At the risk of sounding like a pinko communist I am going to suggest the following: greater emphasis should be placed on dialectical approaches in International Relations studies across the U.S. I believe this for three simple reasons.
1) The sheer number of people in the world that are subject to governments following such doctrines. According to Alker and Biersteker around one third of the world’s population falls under this category. How can any study of International Relations truly earn the title while neglecting such a large portion political governance.
2) The changing face of global politics, specifically the rise of China. At an annual growth rate of 11.1 percent, China may eclipse the U.S as the largest economy in the world by 2040 (According to the National Bureau of Statistics in China). China’s ever increasing military technology and its mastery cultural diplomacy (such as their mission to the moon or the upcoming Olympics) is truly putting it on course to becoming the world’s next major power (not superpower off course).
3) It is by far the most underrepresented of the three views mention in Alker’s article. According to the article around 70% of the reading list followed the behavioral tradition, 20% followed the traditional approaches and only 10% concerned the Dialectical approaches (page 129). Given the two reason I previously mentioned such a barren emphasis on the subject should not be acceptable.
I think it would interesting to see how the Lehigh International Relations department measures up in terms to equality among the three major schools of thought. In conclusion I would like to add this disclaimer: Just because I believe a greater emphasis on dialectical approaches does not mean I personally believe in them.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
"First you get the money, then you get the power..."
The Carr article, I find, further proves the old saying correctly. "First you get the money, then you get the power..." Carr shows us that it is very difficult for states that not economically powerful to have hard power in international relations. Without the money, poor countries can not get a grand army to help defend their national interests. In international trade if these countries have raw materials that a powerful country needs they have to give in to the larger country. If they don't they risk interference from the large country militarily and economically. In a sense small countries are stuck between a rock and a hard place. In addition to that the power states often tries to hide their true rational, always hiding behind ideology. The power states use propaganda as their vehicle to get the dirty work done. I wish that it could not be this way, but in a world of anarchy this seems to be the only viably efficient option.
One Large Step for North Korea, One Even Greater Step for Disarmament
The New York Times reported on Monday September 3 that North Korea announced the United States will be lifting economic sanctions from and removing it from the list of countries charged with sponsoring terrorism. Christopher Hill, the chief American envoy to North Korea, disagreed with the announcement saying that the country still had a long way off before the United States would lift its sanctions. Although, North Korea will definitely be providing a full declaration of all their nuclear programs and will DISABLE all of them by the end of THIS year, as in December 2007.
This is a HUGE deal for the Bush administration (I mean, come on, we went to war in Iraq looking for a couple of WMDs and well, nada, nothing…), and for global disarmament. Looking back on the article regarding disarmament, there are more failed attempts at peaceful weapons limitations than won. Looking past the fact that the United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers and is able to deploy missiles at will, I give major kudos to the U.S. for making the world a little safer. According to the article, there are only three other treaties to have successfully implemented peaceful limitations, and one of them, the Washington Treaty, didn’t really work either. (Japan eventually pulled out of the agreement.) There are still countries building up their nuclear weapons program (i.e. India, Iran, etc.) and posing a threat to security…but there is hope! If a seemingly unreasonable Kim Jong-Il was able to be negotiated with, maybe there is hope for other slightly power crazed leaders like President Ahmadinejad of Iran. This is one large step for North Korea and one even greater step for global safety.
This is a HUGE deal for the Bush administration (I mean, come on, we went to war in Iraq looking for a couple of WMDs and well, nada, nothing…), and for global disarmament. Looking back on the article regarding disarmament, there are more failed attempts at peaceful weapons limitations than won. Looking past the fact that the United States is one of the five recognized nuclear powers and is able to deploy missiles at will, I give major kudos to the U.S. for making the world a little safer. According to the article, there are only three other treaties to have successfully implemented peaceful limitations, and one of them, the Washington Treaty, didn’t really work either. (Japan eventually pulled out of the agreement.) There are still countries building up their nuclear weapons program (i.e. India, Iran, etc.) and posing a threat to security…but there is hope! If a seemingly unreasonable Kim Jong-Il was able to be negotiated with, maybe there is hope for other slightly power crazed leaders like President Ahmadinejad of Iran. This is one large step for North Korea and one even greater step for global safety.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Power [Will Brehm, Week 2, Substantive]
It’s interesting to see the three forms of power Carr describes –military, economic, and public opinion –through the eye of history: each decade that passes, each war that concludes different States master the various aspect of the three prongs of power at different times. The United States seems to have figured out the military power (1.4 million military personnel and $500bn budget), and the economy power (over $13 trillion GDP) in a relatively short amount of time. It’s public opinion that still proves difficult. Oh, wait. Carr describes a very important symptom of the power over opinion that speaks volumes of the current state of affairs in America:
America has public opinion covered, too! With some quick research on net, it is easy to see this (Amazing) concentration. (Google search: “Media Concentration in America”; copious amounts of information can be found.) About five major companies control most of the media we watch, read, or listen to: Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation (just bought The Dow Jones –including the Wall Street Journal), Bertelsmann (Germany), and Viacom. Wow. For the past few years the government completed the marriage with the media, to paraphrase John Stewart, with Tony Snow, the former news anchor of Fox News (owned by News Corporation).
There is hope though! Weblogs (blogs). I think people realize how the concentration of media, even though creates greater power control, really means fewer shared views which in turn creates a less informed public. Blogs are the push back on the media concentration. Did the other prongs of power experience a push back as the various aspects of American power increased? As in, as America became dominate in Military power, did a counter movement form to stop the advancement? (I think the answer is "yes.") If so, that paints a bleak future of power of opinion in America: even though a push back exists now, the concentration will continue, solidifying total American power. (It’s like the completed force for Captain Planet: unstoppable. “With our powers combined, I am Captain Planet!" --that can't be messed with.) I don’t think that has to happen. Butwhat happens next in terms of blogs?
Their management has, in the natural course of development, become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and this concentration facilitates and makes inevitable the centralized control of opinion. The mass-production of opinion is the corollary of the mass-production of goods. (122)
America has public opinion covered, too! With some quick research on net, it is easy to see this (Amazing) concentration. (Google search: “Media Concentration in America”; copious amounts of information can be found.) About five major companies control most of the media we watch, read, or listen to: Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation (just bought The Dow Jones –including the Wall Street Journal), Bertelsmann (Germany), and Viacom. Wow. For the past few years the government completed the marriage with the media, to paraphrase John Stewart, with Tony Snow, the former news anchor of Fox News (owned by News Corporation).
There is hope though! Weblogs (blogs). I think people realize how the concentration of media, even though creates greater power control, really means fewer shared views which in turn creates a less informed public. Blogs are the push back on the media concentration. Did the other prongs of power experience a push back as the various aspects of American power increased? As in, as America became dominate in Military power, did a counter movement form to stop the advancement? (I think the answer is "yes.") If so, that paints a bleak future of power of opinion in America: even though a push back exists now, the concentration will continue, solidifying total American power. (It’s like the completed force for Captain Planet: unstoppable. “With our powers combined, I am Captain Planet!" --that can't be messed with.) I don’t think that has to happen. Butwhat happens next in terms of blogs?
Ideology cloaking interest
"All nations are tempted--and few have been able to resist the temptation for long--to clothe their own particular aspirations and actions in the moral purposes of the universe"--Morgenthau, 10.
(trying not to rant)
Now I know the criticisms and issues with the war in Iraq have probably exhausted themselves, but the first idea that came to my mind with this quote was our presence in Iraq. Just read "Rise of the Vulcans" and one can see how much personal and self interest went into the war in Iraq. The Bush administration has been interested in going into Iraq for decades. The justification to go in for the alleged WMDs and to "spread democracy" were not the main reasons for going in (as we all know). I feel that conflicts/policies cloaked in morality tend to hind something bigger (self-interest of those in power). If we acted with such morality, we would be sending in troops to conflicts in Africa, but instead we are focused on the Middle East. With self interest the main guiding principle in our society, it's hard to imagine any politician setting foreign policy that doesn't take into account self interest. What is national interest? Who defines it? The leaders, political and economic, of our country.
Reading this back to myself, this seems quite cynical. But, it's the reality of human nature. If all individuals and societies put God before themselves, then our world be a very different place. In some instances good, and in some instances bad because we have this international trademark war of God and lack of agreement on one's relationship with God. ("the blasphemous conviction that God is always on one's side and that one wills oneself cannot fail to be willed by God also"). Whoever we put first in our live which in part affect our decision making, is part of our interest (in ourselves or in God).
In any case, whatever or whoever guides our interest, it is our job as citizens to recognize the self interest that goes into foreign policy making today as checks, which one can see is obvious when studying IR theory. Yet, we tend to lack this tendency to be active citizens because we ourselves are subject to the forces of self interest. Seems like a never-ending cycle to me....
(trying not to rant)
Now I know the criticisms and issues with the war in Iraq have probably exhausted themselves, but the first idea that came to my mind with this quote was our presence in Iraq. Just read "Rise of the Vulcans" and one can see how much personal and self interest went into the war in Iraq. The Bush administration has been interested in going into Iraq for decades. The justification to go in for the alleged WMDs and to "spread democracy" were not the main reasons for going in (as we all know). I feel that conflicts/policies cloaked in morality tend to hind something bigger (self-interest of those in power). If we acted with such morality, we would be sending in troops to conflicts in Africa, but instead we are focused on the Middle East. With self interest the main guiding principle in our society, it's hard to imagine any politician setting foreign policy that doesn't take into account self interest. What is national interest? Who defines it? The leaders, political and economic, of our country.
Reading this back to myself, this seems quite cynical. But, it's the reality of human nature. If all individuals and societies put God before themselves, then our world be a very different place. In some instances good, and in some instances bad because we have this international trademark war of God and lack of agreement on one's relationship with God. ("the blasphemous conviction that God is always on one's side and that one wills oneself cannot fail to be willed by God also"). Whoever we put first in our live which in part affect our decision making, is part of our interest (in ourselves or in God).
In any case, whatever or whoever guides our interest, it is our job as citizens to recognize the self interest that goes into foreign policy making today as checks, which one can see is obvious when studying IR theory. Yet, we tend to lack this tendency to be active citizens because we ourselves are subject to the forces of self interest. Seems like a never-ending cycle to me....
Sunday, September 2, 2007
As I read in another blog, allow me to place a disclaimer on my own personal rant. Despite my basic lack of understanding for blogs in general (I would much rather have a good debate in person/conversation) I do understand that someone other than my teacher and group might be reading this and that is personally very unsettling. Regardless, here goes...
Reading about IR theory and why scholars/students study it leaves with an overwhelming sense of frustration that I also read in other posts without as much emotion behind it. Obviously everything in this world is in some state of flux/evolution. That is obvious by the sheer fact that time moves on, and nothing is stagnant. So why do we need to discuss the need to continuously reassess theories. Maybe the definition of a theory should not be considered such a grounded and certain thing. Maybe we should inherently understand that everything evolves and just note things like trends. Are we getting caught up in a label rather than in the content? Maybe.
The need to study basic International Relations "theories" (as we traditionally refer to them) is obvious. If you cannot understand basic trends, patterns, and human inclinations, you in no way can understand what is to potentially happen in the future. If nothing else, it is for pure intellectual exercise.
In one of the posts the acknowledgment that Americans are overwhelmingly self-centered was presented. This ties into what I was previously debating regarding the general 'missing the point' of many of our actions. The world does not revolve around us and if we took any history into account, we would be very aware that no super power ever stays a super power, and maybe we should become a bit more humble/considerate of the rest of the world. But that goes into a whole other rant that I can save for a later time...
Reading about IR theory and why scholars/students study it leaves with an overwhelming sense of frustration that I also read in other posts without as much emotion behind it. Obviously everything in this world is in some state of flux/evolution. That is obvious by the sheer fact that time moves on, and nothing is stagnant. So why do we need to discuss the need to continuously reassess theories. Maybe the definition of a theory should not be considered such a grounded and certain thing. Maybe we should inherently understand that everything evolves and just note things like trends. Are we getting caught up in a label rather than in the content? Maybe.
The need to study basic International Relations "theories" (as we traditionally refer to them) is obvious. If you cannot understand basic trends, patterns, and human inclinations, you in no way can understand what is to potentially happen in the future. If nothing else, it is for pure intellectual exercise.
In one of the posts the acknowledgment that Americans are overwhelmingly self-centered was presented. This ties into what I was previously debating regarding the general 'missing the point' of many of our actions. The world does not revolve around us and if we took any history into account, we would be very aware that no super power ever stays a super power, and maybe we should become a bit more humble/considerate of the rest of the world. But that goes into a whole other rant that I can save for a later time...
Development v. Stagnation
“Neither the reactionary realism of the New Right here and abroad, nor the hegemonial nostalgia of behavioral liberals with their interest in international regimes are adequate. Being open and humble allows for adaptive development, not reactive stagnation.”
-The Dialectics of the World Order, Alker and Biersteker (139)
To quote the Alker and Biersteker article, there is not one I.R. theory that can adequately explain the volatile international system. It is still our job as I.R. students to learn each school of thought so that we may be able to use them as a basis. The world is constantly evolving and with that I.R. theory must learn to adapt to these changes.
As Americans, we struggle to adapt to changes in I.R. theory. From an early age we are taught that the United States are the center of the international community. This is an extreme hindrance in regards to our foreign policy. We live in an anarchic world, but let’s face it, the United States is a relatively stable place to live. In country where there is constantly a state of turmoil, it is easy to adjust to new theories because you are so accustomed to change. The U.S. is fairly predictable in its foreign policies. Basically U.S. polices go something like, “It’s our way…or the highway.” As I.R. students, we need to overcome these preconceived notions and look at the theories of International Relations objectively. If we can accomplish this from this course than I think there is hope for our country to grow and develop. As of now, it almost looks like we are regressing. As the closing statement of the article suggests, we need to be open and humble otherwise it is almost certain that we will stagnate.
-The Dialectics of the World Order, Alker and Biersteker (139)
To quote the Alker and Biersteker article, there is not one I.R. theory that can adequately explain the volatile international system. It is still our job as I.R. students to learn each school of thought so that we may be able to use them as a basis. The world is constantly evolving and with that I.R. theory must learn to adapt to these changes.
As Americans, we struggle to adapt to changes in I.R. theory. From an early age we are taught that the United States are the center of the international community. This is an extreme hindrance in regards to our foreign policy. We live in an anarchic world, but let’s face it, the United States is a relatively stable place to live. In country where there is constantly a state of turmoil, it is easy to adjust to new theories because you are so accustomed to change. The U.S. is fairly predictable in its foreign policies. Basically U.S. polices go something like, “It’s our way…or the highway.” As I.R. students, we need to overcome these preconceived notions and look at the theories of International Relations objectively. If we can accomplish this from this course than I think there is hope for our country to grow and develop. As of now, it almost looks like we are regressing. As the closing statement of the article suggests, we need to be open and humble otherwise it is almost certain that we will stagnate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
