Introduction
This course of key issues in international relations will prove that experience of International Relations has inevitably become international and characterized by increasingly complex and highly mutable realities. A host of new actors and new issues altogether have featured to the global scene with imprecise trends and largely volatile in nature. Scholars and practitioners alike are of the assertion that; we are definitely in a unique international system. A system which is bound to entwine new patterns of politics on global arena, setting new paradigm of global politics. A great deal of international relations, post World War II has been motivated by the search for new international systems to eclipse or best replace the older ones which only yielded the world wars. This course attempts a cross examinations of the nature and the prominent strands if issues in international relations. The issues explored range from the post-cold war global scene, north south relations, military forces & terrorism, war and causes of war to actually peculiar ones such AIDS/HIV and matters if immigration. Each if the issue is critically interrogative to particularly identify, describe and assess the actors that push it on the global scene and eventually maintain it on the regional global agenda. Emerging none state actors are particularly examined with an aim to reach an informed stance with regards to the relevancy and potency of the actors or issues in international relation.
Topic I: THEORY AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
I.0 Introduction
This is also called several names and may be used interchangeably as synonymous terms referring to the same area of study. These include; International Relations, International Affairs, World Politics, Global politics, etc. In the 21st century, many more than inter-state relations are studied. Some scholars therefore prefer Global Politics or World Politics to International Relations. The term is broader than IR. It includes international politics played by states as well as other actors in the international system such as non-state actors, intergovernmental and international organizations, transnational non-state actors, as well as local actors. IR refers to political relations between states/nations excluding domestic actors while international politics refers to politics and political patterns between states. International Relations (with upper case shortened as IR) is the study of international relations (lower case) (Chris Brown with Kirsten A.) Its components include, but are not limited to; a. International Relations Theory b. American and Comparative Foreign Policy Analysis c. Foreign Policy Analysis d. International Law e. International Organization f. Regional Integration g. Comparative Politics and Area (Regional) Studies h. Strategic Studies i. International development j. Globalization and North-South Relations k. International Communication l. Peace and Security Studies
I.1 What are International Relations
There is no common agreement on its status as a field of study. Some scholars consider it subset of Political Science, studied from a perspective of Global Politics. Others see problems such as peace maintenance, arms control, population control and international development as subjects suitable only for interdisciplinary research teams drawing on the expertise of many disciplines including Political Science, History, Environmental, Geography, Economics, Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Business Management and so on… Thus International R can be defined differently depending on which angle your approach it’s from. Simply, it may be defined as “the diplomatic-strategic relations of states” and the focus will be on issues of war and peace, conflict and cooperation. Others may define it as being about cross-border transactions of all kinds, political, economic, and social. As such Int. R/Int P may study trade negotiations, or the operation of non-state actors such as Amnesty International, conventional peace talks, or the working of the United Nations or Regional Cooperation arrangements. In the 21st century, some may focus on Globalization, studying for example global communication, transport and financial system, global business corporations and the emergence of a global society (Chris Brown, 2005, 1). Some will even disagree on International Relations being synonymous with International Politics stating that international relations are not political, because, from a traditional sense, politics is about authority and governments and there is no international authority in the conventional sense of the term (Brown, 2005, 4). But today, 21st century, even though states remain the primary actors, they are not alone in the field. Actors, instruments and interests have not only changed, they have also multiplied hence the relevance of the term International Politics.
I.1.1 Comparison between Traditionalists, Scientific and Post-Behavioural Schools
I.1.1.1 Traditionalists’ Concept of International Relations Traditionalists predate the scientific school by a generation study of the patterns of action and reaction among sovereign states as represented by their governing elites focus is on activities of diplomats and soldiers who carry out foreign policies of their respective national governments Int. R is synonymous with diplomacy and strategy and conflict and cooperation It is a study of peace and war. 1. Assume that myriad of factors (variables) affect the behaviour of diplomats and soldiers as implementers of state policy. These variables may include; a) Climate b) Geography c) Historical and cultural traditions d) Economic and commercial interests. e) Religious and ideological maxims and historical myths f) Leaders and their supportive elites 2. Traditionalists consider as most important the observed behaviour of governments, as explained in terms of concepts such as; a. The balance of power b. Pursuit of national interest c. Self-help system d. World order e. Diplomacy and prudence. 3. Realists such Morgenthau embraces that state political realists can safely predict that state behaviour will reflect the rational actions of diplomats who strive to maximise benefits for their countries within limits of prudence, limits established by the need for political as well national survival (Vital National Interest).Prudence is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason, skill, and good judgement. 4. Morgenthau has elevated the concept of power to central importance of the analysis of international politics. Other concepts fundamental to traditional realism include; national interest, balance of power (today’s parlance, balance of terror). 5. Traditional theory is particularly characterized by uncertainty and that war is always looming. The international system is thus anarchic; it obliges leaders to calculate their means against the vague and incalculable ends of the physical, political, and cultural survival and growth of the nation-states. (see Hitler and Stalin, and the policy of appeasement in Brown p. 12-13)
I.1.1.2 The Scientific School a. Consider IR too broad and complex to fit within the confines of political sciences or any other discipline. b. IR is an interdisciplinary field and emphasizes international concepts and problems not only in political sciences and history, but also in the experimental social sciences and when appropriate, the natural sciences. c. They apply quantitative technique and model building to avoid the imprecision of the traditionalists. d. They believe in the empirical method, inductive reasoning and comprehensive testing of hypothesis. e. Explicit rules or principles must always be confirmed by repeated observations and testing. f. Concepts must be operationalized by precise measurement of variables. g. Researchers and students of Int R must be trained in statistical technique and computer science (scientific method, simulations) h. That because the traditionalists do not use the scientific method, they have nothing to offer other than the wisdom approach. However, they agree that because of the many variables and the rigor of their criteria, it is too early to advance general theories of Int. R. Thus the scientific school has produced “more promise than performance” (David J Singer), and more process analysis than substantive experimentation. However, it has contributed to and leads the methodological revolution that the Int. Relations field began to experience in the 1950s.
I.1.1.3 Post-Behavioural Schools of Thought In the 1960s and 70s, the debate between traditionalists and scientific began to mellow (fed). Polemics such “political science without quantification and value freedom is not very useful” (Scientific School) and “politics cannot be studied scientifically (traditionalists)” retreated from academic debates. Instead more eclectic oriented studies emerged. Eclectic: selecting what appears to be best in various doctrines, methods, or styles; elements drawn from various sources. These were referred to as “post-behaviouralism” or orientation combining elements of both the traditional and the scientific. These studies included the following; a. control of nuclear arms b. substitution of war with peaceful means for dispute settlement c. population control d. environment protection, poverty eradication disease and human alienation New schools of thought also emerged. These included Dependency and Interdependency theories (World and North South Relations). These criticize both the traditional and the scientific of being state centric when there are other actors in the international hence distorting the reality. Dependency theorists put emphasis on class rather than state (Marxist orientation) as a better unit of analysis. They say that an understanding of the international political economy and the dependency of the poor peripheries. Interdependency (World Order) these put emphasis on the rise of many non-state actors, Multi-national corporations (MNCS), INGO, IOs, Global Governance, International terrorist groups and organizations, cross border ethnic communities etc, hence emphasizing pluralism. The Radical Tradition and the Roots of International Economy; Other radical theories included Marxist, neo-Marxism, liberalism and the Kantian tradition which emphasize that individuals are part of a cosmopolitan world society. These theories including the dependency and interdependency approaches tend to downgrade the importance of the state. However, Int. R is a massive and complex subject, and diversity of approach and scholarship can help to show its many facets. It involves conflict and cooperation, competition and interdependence, independence and dependence as well as anarchy and society. This is a complex reality. Today with advanced communication technology (ICT) and trade, we are seeing a fast globalizing interconnected world. All these developments and characteristics of this complex reality pose formidable problems of analysis and understanding but also one of the most distinctive and fascinating areas of human activity. (Phil Williams, ed, 1994, 14)
I.1.2 Theories and theory building in international relations.
The word ‘theory’ comes from the Greek word Theoró meaning to look at. The traditional realist Stanley Hoffman has defined theory as “a systematic study of observable phenomena that tries to discover the principal variables, to explain behaviour and to reveal the characteristic types of relations among national units”. (Theodore A. Couloumbis, James H. Wolf, 1986, 29) Kenneth Waltz (Neo-realist) on the other hand says that “theories are collections or sets of laws pertaining to a particular behaviour or phenomenon” (Kenneth Waltz) David J. Singer (Behaviourist/ scientific approach) defines theory as “a body of internally consistent empirical generalizations of descriptive, predictive, and explanatory power”. He insists that these generalizations should best be expressed in the form of hypotheses and propositions that are testable, verifiable, and falsifiable, hence quantifiable.
I.1.3 Units and actors in international politics; the problem of levels of analysis. Academic disciplines have devised sets of conceptual units, also referred to as taxonomies or classifications, to facilitate study, analysis, and understanding. These help in collaborating with one another and to engage in cumulative learning and theory building. In chemistry for example, one can study micro units such as atoms, intermediate units such as compounds, or aggregate units such as pollution. Is, from micro, macro, to aggregate. Economics micro (the individual and the firm), macro (national) and international economic system.
I.1.3.1 The utility of theory in international politics How can concepts such as hypothesis and theoretical constructs be used in making and implementing foreign policy? Although theory and theorizing may be an aid in understanding international political phenomena, it is not necessarily a practical guide for the day to day operations of a foreign office or defence ministry. These deal with practical realities. Footballers never read or develop any theory of football! They practice and play football.
I.1.4 Limitations to Theory Building in International Politics. They include the following • personal involvement,characteristics of the data,the very nature of the process of acquiring knowledge. All these combine to make the formulation of a rigorous cumulative body of theory a difficult undertaking.
I.1.4.1 Personal involvement A theorist in international politics and other social sciences does not enjoy an abstract, impersonal relationship with the object of study as a chemist or biologist would. The theorist is himself/herself involved. Eg; a. culture b. citizen loyalty c. political affiliation d. educational experiences e. Family and friends. All these affect one’s approaches to the study, hence lacking objectivity. These factors create pressures, some reinforcing, and others opposing, and combine to affect the output of theoretical investigation. Subconscious predispositions and personal distortions that lead to withdrawal from certain ideas or their categorization in such a fashion as to influence the product of one’s research. Government agencies and other organizations; Bureaucratic competition for budgetary support. A government department or agency may seek external support in form of advisory opinions and consultancy to support the work of the agency.
I.1.5 Difference between Institutions and Organizations
To distinguish institutions from Organization; the latter are the ‘players or groups of individuals (political parties, a regulatory agency ect…) Institutions play an important part in effective natural resource and environmental management. Institutional failure is more often than not a major contributor to natural resources degradation and loss. Legislation usually defines broad issues, sets objectives, definitions and identifies the legal mandate of the government and other stakeholders in conservation. Institutions are important because its limit human actions in recurring or repeated interaction, in that, particular behavior is forbidden, encouraged or allowed. They enable reliable expectations on other players and reduce the enforcement and monitoring costs of economic transactions.
I.1.6 Government Correcting Markets
Market failure does not mean that the government should intervene and replace markets. Government programs and bureaucracy aimed to address market failure can create other types of economic inefficiency. Instead or replacing markets, government action can support markets (such as “lemon laws” for used cars) or create markets (such as pollution permits). Governments can also change situations so people will act in ways that are more beneficial. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein proposed an idea called “Nudge” for use in issues like organ donations and funding retirement accounts where people have to “opt in” to participate in the programs with the result that too few participate. They argue that by switching the choice to having people “opt out” of the program
I.1.6.1 Public Choice Theory & Government Failure
American economist James Buchanan won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in Public Choice Theory which is the economic analysis of government decision making. At the core of Public Choice Theory is the recognition that the government is not unified force in the economy, but is instead an organization made up of self-interested individuals. Buchanan has described Public Choice by saying that it is “politics without romance” basically; it does not see government as a noble force, just another imperfect institution. Public Choice Theory means that government officials think about more than just the social impact of policy, but on how the policy will impact them personally and professionally.
I.1.6.2 Institutions Supply and Demand of Public Goods,
Cost vs. Benefit A primary role of government as an economic agent (National and International) is to supply and demand public goods. Because of the free rider problem, there is no market that will supply public goods, such as roads, police and fire protection. The optimal quantity of a public good should be based on a “cost-benefit” analysis of that good. The public good should be supplied in the amount that will yield the greatest net benefit (benefit minus cost). The supply and demand model describes how prices vary as a result of a balance between product availability and demand. The graph depicts an increase (that is, right-shift) in demand from D1 to D2 along with the consequent increase in price and quantity required to reach a new equilibrium point on the supply curve (S).
I.1.6.3 Equilibrium and the Price Mechanism
The concept of "market equilibrium" is central to the neoclassical model. Léon Walras thought of it as the achievement of an imaginary auctioneer who adjusts a notional opening price in response to a succession of bids by buyers and sellers, and permits transactions to take place only when a price is reached at which buyers are willing to buy all that is offered for sale. That is the process of price determination by supply and demand which marks the abandonment of the concept of value-determined price, and which is examined in detail in Alfred Marshall's Economics and in Milton Friedman's Price Theory.
The quantity demanded, Q, of a particular good depends on the market price, P. We shall refer to the way Q depends on P as the demand equation or demand function. We assume that this relationship is linear, i.e. P = aQ + b, for some appropriate constants (parameters) a and b. Example: The demand and supply equations of a good are given by
• 4P = −Qd + 240,
• 5P = Qs + 30.
Determine the equilibrium price and quantity. Solution
• 4P = −Qd + 240,
P= Qd=240-120
• 5P = Qd + 30.
a) 4x30= - Qd+240
Qd= 120 9p=240+30
120= - Qd+240
b) 5x30=Qs+30
-Qs=30-150
150=Qs+30
Qs=120
The demand and supply functions of a good are given by
• P = −Qd + 125
• 2P = 3Qs + 30.
• Determine the equilibrium price and quantity.
Solution • P = −Qd + 125 x3
3P=-3 Qd+375
• 2P = 3Qs + 30 x1
2P= 3 Qs +30
5P=0+405 =
5P=405 P=-Qd=125
Qd=125-81=44
2P=3Qs+30
Qs=162-30/3=132/3 2x81=
3Qs=30 Qs=44 I.1.6.4
Common Market in International Economics Common Market means the Partner States’ markets integrated into a single market in.
Eg: 1. Free movement of persons;
2. Free movement of labour;
3. Free movement of services;
4. Free movement of capital;
5. Right of establishment; and
6. Right of residence.
Quick Reference to Basic Market Structures Market Structure Seller Entry Barriers Seller N0 Buyer Entry Barriers Buyer N0 Perfect Competition No Many No Many Monopolistic competition No Many No Many Oligopoly Yes Few No Many Oligopsony No Many Yes Few Monopoly Yes One No Many Binopoly Yes Two No Many Monopsony No Many Yes One Binopsony No Many Yes Two
I.1.6.5 Market failure
Central to International economics is the concept of market failure. Market failure means that markets fail to allocate resources efficiently. As stated by Hanley, Shogren, and White (2007) in their textbook International Economics: "A market failure occurs when the market does not allocate scarce resources, management of Export and importation to generate the greatest social welfare. A wedge exists between what a private person does given market prices and what society might want him or her to do to protect the Government Political System.
I.1.6.6 Element of Market failure
Different International economists have different views about what events are the sources of market failure. Mainstream economic analysis widely accepts a market failure (relative to Pareto efficiency) can occur for three main reasons: if the market is "monopolized" or a small group of businesses hold significant market power, if production of the good or service results in an externality, or if the good or service is a "public good".
I.1.6.7 Nature of the market
International Agents in a market can gain market power, allowing them to block other mutually beneficial gains from trade from occurring. This can lead to inefficiency due to imperfect competition, which can take many different forms, such as monopolies, monopsonies, or monopolistic competition, if the International agent does not implement perfect price discrimination. In a monopoly, the market equilibrium will no longer be Pareto optimal.
I.1.6.8 Sources of Market failure
Market imperfections: a market where information is not quickly disclosed to all participants in it and where the matching of buyers and sellers isn't immediate. Generally speaking, it is any market that does not adhere rigidly to perfect information flow and provide instantly available buyers and sellers.
I.1.6.9 Nature of the goods
Some markets can fail due to the nature of the goods being exchanged. For instance, goods can display the attributes of public goods or common goods, wherein sellers are unable to exclude non-buyers from using a product, as in the development of inventions that may spread freely once revealed.
I.1.6.10 Common goods and public goods
When it is too costly to exclude some people from access to an environmental resource, the resource is either called a common property resource (when there is rivalry for the resource, such that one person's use of the resource reduces others' opportunity to use the resource) or a public good (when use of the resource is non-rivalrous). In either case of non-exclusion, market allocation is likely to be inefficient.
I.1.6.11 Market Failure,
Economic Need for Government International Economic theories of market failure justify a legitimate role for the governments to work as an economic agent
• To correct for externalities by forcing private agents to pay for the full cost of their actions
• To regulate markets to correct for the market failure of asymmetric information
• To provide public goods to correct for the market failure caused by the free rider problem Identifying cases and causes of market failure provides a government a reason to intervene in markets to act as an economic agent to prevent or correct for market failure.
I.1.7 Budget or Feasible Set in International Relations
The companies also have a choice of models. The first company knows that many of the papers will need to be copied on both sides. The second company knows that very few of the papers it copies will need double sided copying. Of course, the second company will not pay much more for this, while the first company will. In this example, we see that a buyer will be prepared to pay more for the increase in utility compared to alternative products.
Example 1: Given a Budget Z, with the product A which consume 5, for and Product B Consume for 12, the total Budget is 6000 with Graphic,
Solution A+B= BGT 17AB=6000 5A=353 12B=353 5A+12B=6000, AB= , A= 70.6, B= 29. 70 Budget 29
Example 2: Given a Budget W, with the product X which consume 6, for and Product Y Consume for 4, the total Budget is 60 with Graphic, 6X+4Y=60 XY= =6 5Y=6; 10 XY= 60 6X=6 X= =1 Y= .
Example 3: Given a Budget U, with the product D which consume 4, for and Product E Consume for 8, the total Budget is 500 with Graphic
I.2 Different Theories in International Relations
The recognition that there is an international dimension to politics is not new. However, the modern international system did not come until the emergence of centralized states in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
A process that was completed by the treaty of Westphalia in 1648 which brought the Thirty Years War to an end, with the formal recognition by the European powers of the sovereign independence of each state. The European state system was subsequently extended when the USA was recognized as a power after its defeat of Spain in 1898. Japan was also recognized as great power after its defeat of Russia in 1904-1905.
Imperialism and colonialism in Asia and Africa gave the international system a truly global dimension. The 20th century witnessed the emergence of world politics in the sense that patterns of conflict and cooperation amongst states and international organisations extended across the globe. This was bitterly (chillingly) witnessed during the two world wars WW1, 1914-1918, WW 2, 1939-1945, and the Cold War, 1947-1991 that could have led to a nuclear holocaust. Today, there is a growing recognition that the very parameters of political life have changed, this calls into question the conventional realm of politics.
These complex and multifaceted changes have increasingly been referred to as “globalization”. In order to analyse these and other developments, it is necessary to examine the various perspectives from which international and world politics has traditionally been examined. These schools are;
• Idealism, Realism, Pluralism, Marxism, Constructivism among others. Idealism; it views international politics from the perspective of moral values and legal norms. It is concerned less with empirical analysis (with how international actors behave) than with normative judgements (with how they should behave). Because of this, idealism is seen as Utopian. Famous idealists include; Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274) who wrote on “Just Wars”.
He attempted to place the actions of rulers in a moral context, that war would be justified only when three conditions were fulfilled; a. It had to be declared by a ruler who had the authority to do so; b. The cause had to be just, in the sense that it avenged a wrong; c. The intention had to be to achieve good or avoid evil and not to give vent to greed and cruelty. Emmanuel Kant was another idealist who developed some early version of World Government. In his view, morality and reason combined to dictate that there should be no war, the future of human kind being based on the prospect of universal and lasting peace. His book was called Perpetual Peace. Most forms of idealism are characterised by internationalism: The belief that human affairs should be organized according universal and not merely national principles; in the belief therefore,
human affairs, both on domestic and international levels are characterized by harmony and cooperation. Liberalism is a form of idealism which recognizes the existence of the nation state and its primacy, but emphasizes the importance of interdependence and free trade. They argue that war does not pay. It believes in collective security and International Law, which is embodied in international organizations such as the League of Nations and the United Nations Organization.
President Woodrow Wilson in his “Fourteen Points” argued that WW1 was a result of Old Politics” of militarism and expansionism by multinational empires. To him, the best antidote to war was; a. Construction of a world of democratic nation-states b. Cooperation in areas of common interest c. No incentive to embark upon conquest or plunder. Neo-idealism; this arose after ridicule and denigration of idealists by realists in the twentieth century.
It reflects the unhappiness with the amoral power politics of the super power era. It is a perspective on international politics that emphasize the practical value of morality and in particular respect for human rights and national independence. Examples of this approach are reflected in Jimmy Carter’s policies in the 1970s. He emphasized economic and military aid to go hand in hand with human rights records of recipient regimes.
World Society, associated with Australian John Burton (1972) rejects as obsolete the notion of sovereign nation-states, emphasizing instead a pattern of complexity and interdependence, similar to a cob-web. Realism; the realist tradition also called “political realism” is the oldest theory of International Relations. It is traced back to Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian war (431BC) and Sun Tzu’s classic work on strategy, The Art of War written around the same time in China. Others include Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Whereas idealism puts emphasis on morality and law (Legalism), realism puts emphasis on power politics and the pursuit of national interest. Power politics is an approach to politics based on the assumption that the pursuit of power is the principal human goal. The term is used descriptively at times.
To realists, the state is the principal actor in international politics and being sovereign, is able to act as an autonomous entity. Realists such as Edward H. Carr (1939) and Morgenthau (1948) have attacked idealist beliefs in internationalism and natural harmony. To realists, in absence of a higher authority than the sovereign state, international politics is conducted in a “state of nature” and is thus characterized by a state of anarchy, not harmony. An anarchic international system is one in which each state is forced to help itself or “self-help” and priority to its own national interest. National interest, defined most basically, is state survival and territorial defence. Realists put much emphasis on power in international affairs and tend to understand power in terms of military capacity or force. International anarchy does not mean relentless conflict and unending war. Peace is maintained by balance of power. That states enter into alliances that if balanced against one another, may ensure prolonged periods of peace and international stability.
When this balance breaks down, war may erupt. It is thus dynamic and generally unstable. In the nuclear age, balance of power has become balance of terror or terror equilibrium. To realists, internationalism is not a state of nature because power, wealth and resources are not evenly distributed amongst. Some are ‘Great Powers” while others are “minor” or “medium” powers depending on their possession of elements of national power. The resulting hierarchy of states imposes a measure of order on the international system, i.e, control that Great Powers have over subordinate ones through trading blocs, spheres of influence, and outright colonialism or superiority and dominance. Neo-realism; or Structural Realism or new realism advanced especially by Kenneth Waltz (1979). Though they acknowledge the central importance of power, neo-realists explain events in terms the structure (bipolar, multi-polar, uni-polar) rather than the goals and make-up of the individual states.
Criticism of realists: Critics say that in divorcing politics from morality, realists legitimize military escalation and the hegemonic ambitions of great powers and hence, arms race and the verge towards nuclear annihilation. The second criticism is advanced by feminist theorists. That power seeking behaviour and an obsession with national security and military might, reflect the world wide dominance of male politicians whose priorities are essentially aggressive and competitive. Pluralism: This school of thought emerged in the US in the 1960s and 1970s. The term pluralism is used in two senses; one broad sense and one narrow sense. In its broader sense, pluralism means a belief in or a commitment to diversity or multiplicity (existence of many things). As a descriptive term, pluralism may denote party competition, or political pluralism. A multiplicity of ethical values is moral pluralism.
In this form, pluralism is seen as a theory of “group politics” where individual interests and all such groups have access to the policy process. As a theory of international politics, it highlights the permeability of the state, and provides an alternative to the state-centrism of the realist model. John Burton, in his criticism of the realist model, compares it to the billiard table (pool table) where the balls represent states in the international system; in short, impermeable, self-contained units which influence each other only through external pressure, by one hitting the other. Thus to pluralists, the realists ignore two things;
• Increasing role of intergovernmental organizations and trans-national non-state actors such as multinational corporations (MNCs ) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs)
• They fail to recognize the interdependence of states in economic affairs in particular The pluralist perspective thus provides a more integrated approach. It is a mixed-actors model that while not ignoring national governments, emphasizes that international politics is shaped by a much broader of interests and groups. It recognises that autonomy should be taken in a more modest sense. Those bodies such as Green Peace Movement, Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Coca Cola Company and Papacy should be recognized as international actors in the same way as the French or the British state.
The pluralist model therefore highlights that autonomy and sovereignty are relative. Those decisions are shaped by the “Bureaucratic-Political” context than by any “rational” pursuit of national interest. (see Graham Allison in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 where he summarises thus; “where you stand depends on where you sit”.) The pluralist model to international politics highlights a shift away from power politics and national aggrandisement. Instead, that when power is widely dispersed and distributed, competition tends to be self-defeating.
As a result, in an increasingly interdependent world, the tendency towards cooperation and integration becomes more attractive and irresistible. This is today evidenced by the European Union and efforts by various governments all over the world to form regional economic and political groupings. See EAC, COMESA, SADC, ECOWAS, ASEAN, NAFTA etc. Marxism: The Marxist approach to international politics is characterized and distinguished from other schools of thought by its stress on economic power and the role played by international capital. Although Marx’s initial emphasis was on analysing the structure of national capitalism, the antagonistic relationship between the Bourgeoisie and proletariats, an international perspective was implicit.
The fact that he recognized that class loyalties cut across national divisions, that led him to proclaim, “Workers of the World Unite!” is evidence enough (Communist Manifesto, 1848). Neo-Marxists: These do recognise the limitations of classical Marxism-Leninist model. The limitations include that Marxist’s predictions were never realized For example, imperialism as the final phase of capitalism; or the narrowness of the assumption that state policy is merely a reflection of capitalists interests. They do subscribe to the plurality view that a variety of actors are involved ie, sub-national groups, national groups, and international and all exert influence on the world stage.
This global structure of production has divided the world into two unequal spheres. The rich industrialized north, and the poor, raw material producing, dependent south. This relationship is also known as the core or centre or metro pole (North) and periphery (South). The core or north is characterized with technological innovation, high investment, high quality and highly priced goods, while the south or peripheral is characterized with a cash crop economy, subsistence farming, and cheap labour. Globalization therefore goes hand in hand with national fragmentation and disintegration. Thus the North-South divide is also mirrored in the national economy. Constructivism: Another school of thought and a recent one is that of constructivists. It argues that realism and idealism (liberalism) fail to adequately explain long term change in world politics.
I.2.1 Building Blocs in International Politics Actors,
goals, and instruments. The three concepts in theorising about international politics are all changing. Actors were traditionally in the realist perspective states, especially the big powers. States have been the primary actors in international relations. This has to an extent changed. The number of states has increased from 50 in 1945 while signing the UNO Charter at San Francisco to about 194 today, and the number still grows as some collapse and others emerge. A multiplicity of non-state actors have emerged in the international scene since WWII. These include;
• International, regional and sub-regional organizations
• Multinational corporations (MNCs) which know no boundary and some command more resources than some countries (Joseph Nye, 2005, 10).
• Intergovernmental organizations
• Trans-national ethnic groups
• International non-governmental organizations
• Terrorist groups, drug cartels, and mafia organizations. These transcend national boundaries and often divide their resources among several states
• International religious groups and movements add a further dimension to the range of international non-state actors (see political Islam in the Middle East and North Africa). Though states remain the primary actors in international politics, these new international organizations add to the complexity of explaining international relations.
New complex coalitions affect the politics of a region. States do not have the stage to themselves alone. Goals were traditionally predominantly military security as the most vital national interest in an anarchic world system. Goals have now increased. They include security, economic wealth, social issues such as drugs and communicable diseases, environmental security and global warming, etc. Instruments: Traditionally, military force is the instrument that really matters. Since WW II the link between military strength and positive achievement has been loosened especially in the major powers. Military force is now too costly, too destructive and generally unprofitable to both the victors and the vanquished. Occupation and colonialism are also too costly today because of conscious nationalistic populations. People are socially mobilized. See the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, or even DRC during its invasion by her neighbours.
All occupations were unpopular with the local populations. While force remains the ultimate instrument, in international politics, changes in its cost effectiveness make today’s politics more complex.
Author Prof. Dr. Rugema D. Muyombano
0Awesome Comments!