|
International Relations: Methods Concepts and Challenges - Part II (Continued)
Foreign Relations and International Politics
According to Dr. Raghunath Mahbir, a scholar of International Relations and Foreign Policy from the University of the West Indies, St. Augustine: Foreign policy, “is composed of goals sought, value set, decisions made and action taken by states and national governments acting on their behalf in the context of the external relations of national societies. It constitutes an attempt to design, Manage and control their foreign relations in national societies.”
Foreign policy is an element of international relations. It is a plan of action with objectives to pursue a favorable relationship with other states or countries. The objectives and goals of the United States foreign policy are to interact with other nations to achieve her business and political agenda. Today, the United States is the most powerful nation, economically and politically, in the world. The United States is backed by a very strong economy of fifteen trillion dollars. This amount is around a quarter of the global GDP. The defense budget is around $711 billion, which is 43% of the combined global military spending. In the United States, the Executive branch has the primary responsibility to conduct foreign relations. The President of the United States directs his foreign policy through his cabinet. Today, foreign policy also covers other than political affairs; i.e., economic, social and cultural affairs.
Some scholars define politics as an act of or a method to formulate policy planning or as a process of decision making. Some define it as discipline. It is also considered by other experts, “struggle,” “strive,” or “conflict.” Some students of international relations say, “Politics is a struggle for power.” *Ibid -254. The main objective of international politics is to promote cooperation among states. The imperialistic policies are to expand the agenda of monetary gain or profit.
The United States has also used her economic influence to control the foreign policies of weaker nations to enhance her own national security. It is also a common practice of powerful countries to use economic and military power along with psychological propaganda to influence the thoughts and attitudes of the local population of smaller countries. It has proven again and again that dependence on only military power to gain false security has caused more non productive military conflicts: for example, the Vietnam War, Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.
The objective of declaring war on other nations is supposedly to achieve “victory.” There is no guarantee even for a superpower to achieve their goal to win. No power can take victory for granted. The recent wars of Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq have proven that even a super power cannot fight a winning war in strange terrain against the Vietcong in Vietnam and the Insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Korean War scholars also agree that the United States was not completely ready to fight the Korean War in the confines of Korea. The former Soviet Union, a superpower, had to face defeat against the Afghan Mujahedeen. America, in 1917, entered World War I and in 1941, World War II with great enthusiasm, and America was victorious along with her allies.
Balance of Power
In the field of International Relations, the term, “Balance of Power” is widely used. Some believe that for a peace process to prevail between individual groups and a nation’s balance of power, they must control their behavior. There is no set definition of balance of power. It has different meanings or interpretations for every group. Every policy maker will use this term to define his purpose and benefits. Between nations, the distribution of power is balanced or out of balance or it has changed in any direction. It is referred to that the balance of power has also been affected. The distribution of power within a region affects the politics of that area; some states are stronger than others. Some writers and leaders believe that the tussle to establish a balance of power among nations, sometime causes conflicts and war.
Scholars have made efforts to define the real concept of “balance of power.” According to Ernst B. Hass in one of his articles, he wrote that the meaning of balance of power is used by nations for the benefit of their intentions. More often, when a leader of a state describes his definition of balance of power, he normally means that the balance should tilt in his country’s favor. It is also understood that other countries will take advantage of an unbalance if they are not watched or monitored.
After World War I and World War II, not one single country was in a position to dominate world affairs. The world order moved in the direction of a bipolar system. Two major superpowers emerged; the Soviet Union and the United States. It created a condition where no one country was in a position to dominate the world. They were militarily strong enough to deter each other.
On April 4, 1949, the western alliance created: “North Atlantic Treaty Organization” (NATO). It was a collective defense treaty against any invasion by the former Soviet Union. Later the United States also joined NATO. On May 14, 1955, The Soviet Union, in response to NATO, formed an alliance of Soviet Union with Eastern European countries, which was called the Warsaw Pact. It was organized in Warsaw Poland. The era of the cold war started between these two blocks. For thirty six years, NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations did not wage war against each other.
The Advantage of Balance of Power
The balance of power, or equilibrium, also has many advantages and benefits in the field of International Relations; it helps in preventing conflicts and discourages other nations to use force against each other. It prevents stronger powers from exerting their hegemony in the region or even around the globe. Accordingly, once a state is not sure about their victory in a war, she will not consider war as an option. The stronger powers will refrain from being able to crush weaker nations; thus, the other stronger nation may join the smaller power. As history has shown, militarily stronger nations were often defeated in wars against smaller and weaker powers.
After the demise of the former Soviet Union, the United States emerged as the only surviving superpower. There was no other country to challenge the military might of the U.S. During the Gulf war in 1991; the United States was able to put together a collation force of seventeen countries to evict Iraq from Kuwait. The United States was very successful in using the policy of intimidation to impose her will on other nations to pay for the cost of the war. Especially, Saudi Arabia had to pay a huge amount of money, around thirty- three billion dollars. The total cost of the Gulf War was around seventy billion dollars.
Similarly, after the tragedy of 9/11, President George W. Bush decided to punish the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The American President had a free hand in putting together a collation of western powers. Under the umbrella of NATO, President Bush was able to use the United Nations endorsement to attack Afghanistan. Bush threatened other nations by challenging them that “either you are with us or against us.” On October 7, 2001, NATO forces started their attack on Afghanistan. The United States now declares it is planning to leave Afghanistan by the year of 2014; it is the longest war the United States has ever fought against a small and non-regular insurgency force. After the invasion of Afghanistan, Bush was emboldened; maybe he thought his military industrial complex is invincible.
On March 20, 2003, President Bush decided to invade Iraq. He accused Saddam Husain, the Iraqi President, that he is a supporter of Al Qaeda. Saddam was also accused by the United States that he is building weapons of mass destruction. After the Gulf War, since 1991, Iraq was under the sanctions of the United Nations. Actually President Bush was looking for reasons to invade Iraq. He openly said, it will secure Israel; and after all, “Saddam wanted to kill my father.” The only superpower in this unipolar world -- miscalculated the dynamics of the war with the insurgency in Iraq. The war in Iraq, expected to be an easy victory, turned into a deadly war. Around 4,500 American soldiers were killed and more than 30,000 were wounded. Half of them were permanently disabled. Many thousands of Iraqi civilians and soldiers were also killed and wounded. After that big messy war, President, Barrack Obama, brought American forces home at the end of December 2011. America failed to achieve her objectives involving the political and military mission in this war.
President George Bush’s reckless foreign policy, and fighting two wars at a time, made him a very unpopular President around the globe. These two wars were the most expensive wars financially as well as in human life. According to researchers and many economists these wars have cost over four trillion dollars to the US economy in the last ten years. These two wars provided a substantial addition to the American economic crisis. The Bush administration could not handle the responsibility of a superpower in a unipolar world. If the former Soviet Union could have survived as a superpower, it perhaps would have deterred the United States from starting two wars. The uneven balance of power would have prevented George Bush from entering his two war adventures; it was the biggest miscalculation of the Bush administration to fight two wars simultaneously in two Muslim countries. The United States never expected to find herself unprepared to fight the rag- tag determined insurgents. Muslims believe that dying in a war against the occupation by a foreign force will have earned them martyrdom status in heaven; if you kill one insurgent, twenty more will take his place.
Thomas Woodrow Wilson, a Leader of Progressive Movement
He was a former President of Princeton University (1902 – 1910), an intellectual with a PhD. He was a very devoted religious person and was a Presbyterian. He struggled to shape the American Foreign Policy. As the 28th President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson served his country during the period of 1913 – 1921. He was fortunate to have witnessed many challenging and dramatic changes in domestic and International affairs. Some of his policies brought effective changes around the globe. He was a man of astonishing political skills and ideas and was an effective reformer.
President Wilson strongly believed that America’s responsibility was to promote her principles around the World, instead of striving for a balance of power. During his presidency, the United States emerged as a leading nation in the field of International Relations. He believed that states and individuals should follow the same criteria for ethical behavior. Wilson had a vision for a lasting global peace; He proposed the formation of the “League of Nations.” He was a strong believer that collective security of nations was a better option than forming alliances.
Wilson was unable to achieve success in organizing the League of Nations, but his vision helped in the creation of the “United Nations.” On December 2, 1913, Wilson, in his State of the Union Address, said that “binding arbitration, not force, should become the method for resolving international disputes.” [4]
In 1915, Wilson introduced a provocative doctrine, “that the security of America was inseparable from the security of all the rest of mankind.” [5] He warned Americans that the United States cannot win any major international conflict without moral Justification. He also advised the European nations that their foreign policy should also be based on morality.
Wilson said that the traditional way of preserving peace by using power is not a solution. He advocated that, by building a Global consensus and establishing a system to enforce it, is the right approach. For example, a global association of large democratic states could act as the “trustee of peace,” and this system should be the replacement of the old balance of power and the traditional alliance practice. [6]
A shared concept of justice is an essential requirement for an international order, said Wilson. The balance of power discourages nations to use force; similarly, the concept of shared justice also discourages the motivation to use power. Wilson had strong faith in that any World Order, which is not based on justice, will fail; and it will be resisted in the future. He said that international behavior of a state reflects her domestic affairs. He also suggested that after a devastating war, in order to guarantee a peaceful world order, the major powers have to make a firm commitment for their active and on- going peace effort, including the United States. He also warned: if one country is victimized, in the final analysis, every party involved would become victims. For the sake of security for every nation, it is in the interest of all nations to resist aggression, and prevent it.
References:
1. Charles P. Schleicher, International Relations – Cooperation and Conflict Prentice Hall, Inc. 1954 p 5
2. Ibid. p 8
3. Ibid. p 254
4. Henry Kissinger, Diplomacy, Simon and Schuster, Newark, Newark, 1994, p 45
5. Ibid. p 47
6. Ibid. p 52
Syed R. Mahmood, Founder and President of American Institute of International Studies
Read International Relations: Methods Concepts and Challenges - Part I
|
