. 2004, p. 4). Since liberalism insists that global cooperation is the ideology and it lessens the tension between states by conducting an interdependent economic system for collective gains, then this falls perfectly in with private international conflicts. Public International Conflicts When looking at public international conflict it relates to a moral conflict that goes across borders and tries to change an existing state. There are two very important causes for public international conflict which the first one is for sovereignty and the second one is religion which is also important to this type of conflict. In this case war is extended state of violence and it usually involves two or more states which the participation of military forces makes all the difference in whether it is just a small conflict or if it deteriorates into a full blown war. Depending on the country or the state it may be that due to self-interest to the people in power, this desire pushes to a far reaching conflict. Let’s look at an example; the United States went to war against Iraq, because it was seen as a threat to the US president who perceived Iraq was in support of harbouring terrorists and compiling an arsenal of WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Destruction). Eventually, since the invasion of Iraq the causes of that war began to change. Goerge W. Bush the President at the time decided to keep American troops in Iraq for an undetermined time because he had a personal agenda and certain gains by overthrowing the Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein. In supporting my argument Krebs and Lobasz give a great twist on the U.S president at the time of the Iraq war “The Bush administration then capitalized on the existing portrait of Saddam Hussein to bind Iraq tightly into the War on Terror and thereby silence leading Democrats and legitimate the war” (Krebs et al. 2007, p. 3). Another basis on human nature noted by Krebs and Lobasz was that “Democrats were relatively silent in the run-up to war because they had been “rhetorically coerced”, unable to advance a politically sustainable set of arguments with which to oppose the war” (Krebs et al. 2007, p. 5). By illustrating these defensive arguments we can clearly come to a conclusion that the school of thought that best suites this type of scenario is Realism in which relates to public international conflict. Realism and its ideology says that human are aggressive and act upon self-interest, egoistically, and well darn brutish to say the least. The Two Theoretical Schools and Explanation of International Conflicts In the end of it all with my evaluations and the arguments presented above about international conflicts and the two paradigms which are realism and liberalism I believe that realism helps explain international conflicts much better. The reasoning behind it is that just because realism is not able to forecast another world war does not mean that it should be discredited immediately since it is apparent that the world is truly anarchic in which the state is solely responsible for its own sovereignty and acts upon its own interests. I believe that it depends on the type of government which influences what type of war will be seen. To my point of view, when we look at the type of government whether it is democratic or non-democratic the main differences that distinguish them is of the political ideas among those differing countries which causes conflicts and wars. The Liberal school of thought believes that democratic states do not go to war amongst themselves but yet they still end up fighting a war or participate in an international conflict nonetheless. Unfortunately to say the least, wars are common in our society and on the world stage. The two theories give us a better understanding or explanation as to why states fight wars or get into conflicts whether it is resources, sovereignty, or self-interest and not just how we can lessen the impact of conflicts or war by interdependency. Conclusion To conclude this essay, we saw the definitions of realism and liberalism which hence forth aided us into understanding the two important types of international conflicts: private and public. Through my argument in believing that realism best explains international conflicts, certain examples of articles help give light as to which better of the two schools of thought went with the private and public sector of international conflicts. By determining the relationships these two paradigms had, it was easier to get my point across as to why realism is the better theoretical perspective for this essay. In today’s view, there is no place in the world free from conflict or from war, thus trumping liberalism and its ideologies. The practicality that realism has on explaining international conflicts cannot be dismissed or denied. Violence has been a part of human nature since we came into existence. By looking back in history, there will be no era that we can safely assume had a violence-free period. As long as wars, violence and conflicts continue to flourish there will be no reasonable solution to end disagreements among states and countries. Total Word Count: 2,446  Bibliography Barry, A., Osborne, T., & Rose, N. S. (Eds.). (1996). Foucault and political reason: Liberalism, neo-liberalism, and rationalities of government. University of Chicago Press. Bercovitch, J. (Ed.). (1996). Resolving international conflicts: the theory and practice of mediation. Lynne Rienner Publishers. Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and international relations. Cambridge University Press. Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan: “On The Natural Condition Of Mankind”. Retrieved October, 30, 2014, from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-­‐h/3207-­‐h.htm Karns, M. P., & Mingst, K. A. (2004). International organizations: the politics and processes of global governance. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Retrieved October 31, 2014, from https://www.rienner.com/uploads/4af8605a08b48.pdf Keohane, R. O. (1993). Institutional theory and the realist challenge after the Cold War. Neorealism and neoliberalism: The contemporary debate, 269, 271. Krebs, R. R., & Lobasz, J. K. (2007). Fixing the meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, coercion, and the road to war in Iraq. Security Studies, 16(3), 409-451. doi: 10.1080/09636410701547881 Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. (No. 4). Columbia University Press. Rowe, R. E. (2010). Changing the World One Invention at a Time: Acting on Your Ideas Using the Creatively Inventing Framework. Bloomington: iUniverse, Inc. Watson, N. (2012). Liberalism and Realism. British Middle East Center for Studies & Research. Retrieved October 31, 2014, from http://bmcsr.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/libralism.pdf Read More