Relationship between Theory and Practice - Term Paper Example

Relationship between Theory and Practice Theory and practices are two most important aspects of human life. Theoretical knowledge should be supportedwith practical examples in order to make the theory a meaningful one. International politics is also not an exception. But unfortunately we can see most of the political theories in international politics have been violated by most of the nations for their own political or economical advantages. “Historically humans could be and have been disciplined into fine tuned fighting machines. (Christina Masters, p. 114)The latest example for discrepancies in theory and practice can be witnessed in Israel’s intervention and massacres at Gaza city. The latest reports showed that even the UN worker’s offices were also attacked by the Israeli military for which they expressed regret ion when the UN secretary general condemned the issue strongly. It is an established theoretical practice that any type of aid forces such as peace keeping forces, Red Crescent, Amnesty International or medical aid teams should not be attacked in a war front. But theory in most cases lie on paper alone, practices are quite often different from that of the true sense of the theory. The recent terrorist attack on Mumbai city, India by the Pakistan controlled terrorist groups is another example of violation of international political theory. Even the Indian parliament has been attacked by the terrorist group recently. “In a world of complex organizations terrorists have more and more vulnerable, targets from which to choose” (Patrick H O’neil, p. 551)Though, Pakistan trying desperately for face saving actions, their efforts, make the international community even more suspicious about their approaches to terrorism. The evidences handed over by India to Pakistan and international community regarding the Pak involvements in Mumbai attacks was enough to convince the international community but not Pakistan. Even the confession made by the lone terrorist, who has been captured live by the Indian security forces, not taken seriously by Pakistan. “ The discrepancy between theoretical innovation and the continuing persistence of the statist model of realpolitik results, from the continuing failure of much of IR theory to live up to its emancipator potential, that is, its ability to generate those questions that allow individuals to uncover the linkage between global politics and their everyday life” (Matt Davies, Michael Niemann, p. 558, The everyday space of global politics, work leisure, family) In both the examples cited above we can see that political theories have not been kept in practice. “During the cold war the world was divided into the First, Second, and Third worlds. Those divisions are no longer relevant. It is meaningful to classify world, based on the culture and civilization, rather than political or economical systems” (Samuel P Huntington, p. 23) The famous Australian cricketer Mathew Hayden recently called India as a third world which has created lot of protests not only from cricketers, but even others as well. Famous Pakistan cricketer, Wasim Akram urged Hayden to look into the facts like the size and growth of India compared to Australia before making such comments. World order should not be seen as the economic development alone. We have witnessed the downfalls of some stable nations like, USSR recently. The dip in US economy will never make US as a second or third world. So any classification based on economy is not meaningful. The classification if requires should be done based on the cultural and civilization factors. The actions and approaches of a country should be taken in to the account while doing classification rather than the size or economy of the country. The new globalization and liberalization policies actually contributed to the evolution of a new unipolar world. The classification like first, second and third world is not used by reformists. Most of the political leaders thinking in terms of the world as whole and any problems in some corners of the world have been addressed as their own problems because of the global nature of the world. Though many of the world order concepts has been implemented to protect the economically poor world, theoretically, in practice quiet often we can see the violations. “In United States, the policy makers are more likely to be selected for their intelligence, loyalty, and intimate knowledge about a particular region or policy area”. (Stephen M Walt, p. 24) Because of this selection policy the US foreign policies quiet often keep a blind eye towards issues which are not related to their areas of interests. The policy makers always try to protect the US interests at any cost rather than addressing the needs of other nations as well. “A key thing about the diplomats as negotiators is that they do not experience negotiation as taking place on behalf of themselves” (Iver B Neumann, p. 85) United States has often been criticized by Muslim countries for their double standards in foreign policies regarding the Israel – Palestine issues. The recent bombing and gun fights at Gaza city by Israel is been justified by President Bush in a recent statement. Most of the Israel massacres were justified by America while they condemned strongly the Hamas activities in Israel. Israel is keeping a blind eye and deaf ear towards all international laws about citizenship rights and sovereignty of a state. “Political thinkers are unique in their opinion that the America’s overwhelming power was being squandered after the end of cold war and what is best is that America asserts its predominance in the international realm, getting rid of any shackles” (Bryan Mabee, p.1361) Because of the absence of competition or threats from any other super powers, America, now tries to use its monopoly in international relations. Though America condemned the terrorist attack in India, they need Pakistan’s support in fighting against the Taleban. So their approaches towards Pakistan’s involvement in Mumbai terrorist activities have been carefully designed. They don’t want to spoil their relations with India because they are considering India as an emerging power and they want to keep the cooperation with India to execute their interests in South Asia. In short, the implemented foreign policies of many countries are far away from the theoretical perspectives. “International political economy (IPE) defines the economics and politics in world affairs” IPE tries to explain what creates and perpetuates institutions and what impact institutions have on the world economy. (Nagaire woods, p.326) International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank were created to assist nations in their emergency financial matters. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) signed in 1947, intended to negotiate on trade liberalization. The old way of approaching IPE can be viewed in three perspectives; liberal, mercantilist, and Marxist. As per liberal view, through free trade and free movement world economy can be developed. The competition among the countries will bring the order as per this view. But the advocates of mercantilist view believe that world economy can be developed through the interstate competitions of the states. As per them the order is achieved only when there is a balance of power or hegemony. As per Marxist view, world economy is an arena where classes (workers and capitalists) and social groups are in constant conflicts. Capitalists are driven by the profit making motto and the order is achieved only when they succeed in the submission of all others. Thus we can conclude that all the three traditional perspectives highlight the different actors and different processes and different levels of analysis in the study of IPE. (Nagaire woods p. 333, p 335) The new approaches to IPE defines world economy for international cooperation (Institutionalists view) As per the political economic view world economy is characterized by the competition among the states. Neo-Gramscians analyze world economy as a structure of knowledge, ideas and institutions to protect the interests of the dominant groups. The introduction of globalization has done lot damages to the IPE views. Any changes or problems occurred in any corners of market place can affect all other countries. The recent financial crisis in US has affected many countries because of their involvement in US financial sectors. The devaluation of dollar is another concerning factor for many countries. The inter linkage of economy between countries sometimes adversely affect other countries as well. So while implementing globalization policies states must ensure the safety of their economy even in case of a disaster as witnessed in the recent crisis. India can be cited as the best example which is not much affected by the world economic dip because of the mixed economic policies they are following. The IPE theories are for theoretical studies only. But in practice, such theories may not help much. “Security is described as a confused or inadequately explicated concept than as an essentially contested one” (David A Baldwin, p. 12) Individuals, states, and other social actors have many values. These may include physical safety, economic welfare, autonomy, psychological well- being, and so on.” (David A Baldwin, p. 13) In the study of contemporary international relations, we can see non state actors are more relevant as a contemporary subject of analysis in world politics” (Richard price 613) Most of the countries encourage non state actors to execute their political agendas in other countries. For example Pakistan is encouraging and funding Lashkar – E – Tayyiba, Indian Mujahideen like organizations to execute terrorist attack in India. They want to destabilize the Indian economy as they are afraid of a possible Indian domination in Asian political affairs because of the excellent growth rates of Indian economy. Indirect attacks as witnessed in the Mumbai are clear. Cuba has several times accused US in the past for trying to create political problems in their country through non state actors. From the above discussions we can conclude that the practices in security issues are far from theoretical frameworks approved by the world community. Many of the theories in International relations are in papers only. In practice most of the theories has been violated by developed or developing countries. Selfish concepts about development and growth force many countries to forget about the theoretical base of International relations. Though globalization and liberalization policies intended to integrate the international relations, through free trade and collective economic growth, still poor countries found it difficult to utilize it because of their limited resources. In short most of the IR theories remain in papers only while for practical purposes, most of the countries have their own theories. Read More