Political Science of International Relations - Essay Example

Political Science al Affiliation . Political Science International relations are guided and dictated through power which is reflected in a state’s economic, political and military capabilities. This forms a basic affirmation that underlies in political theories involving major powers in the world. Great powers like US, China and Russia have a huge influence in international affairs since their power influence go beyond their boundaries affecting the world’s pattern of making political decisions and consequently promoting their political and economic interests. The homogeneity in the distribution of power between these two axes defines the global structure of governance and distinction in spheres of influence. The following paper explains what divides the two axes and what unites each axis. Axis 1: the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the State of Israel, the Arab States of the Gulf, and Turkey. Axis 2: Russia, China, Iran, and Syria). After the end of World War II, peaceful nations were willing to form powerful international and regional fronts arming them with required tools to keep international peace and order Cold War (1945-1989) characterized the array of international politics in a bipolar world pole that is United States and Soviet Union. They balanced themselves across the Atlantic and to some extent creating stability in international relations. After the Cold War, foreign policy makers anticipated the creation of a new world order. United States was left as the only state among the powerful nations dominating the international system after the collapse of Soviet Union and the defeat of communism. United States has demonstrated it has the military ability to deal with any conflict. Advancement in military capabilities and competition in economic and political levels explains a state’s behavior. There is substantial evidence that power politics still influences foreign policy decisions in European and Asian countries. The rise of China is anticipated as the potential threat to the U.S. dominance1. The Republican government has since changed China’s label from “strategic partner” to “strategic rival” thereby intensifying the already uncertain relation between the two economies. Speedy economic advancements of China and the efforts to make China a regional hegemony creates a possibility of this state transforming into militarized nation. Bush administration opted for unilateralism and selective engagement as an overall discourse of US foreign policy created deep tensions in European powers such as China Japan and Russia. U.S. has been treated with contempt after withdrawing from international agreements such as the ICC, Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming and 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Treaty among other agreements. The promotion of unilateralism by the U.S. administration in its foreign policy has to a large extent affected its relation with the nations in the second axis. There is a serious challenge that the two axes are poised to face since both sides are developing tendencies to contend for a bigger influence regarding international policy making. The pursuance of unilateralism by the US and the European’s focus on developing independent defense policy contradicts each other and brings about a scenario where crisis could arise. Clinton administration exhibited active internationalism and economy as opposed to military advancements. This led to the conviction that the U.S deserves to remain as the only superpower. However, the U.S. was seemingly abandoning its longtime ally, Europe. The U.S was reluctant in addressing European affairs as noted in Yugoslavia conflict (1991-94) and its reaction in Somali peace-keeping mission (1993). In both instances, U.S. was reluctant to use its military capability citing violation international peace and stability. At this juncture, the states in the second axis started developing doubts whether U.S. was to be trusted as a global hegemony. This growing uncertainty promotes the tendency among the states in the second axis towards enhanced integration and autonomy. The transatlantic bargain threatens the realization of common foreign and defense policies between the axes. Additionally, there has been some form of disconcertment by European nations over U.S. foreign strategies in Middle East. Bush’s remarks on unilateralism in giving future possible areas where his administration may be involved in military engagement- the so called “Axis of Evil” states which include Iran, Iraq, and Northern Korean further aggravated the situation (Sharp & Blanchard, 2012). The Iraq war headed by the U.S. was considered by Europeans as an evident ignorance of international law and institutions. The U.S. advanced its war in Iraq using its allies forming a coalition of the willing has weakened the stability of international conflicts1. The long history concerning the distrust between U.S. and China in ideological and power politics scope creates bases for future confrontations. Recent engagements of the two economies have in some way provided a smooth transition for China to become more influential in world economy than U.S. Since cold war, China has had an incredible economic growth and is estimated that in the near future its military capability will be sufficient to confront the U.S. The persisting civil conflict in Syria has resulted in its isolation from other countries and at large the international community. On the other hand, Syria continues to nurture it relation with its traditional allies Russia and Iran. Other countries that maintain good relations with Syria include China, Kuwait, Iraq, and North Korea. Though Turkey and Syria share a common border, their relation has remained strained over the years. The current civil war in Syria has intensified the tension between Syria and Turkey. The deteriorations have led Turkey to recall its envoy in Damascus. Iraq and Syria were formed by UK and France after the defeat of Ottoman ruling in WWI. The two are brought together by social, political, economic, cultural and historical ties though they share a foreign border. Despite the political differences between the two, diplomatic relations developed in 2006 brought about a close cooperation politically. Syria has become a battle ground where U.S. has led the international war against the ISIS. U.S. intervention in the war has not been taken lightly by Russia. On the other hand, U.S. accuses Russia of supporting Syrian government where it is alleged that the Syrian authorities have been targeting opposition group branding them as ISIS insurgents. The Russian government has since denounced the strikes orchestrated by U.S. led coalitions as being contrary to the international law since there is no consent from the Syrian government. U.S. has justified its military undertakings on the basis of joint self-defense and an assumption that the Syrian authorities are unable or unwilling to rescind the ISIL. In addition, the U.S. exemplifies their actions on Syrian soils as proportionate and necessary for the elimination the possible threat to Iraq linking the upsurge with al-Qaeda that pose an eminent threat to U.S. and its allies1. All through, Russia has maintained that military actions should be based on the consent of the state where the force is intended to be used. For this case, U.S. requires approval from President Assad and the Syrian government. Russia upholds that the strikes contradict the international law since the U.S. did not receive permission prior to the strikes. Furthermore, Russia has gone on to accuse U.S. and its coalition members of promoting their geopolitical ambitions under the pretense of combating terror. They want a regime change in Syria so to advance their interests according to Russia. On the other hand, the U.S. asserts that its actions are legally binding since they were conducted to defend Iraq. The legitimacy of the U.S. operation was reinforced by the joining in of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, UAE, and Qatar when pledged to offer logistical support to the U.S. led operation 1. Russia is a key supplier the Syrian authorities and has played a critical role in defending Assad from international suctions. It has also defended Assad’s regime overthrowing until negotiations are held with the opposition. Russia has blamed the opposition for delaying peace negotiations since they are not willing to accept Assad’s participation in a peace conference. On the other hand, the United States, UK, France, and other Arab allies forming the first axis funds and helps arming the opposition front in Syria. Turkey and Israel play a key role in the ongoing civil war because they have been experiencing an influx of refugees form the Syrian republic1. What Unites Each Axis The ongoing civil war in Syria will help us to understand why Russia, China and Iran (second axis) are united in supporting the Syrian regime. All these nations have one thing in common. They all have vested interest in Syria. Russia supports Syria because of economics and ideology. On the economics aspect, it is the biggest arms supplier to Syria. The arms industry is in excess of $4 billion. In addition, Russia leases its naval facilities to Syrian maritime. On the aspect of ideology, Russia has a key strategy in stalling U.S. efforts shape the area. Russia believes that wars, regimes change and revolutions cannot bring democracy and stability citing of Iraq’s invasion by U.S. led forces as a perfect example. Russia does not trust U.S. efforts in the region and sees it as an excuse for U.S. to pursue their political and economic ambitions1. Religion and strategy bind Iran and Syria. On the religious aspect, Shiite Muslim dominates Iran and Syrian government is controlled by an offshoot of Shiite called Alawites while the Sunnis dominate the rebel side. On the strategy aspect, Syria is a strategic key ally of Iran. Hezbollah can be used by Iran as a proxy to threaten Israel by using short range missiles. Therefore, it is in Iran’s interest to ensure that Assad’s administration remain in power. Iran considers the axis1states are acting collectively to change the Syrian regime to advance their interests. The core objective of Iran is to ensure that the region is free and safer from Israel1. The relation between Syria and China is more nuanced. It is believed that China wants to uphold its financial tie with Syria. It is ranked as the third biggest importer by Syria. China and Russia are member states of U.N. Security Council and both states have continuously blocked any attempts to sanction Syria. When U.S. acknowledged Israel and supported Israel in the United Nations, there was a decreased reputation of the U.S. in some Arab countries. U.S. played a critical role in Gulf war where U.S. adopted a number of Arab states who were willing to liberate Kuwait. U.S. led this coalition and was perceived as a liberator by these states. United Kingdom and France have always backed U.S. and for long they have been allies. In Syria, they have played a collective role of aiding the resistance forces. They have attempted to pursue a resolution that will pave a way for use of force to liberate Syria1.Both fronts promotes their idealism in their own way, however it will be hard for the two front to come up with a neutral ground where they can agree on issues facing the international integration, peace and stability. These two axes will always treat one another with contempt. References Sharp, J. M., Blanchard, C. M., & Library of Congress. (2012). Armed conflict in Syria: U.S. and international response. Washington, D.C.?: Congressional Research Service. Read More