| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 07:57 AM
If Realist theory in fact correctly describes the world, then there is neither hope nor reason for disarmament. Richard Betts, a Professor at Columbia University is of the belief that possessing nuclear and chemical weapons gives the nation-states the sense of security and strength they long for. For example North Korea, isolated, weak, and without any reliable friends among the superpowers, was along with Iraq designated an official target of the US as part of an "axis of evil". But North Korea has nuclear bombs, even if only two or three, so it is under no threat of immediate invasion. The lesson taught by the US invasion of Iraq is the ABC of the Realist school of international relations. Nation states need to amass power for their survival as independent nations. And both to win a war and to avoid one a state needs to have power, both military and economic, with more importance to the former than the latter.
Former US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger once remarked, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac". And in todays world, WMD are considered power. According to the realist and neo-realist theorists the more power you have, not only the more satisfied but also the safer you are. So, looking at the events unfolding in the world through a realists perspective, one soon reaches the conclusion that without the military power and WMD, all nations remain vulnerable to attack. As the US war on Iraq demonstrated, a nation cannot rely for protection on the United Nations or International Law. Thus, one cannot be critical of the WMD race that many nations are engaged in because the possession of WMD has become a survival necessity. The possession of WMD, as evident by the North Korean example, can be strategic equalisers in avoiding wars and maintaining world peace.
|
| isolated freak |
Posted
on 10-Jun-03 07:57 AM
This is posted here solely for debate/discussion purpose. Any comment/criticism related to the subject matter would be highly appreciated.
namaste
Struggle for Power
According to the realist school of international relations, world politics is nothing but a struggle for power between the nation states. The primary aim of each and every nation state is to maximise its national interests, and when interests clash, to have its interests prevail over those of other states. Diplomacy and other mechanisms somehow safeguard nations interests, but the ultimate tool to achieve those interests is the use of military force. This simple yet most debated theory clearly explains the reasons for wars. When a nation state experiences some other nation state or states creating obstacles to its interests, and if it believes it can best achieve its ends through force there will be a war. This realist explanation is criticised for ignoring supposed progress in international affairs represented by International Law, the United Nations system, the force of enlightened public opinion, and so on. Nonetheless, the recently concluded war in Iraq is a strong argument for the realist explanation.
The Iraqi leaderships refusal to succumb to US pressure, and thus permit a peaceful US occupation of Iraq, resulted in a war. In Iraq, the US fought for its interests. The US primary interest, and the reason for the war, was to replace Saddams regime with a government it would control. The other primary claimed reason, that is, safeguarding its own national interests by finding and destroying the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) that the US claimed Iraq possessed was not in fact a reason for the war. There were no WMD, and if there had been WMD the US would not have invaded Iraq. The failure to find the WMD in Iraq even after 8 weeks of the fall of Saddams regime, and the US Assistant Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitzs remark that, WMD were a bureaucratic pretext to start a war, have only raised doubts over the US announced rationale to invade Iraq.
Some observers go on to say that the war in Iraq was primarily for economic reasons, as Iraq has very large oil reserves and the US intention is to take control of these Iraqi oil reserves to aid its ailing economy. Other scholars, such as Immanuel Wallerstein argue that the war on Iraq was for wars sake, so that the US can prove to the world that it still is the dominating power in world politics. Given the fact that the US went against the established norms of International Law to engage in the war on Iraq, this argument cannot be dismissed outright. Whatever the reasons, the US and the "coalition of the willing" engaged in a war with Iraq for their own interests, both obvious and hidden. A democratic government in Iraq and the Iraqi peoples rights are of secondary concern to the US, because the US looks to its own national interests before that of any others. We can be certain that the US will not permit democracy in Iraq if it would result in a government friendly to Iran or hostile to the US. To prevent further terrorist attacks in the US and to implement its foreign policy, which among other things believes in a "free market" version of the capitalist economic system that would permit its corporations "free" access everywhere, the US has, time and again made it clear that it will use its military force. And for this, they are willing to go alone. "Multilateral if we can, unilateral if we must" seems to be the guiding principle of the Pentagon these days. And this willingness to go alone to achieve its foreign policy objectives is due to the military power the US possesses. From the WMD to all other weapons imaginable, the US is in a position to invade any country that is either a threat to its internal security or creates obstacles in implementing its foreign policy.
The early Realist theorists such as Hans Morganthau and Kenneth Waltz emphasised that nations should use the military force against any threat in implementing their foreign policy. Resorting to military operations is, if looked at from the Realist perspective, unavoidable because as long as there are differences between the states, whether ideological or any other, the use of military force remains unavoidable. Some neo-realist scholars argue that the display of power is a necessity for survival. Hence, the nations should focus on amassing power so that they can influence other states either just by the display of their power or by using the power. According to John Mearsheimer, a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago, "What money is to economics, power is to international relations". This explains the billions and billions of dollars that are being spent on developing weapons and weapon resistance shields in many nations.
|
