Methods And Theories Of The Studying Of International Conflicts - Term Paper Example

Methods And Theories Of The Studying Of International Conflicts Theories of international affairs attempt to explain the international relations that are in operation in the world, shedding light on pertinent global issues, their causes, courses, possible outcomes and solutions that should be taken. Each theory has its own way of explaining any issue and thus the proponents of that theory only want a given issue to be explained in a given fixed manner. For example, the Marxist theory explains most issues in terms of economics, whether the pertinent issue is political, social, economic, religious or even educational. Nations with similar ideologies like democratic systems tend to have amicable and mutual relations in almost all sectors, with each nation coming to the aid of the other if need be. Theories of international relations are very important in explaining the various global events and in determining international relations especially in the waging wars. One of the pertinent global issues is international conflicts. In the study of international conflict, there is not a single method, which can be termed as the most dominant or most preferred in the analysis of the various conflict processes, reasons and genesis of the conflicts. This is because international conflicts emanate from different reasons and take different courses. The conflicts also involve different countries with different ideologies, policies, leadership and system of government. The various nations are governed using different methods and systems like democratic system, socialism, monarchical, dictatorship while some like Somalia have no stable governments. The countries of the world are also unevenly developed; some are very developed possessing advanced arsenal like nuclear weapons while others are third world countries that cannot even feed their population. The main actors in international conflicts vary depending on the theories employed. The key theories of international affairs have stated that nations, states, ideologies, terrorism and economic factors as the key actors in international relations and consequently international conflicts (Nye, 2008). As a nation, the US being the most developed nation on earth is one of the key actors in international conflict and thus the trailblazer in international relations. It influences its allies like the Northern Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members in any conflict resolution and management. The United Nations has also a key role to play in international conflict and peacekeeping missions. Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda have also been key in international conflicts. The war between the US and Afghanistan sparked in 2001, was mainly sparked by the September 11 attack on the US by terrorists. Even though there is no single most dominant method of analysis of international relations, several methods have been preferred. These include realism, Marxism, rationalism, empiricism, liberal international relations theory, qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis of which all the global issues can be explained using one or many of these theories. Of the many theories that try to analyze international relations and for this matter international conflict, realism could be argued as the best and in the right level (Morris, 2003). This is because realism studies the actual reasons and methods as opposed to other theories that rely on idealism. Realism is also broad and offers a variety of reasons thus accommodative. Some of the historical figures who have advocated for the realism approach include Niccolo Machiavelli and Otto Van Bismarck. Realism theory holds that the key actors in any international conflict are the nations of the earth. This theory holds that national interest and security of whichever state comes before morality or any social factors. A state whose national security is threatened will attack without hesitation or deliberation. This theory also holds that there is no single dominant international force whose authority can be respected by others. Therefore, all nations are constantly trying to outmaneuver and outsmart each other in the competition for supremacy and hence conflicts are bound to be observed. The theory also state that there is no single nation that can be relied on for survival of another nation hence all nations want to safeguard their own survival and in the process, they find themselves fighting with their neighbors over boundaries disputes, minerals and oil rich regions. This theory of international conflict can be said to be the one that offers extensive and intensive explanations for the various conflicts. The US and its allies attack on Iraq in 2003 mainly culminated from the notion that Iraq was manufacturing and in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Britain argued that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a threat to its national peace. The US also argued that these weapons could be used by terrorists thus a threat to its national security and hence the necessity of the invasion to destroy these weapons. This national security reason is one of the reasons highlighted by the realism theory. Some of the waged wars have been discussed below. Under arms control, chemical and biological weapons are prohibited. They should not be made, stored or used in any way. Nuclear weapons manufacturing is also prohibited. The Western countries believed that Iraq was manufacturing these prohibited weapons consequently threatening their security and that of the other nations in the process breaking the arms control rules. With the conviction that Iraq was having weapons of mass annihilation and destruction, military invasion was applied in Iraq. This is commonly referred to as the Second Gulf War. It was the invasion of Iraq under Saddam Hussein by the militaries of various nations led by the US under George Bush in 2003. Prior to the war, the US and UK insisted that Iraq must comply with the UN delegation mandated to investigate the possibility of the presence of mass destruction weapons. Iraq cooperated but later became reluctant when it realized that US intelligence disguised as inspectors were also among the delegates. In 2003, before the war, Colin Powel, the then US Secretary of State presented before the UN what the US believed to be evidence of availability of unconventional, prohibited weapons in Iraq. France was also convinced that Iraq was making biological outlawed weapons. Despite all these convictions, the arms inspectors reported progress in their mission of which they categorically stated that there were no chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction. The US and Britain were already convinced that there were weapons of mass destruction. President Bush snubbed diplomatic channels of solving the crisis, took advantage of the arms control policies prohibiting weapons of mass destruction and attacked Iraq. Most of the nations in the world were opposed to the war. Diplomacy was being advocated for as it was the best method of avoiding war expenses, loss of life and destruction of property as stipulated by the arms control principles. Even close allies of the US and NATO members like Canada were opposed to the invasion as well as leaders like former US President, Bill Clinton who was also vocal in opposing the war. The attack on Iraq was quick and very effective. Baghdad succumbed and fell into the control of the allied forces within weeks. Saddam Hussein was removed from power but no weapons of mass destruction were found. This further brought condemnation of the US and UK. The mission became a failure. The war has had very negative effects on many sectors. It was very costly and affected the economies of involved parties. The Iraq nation was destroyed as many people died while others were left homeless with refugees fleeing to the neighboring nations. There was also destruction of structures and the rise of terrorist groups in Iraq. Iraq has constantly been listed among the failed states and most insecure in the world. President Bush received one of the lowest ratings for a president leaving office. This also illustrates how the world has drifted from being pro-war to diplomacy. Arms are discouraged and in their place, diplomatic channels have been favored as one of the arms control policies. The Iraq war illustrates how Bush strategically used the arms control as a scapegoat for attacking Iraq. The realist theory has been extensively applied in this case to explain why the US acted. The international diplomacy had stalled, with Iraq refusing to comply with the UN weapons inspectors. Since the international relation between the US and Iraq had deteriorated since the Gulf war of the 1990s, the US feared Iraq might use the weapons that it was speculated to posses, against the US. Being realists, the US could not take any chances when it felt its national security was being compromised. China’s population of over one billion people makes it the most populous country in the world. Realism explains that China realizes that any attack with nuclear weapons would cause devastating effects. Its high population, the contemplation of what nuclear weapons would cause to its population and the arms control policies have made China since 1963 to consistently advocate for the ban of production and thorough destruction of the existing nuclear weapons. China is totally against the policy of nuclear deterrence. The country has further gone ahead to take advantage of past arms control conventions and call its own conventions to discuss the total ban on any action or initiative employing the use of nuclear weapons. These conventions have similar traits with those organized on the chemical and biological weapons basis. China has on many occasions firmly asserted that the US and Russia (major nuclear powers in the world) must initiate and engage more in the process of nuclear disarmament. China has gone further to issue conditions and ultimatums. She insists that if she is to take part in the major conventions on arms control, the US and Russia must make significant progress toward nuclear disarmament. Although China has signed various conventions, she cites this as the initial foundation towards the ultimate goal of eradication of all nuclear wars. The international relations of the West and China have thus been affected to a great deal by the nuclear debate. On arms control and the process of disarmament, she has recently issued some statements. She stresses the need for objectivity when dealing with arms control and points out that this endeavor of arms control and disarmament must be seen to strengthen the security of countries rather than making it weak and vulnerable. The process must also not undermine the security of countries. China then stresses the need for making the various treaties by different countries more conventional. She would prefer them to be made universal then there be an efficient mechanism to ensure they are institutionalized and adhered to by all the states without exception (Reus-Smit & Snidal, 2008). The other major point China stresses is that small countries whose military prowess is advanced and has economic power should not be permitted or left to dominate others in the name of absolute self defense reliance. Developing countries should also not be permitted to develop sophisticated weapons even though they stress the arms are purely for self-defense and so they have a legitimate right. Those developed countries in possession of advanced and sophisticated nuclear weapons must be actively involved in the disarmament arms control process. Finally, the international laws that discriminate and give others exclusive rights in the export sector should immediately be abolished and revised. China has also used the arms control to strategically, propose especially to the major powers with nuclear weapons, ways in which to foster and encourage nuclear disarmament. She proposes that states in possession of nuclear weapons should do away with the nuclear deterrence policies. It would also be preferable for nuclear possessing nations to reduce their nuclear stockpiles. Instead of storing the banned nuclear warheads, it would be better to destroy them. Nuclear nations must never, no matter the circumstances, employ or threaten to the use nuclear weapons on the nations who have no nuclear weapons or strike the neutral areas or zones that are free from nuclear weapons usage. The realism theory thus explains China’s effort in trying to reduce the nuclear weapons in the world. Nuclear weapon manufacturing has been a pertinent issue with nations like Iran engaging in nuclear enrichment programs. This competition for supremacy in world affairs was also seen during the cold war. The US and Soviet Union engaged in various competitive ventures and although they never actually engaged in military confrontation, their allies did. For example, North Korea invaded The Republic of Korea (South Korea) prompting the US to mobilize her troops to defend and prevent South Korea from succumbing to communism. This was repeated in the Vietnam War in the bid by the US to secure Vietnam borders from communism. The Soviet Union also attacked Afghanistan in 1979 a move that saw the US supporting the rebels in an effort to undermine the Soviet’s occupation. International conflicts can, therefore, be attributed to the anarchy in the international stage as argued by the realism theory. The realism theory also state that a nation cannot rely on other nations for survival (Nochlin, 1977). This prompts the nations to engage in the process of armament and the provisions of firearms. Nations sign multi-million US-dollar contracts with other weapon producing nations in the purchase of weapons like tanks, fighter jets, guns and bombs. This is done with the notion of self-preservation and assurance of national survival. The best example is the war in Middle East between Israel and the Arab nations. Israel views itself as a threatened state. Arab nations like Iran have publicly opposed the creation of Israel saying the land where Israel nation is located belongs to Palestines. These Arab states have launched attacks on Israel in a bid to occupy it. Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad has stated his desire to wipe out Israel from the world map. These threats have made Israel vow not to entrust its existence to any other state thus engaging in massive armament, which has in turn seen military confrontation in the Middle East region for ages. Military activities have overtaken any other activity in the region (Mitchell, 1998). Liberalism as a theory in analyzing international relations and conflict differs with realism and emphasis on idealism. Realism holds that the state is the sole actor in international conflict, however, liberalism hold that there are multiple actors in international conflict analysis, brought about by the various nations’ preferences rather than their abilities. The variation could be in terms of culture, economy or the system of government. Instead of competition and anarchy on the international platform, the theory projects interaction of different cultures, marketing strategies and multinational companies. Thus, instead of international conflicts, the theory views peace as possible. Realism holds that nations do not abide by ideologies when faced with international conflicts. In its opposition of such a stand, liberalism holds that democracies do not fight one another and have few conflicts among themselves if any. This has been used by critics as the main shortcoming of the realism theory. Marxist theory differs with the realism and liberalism theory. It says that economic factors are the major actors and influencers in international conflicts. The material needs of nations prompt them to attack others in the quest to supply their industries and population with enough resources. This can be seen with invasion and colonization of other nations especially in Africa, Asia, Americas and Oceania by European powers from the 15th to the 20th Century. The main aim of countries like Britain and Germany in attacking African countries was to secure raw materials for their surging industries after the Industrial Revolution in Europe. The other reason was to provide ready markets for the manufactured goods. The economic factors thus lead nations to war in a bid to secure certain resources. The Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade/Triangular Trade was also necessitated by economic reasons. Slaves from Africa were obtained through warfare, and consequently led to the fall of many West African kingdoms. The slaves were taken to the Americas where they worked in the plantations to provide raw materials for industries in Europe. Once the finished goods were produced, they were in turn sold to the subjugated Africans. The Iraq- Kuwait War, which led to the Gulf War, was mainly seen as an economic war. Iraq was heavily indebted to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after the Iraq-Iran war of the 1980s. Iraq was also experiencing internal economic hardships and so the only option the Saddam regime could do was to attack Kuwait and seize her rich natural resources. This led to the Gulf War started by the US and her allies in a bid to stop the invasion and remove the Iraq soldiers from Kuwait. In turn, economic repercussions were severe, as Iraq set Kuwait’s oil fields on fire; Iraq also released millions of gallons of crude oil into the Persian Gulf in an attempt to deter the US navy from reaching the coast (Kaldor, 2006). In the study of international conflicts and international affairs as a whole, Realism, Marxism and Liberalism theories are crucial in the realization of the right level of analysis. The theories explain the various causes and courses of conflicts. International conflicts and crisis have been in existence for a long time. In fact, they have existed through out the history of humankind and thus the right analysis is necessary. There are numerous theories that try to analyze the issue further expounding while others contradicting. In international conflicts, the key actors have been in most cases remained the nation states, ideologies, individuals and economic factor (Haas, 1974). References Haas, M. (1974). International Conflict. New Jersey: Bobbs Merrill. Kaldor, M. (2006). Old and New Wars. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, Palo Alto. Mitchell, R. (1998). The Structure of International Conflict. New York: St. Martins Press, INC. Morris, P, (2003). Realism. London: Routledge. Nochlin, L, (1977). Realism. New York: Taylor& Francis. Nye, J, (2008). Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History. New York: Pearson Longman. Reus-Smit, C,. Snidal, D. (2008). The Oxford handbook of international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More