International Relations

International Relations: An Overview
by Valentine Anthony

This is an introductory article on International Relations (hereafter ir / IR) which is about relations between and among states in peace and war. In this regard, ir is approached retrospectively through my childhood cum adult experiences and observations in Singapore, Ceylon now Sri Lanka and Malaya now Malaysia followed by a brief survey of the notion, nature and scope of ir from postwar to-date.

Aspects of politics affected my innocent childhood in the former British colony of Singapore where I was born. Memories of WW2--- the Japanese bombing of Singapore, the invasion, occupation and surrender in 1945 in Singapore still linger in my mind after more than six decades. Subsequently when I lived in Sri Lanka, I sensed enmity between the majority Buddhist Sinhalese and the minority Hindu-Christian Tamils who recently lost their cause for a separate homeland after 30 years of bitter ethnic conflict with the central government.

During my residence in the then Malaya major postwar international conflicts unfolded: the Cold War between the US and the then USSR (1947);¹Communist China (1949); Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe(1950s); Korean War (1950-53); French defeat in Indo-China now Vietnam (1954); Anglo-French invasion of Egypt (Suez Crisis 1956) and communist insurgencies in British Malaya (1947-1957) and the Philippines where it is still ongoing. I recall visiting naively the then US Information Service (USIS) to read world news among them the free American propaganda magazine Free World.

Looking back, I had the rare chance to see innocently the lowering of the British Union Jack flags for good and national flags raised for the first time after centuries of colonialism with national anthems sung in four newly independent nations: India (1947), Ceylon (1948), Malaya (1957) and Singapore (1965). In another rare encounter I witnessed racial riots at close range in independent Singapore (I964), Malaysia (1969) and Nigeria (1981) revealing the nature of ethnic conflicts and its impact on neighboring states. Obviously I did not realize then that the above separate events in different locations will shape the world differently in my life time.

Statesmen, politicians, advisers, diplomats, intelligence services, spy agencies, satellites, drones, political scientists, think tanks, analysts, experts, futurists, who else and all put together, none were able to predict major political events of the past 2 decades: the silent end of the five decades Cold War (1990); a united Germany (1990); the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia (1990); USSR’s peaceful demise into Russia and 15 Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS,1991), the 1997 Asian economic crisis and the 9/11 in 2001 took us by surprise. What somewhat did not surprise us was the unjust “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq in March 2003 by the “Boy Emperor” Bush and his “Anglophone allies--- the British and Australians” under the pretext of WMD just to oust Saddam Hussein who was later hanged by a Iraqi kangaroo court for crime against humanity--- his subjects about 5,000 kurds.² The difference between Bush and the Anglophiles is that Bush knew what he was doing and, I believe, the British and Australian “sepoys” did not. Just before Bush left office, he admitted his wrong judgment on Iraq Blair resigned in haste leaving his hot seat to his Labor Party colleague British PM Brown who is now withdrawing from Iraq. Blair ironically became an unsuccessful Middle East Envoy (trouble shooter) for a short duration. We don’t hear much of Blair lately except that he will be a witness to a troubled British Government sponsored inquiry into the Iraqi war. Anyway what is done in Iraq cannot be undone. After Iraq, now the US is reinventing next door Afghanistan and the North-West Swat Valley of allied Pakistan hunting for Osama Bin Laden, Talibans / Al Qaeda who were strange bedfellows with the US (CIA) during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan (1979-89).

It is common knowledge that the US unilaterally controls the world through its economic and military powers. What is little known is that the US has about 737 or more quantifiable military bases worldwide.³ A US Department of Defense website says “The US military is currently deployed to more locations than it has been throughout history.” For the record, the USSR never encircled the world militarily even during the peak of the Cold War. Even today mother Russia is negligible militarily. Further, the US has a bad habit of promoting ‘democracy’ to places where it never existed before. Cuba, Iran and China are often slighted for human rights violations but some of the known human rights violators are US allies Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia where there are US military “sites” Pentagon’s favorite term, not bases. How President Obama will reconcile past US foreign policies with his well meaning “new beginning” and “new world order” of non-interference in other states remain to be seen. American foreign policy has always been a suspect. I read in one of my prescribed graduate course texts donkey years ago that the US has no foreign policy. A New York Times journalist Anthony Lewis wrote in 1985, “America is a country without memory.”

Each calendar year has its share of significant national and international events. Year
2009 is no exception. We feel the unforeseen pinch of the current global economic crisis, read / saw the recent violent protests after the Iranian presidential election and Myanmar opposition leader Aung Suu Kyi’s trial and her continued house arrest. The recent release of the controversial ‘convicted’ Libyan Al Megrahi of the Lokerbie Pan Am air crash of flight 103 in 1988 from Scottish prison on compassionate grounds soured Anglo-American relations at least temporarily with Libya which welcomed him home. Meanwhile, as usual, state visits, submits, unstable governments, missile launches, rocket tests, nukes, sanctions, kidnappings, trials, militancy, suicide bombings, bomb blasts, elections, refugees, epidemics and natural calamities dominate ir.

Under the circumstances, it is hard to predict or foresee the next significant event of ir, its direction and impact on the international system. When it breaks they are captured on television, internets and print media. As the Chinese sarcastically say, we live in ‘interesting times.’ Interesting or not, ir is often less understood or even misunderstood. Understandably, having heard, seen or read somewhere, one tends to label ir as mere ‘politics’ and arrives at a stereotype or myopic view of ‘this’ and ‘that.’ Nevertheless it is imperative to think of ir as we are part of it daily.⁴ Not withstanding who looks at ir when, what, how and why, no single ir theory, scholar, author, book, encyclopedia, wikipedia, academic course, CNN-BBC programs and international print media can capture ir in its entirety unlike documents saved by usb or dvd cd writer.

The genesis of ir can be traced to manors, villages and micro social units from ancient times through fifth century Greek city-states of Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle to Roman, Indian and Chinese empires in their relations with adjacent states for their political and economic empowerment. However, it is the establishment of the state system in Europe after the European Peace Treaty in 1648 that laid the foundation for ir. Subsequent European colonization of the world expanded ir among the colonizers and the colonized for same reasons as earlier times.

International relations draws its inspiration from older social sciences Anthropology, Economics, History, Law, Logic, Philosophy and Sociology. It is one of the subfields of Political Science among Political Theory, Comparative Governments, Political Economy, International Law, Public Policy and regional or area studies such as European, Latin American, Middle Eastern, African and Asian (South, Southeast and East Asian) Studies All subfields are studied independently at undergraduate level. A combination of them are required in graduate schools. Most institutions offer IR in the Department of Political Science under Liberal Arts / Social Sciences though few older institutions offer under School of IR. Normally undergraduates study IR between the second and fourth year with a pre-requisite Introduction to Political Science. However, there are variations in the pattern of ir study among American, British and European institutions. The rest of the academic world follows them.

At this point I must draw attention to the subtle difference between ir and international politics (world politics). There is a tendency among ir scholars (Carr, Wright, Waltz, Morgenthau, Kissinger, Frankel and Holsti) to use ir synonymously with international politics and vice-a-versa in their classy books. However, their fallacies confuse both instructors and students alike in course outlines and courses. Though both fields talk about interstate relations, war, peace, global organizations and issues, it is fair to assume that there is a divide between ir and international politics in their scope, content and approach. For example ir is broader and focuses mainly relation among states, their structures and dimensions while international politics is narrowly centered around diplomacy and foreign policy including geopolitics. However, it is sufficient for ir students / readers to be aware of the distinction between the two---ir and international politics.

International relations does not exist in a vacuum. It stems from the unit called ‘state.’ If ‘no man is an island,’ no state is either. States are the primary actors in the international system without any enforceable law above them unlike in national polities. States constantly interact among themselves in varying degrees for political-economic reasons(security, power, trade) called national interests. Sadly interstate relations are characterized by a cycle of ideological differences, trade rivalries, distrust, animosity, values, threats and disputes resulting in conflicts, wars and peace.⁵ Some issues are resolved though not necessarily permanent while others remain unresolved or dormant only to resurface in the future. Generally the spoils belong to the victor /s while the vanquished become anguished. Geographical maps drawn or redrawn after the peace process. The displaced claim lost territories or historical rights, valid or imagined. Friendly nations become adversaries and friendly again over time defying logic and reason posing more ir questions than answers. For example currently North Korea, Iran and Syria are isolated as terrors and nuclear aspirants by the West especially the US. Surprisingly French President Sarkozy and former US Secretary of State Rice visited Syria and Libya respectively to cement relations. Despite some rhetoric by US and Cuba both remain anemic to each other after nearly 50 years without diplomatic relations. Reason: Cuban President Raul Castro wants continued socialism while President Obama wants ‘democracy and human rights’ which are not different from past US administrations. What about US relations with Russia and China cuddling with socialism and capitalism and, if taken seriously, democracy and human rights are questionable in both countries. It appears that the US and Cuba value non-recognition of each other more than diplomatic relations. This is an outmoded “Cold war” foreign policy in 2009. But it takes ‘two to tango’ for diplomatic relations between Cuba and US.

International relations is a young, broad, complex and fascinating field of study of relations among states (role, conduct), structures and dimensions of states (sovereignty, national interest, diplomacy, trade, force, rules, security…. ) international organizations (UN… ), global issues (order, economy, humanitarianism, climate change… ) and the international system as a whole with its own range of theories developed over time. More than two-thirds of the present 192 UN member states joined the UN after its founding in October 1945 following the end of WW2 and colonialism. Bull calls it “society of states,” “international society” and “international system” interchangeably.⁶ Holsti posits that today most of the states are not isolated unlike earlier ones. They are borderless and interconnected with other states. They interact mutually at different levels and intensity among themselves. States are structurally organized into big-small, strong-weak and lesser influential states. They observe international norms and rules of behavior. They have now evolved into one political unit called the global system.⁷ He describes state interactions in the twentieth and twenty first centuries as one of conflict and cooperation.⁸ Goldstein sums up: “international relations is a compelling subject. The rich complexity of international relationships---political, economic and cultural---provide a fascinating puzzle to try to understand. The puzzle is not just intellectual but also emotionally powerful. It contains numerous human-scale stories in which the subject’s grand themes are played out---war and peace, tragedy and triumph, inter-group conflicts and community. International relations is also relevant to our daily lives as never before; today’s students will graduate into a global economy in which no nation stands alone.” ⁹

Initially British diplomatic historians dominated ir without a coherent theory. Later some theorists focused on current affairs rather than the past. During the interwar years 1914-1945, idealists paid attention to legal-moral issues such as international law, international organizations, peace and cooperation. However, after the dismal failure of the 1917 League of Nations to prevent WW2 (1938-1945), ir gained recognition in the academe as a separate field of study. With lessons from WW2, the ensuing Cold War, postwar international conflicts and expansion of UN with newly independent Afro-Asian nations, ir scholars especially American political scientists increasingly applied descriptive-normative analysis, theoretical models and quantitative methods to examine the behavior of states particularly in diplomacy and foreign policies in their interstate relations. They looked at ‘why’ and ‘how’ for casual explanations and long-term patterns to generalize, deduce, predict or anticipate political events. This endeavor produced the ‘power’ theorists also called realists namely Morgenthau (1948), Kenneth and Thomson (1958), Kissinger (1964) and Bull (1977). Realism (Realist Theory) still has a sway in ir despite the proliferation of ir theories since then.¹⁰ We shall visit ir theories especially the dominant ones separately..

This article is brief . Briefly then, ir, like history, repeats itself. It is unstable, constant and fluid in nature that makes it difficult for us to take a stand or be conclusive except generalizations even if quantified. Secondly, as stated earlier, no single item can seize ir in totality. Finally, major powers (EU, China, Japan, India) especially the US continue to dominate ir.

Once an American investigative reporter Lincoln Steffens (1866-1936) said, “Nothing is done. Everything in the world remains to be done or done over.” During the recent 65th anniversary of D-day on June 6, 2009 in Normandy, France, a reporter asked a 93 years old frail surviving British WW2 veteran attendee if anything has changed in the world. His sober answer was “no.”

As for perspectives, an eminent British historian A.J.P. Taylor commented: “Every historian tries to be detached and impartial scholar, choosing his subject and making his judgments without thought of his surrounding. Yet, as a human being living in a community, he responds even it unconsciously to the needs of his time.” This applies to all--- ir scholars as well.¹¹

This is how “The World As I See.” We need others to see the world as they see!

Notes

1. The term “Cold War” was first used by an American journalist Walter Lippmann in his 1947 book Cold War to describe the hostility that arose out of WW2 between the US and USSR. Ideologically both countries were hostile to each other without direct nuclear confrontation. Instead they confronted each other outside their national borders via aid, covert operations, client states, intervention in foreign civil wars and rival governments.

2. Chalmers Johnson. Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (Henry Holt & Co., 2008).

3. Johnson,_________________. The Sorrows of Empire: Military, Secrecy and the End of the Republic (NY: Metropolitan Books, 2003). For more on American power, see Engelhardt “Going on an Imperial Bender” in http://www.lewrockwell.com /engelhardt/engelhardt352.html For a paradoxical view, see Nye, Joseph S. The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

4. Joseph Frankel. International Relations in a Changing World, 4th ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 1-9.

5. Valentine Anthony, “For better or worse, wars remain with us,” in Commentary Analysis, pg. 17, April 14, 2003, The Straits Times, Singapore.

6. Hedley Bull. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (HK: Macmillan, 1992), pp. 8-9.

7. K.J. Holsti International Politics (Prestince-Hall International, Inc., 1998), pp.52-82.

8. Holsti_________________, p.118.

9. Joshua Goldstein S. International Relations (NY: HarperCollins College Publishers,1994), Preface, xix.

10.See Mark Beavis’s personal website IR Theory Knowledge Base in
http://www.irtheory.com where more than 100 ir theories are listed with brief bibliography for each theory.

11. Frankel………… . v-vii.

Leave your comments...

Please click here to leave your comments