Middle East Debate: Comment on Middle East and N. Africa Media and Pol...: "Middle East and N. Africa Media and Politics: Has the Middle East Gotten It Right All Along?: 'Have we (The US) been wrong in intervening in..."
David: I agree that change needs to come from the inside, and that the US shouldn't force democracy on countries. But when specifically should the US become involved? Isn't it right for us to assist the pro-democracy rebels with military aide? You said "once the protests have succeeded", but what if they aren't going to without military assistance. For example, in Libya should the US intervene militarily on behalf of the rebels, or would that be overstepping it.
CT:It is a controversial issue. The International Community, and the US as part of it, should just act and intervene through the UN because otherwise sovereignty of states like Lybia would be unlawfully unobserved. I don't think that we can name rebels as "pro-democracy", they are fighting against a regime and starting a self-determination process. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are aiming to establish democracy in Lybia. This is just the beginning. I write about democracy because I firmly believe that it is the present fairest form of government, but I also think that it has to be reached at the end of a "natural" process. We, as International Community, should just guarantee that the International Law and Human Rights are observed, promote mediation and, why not, try to discourage the "popular" idea of war as the continuation of politics (Clausewitz). International Relations are a complex field, there are so many contrasting reasons to explain what is going on. Think about the different behaviour that the US and the International Community have with Lybia and Syria. Is it just the different entity of violence? I believe that a lot of people just really want to get rid of a DESTABILIZING individual like Gaddafi. Syria is a completely different thing. In the first days of class we talked about Democracy and Stability, what is most important for the International Relations? I have some clues...REALPOLITIK? Why not.
8 comments:
Smart analysis, I would add few points. What are international relations and what are the forces that shape them? I don't think that the international architecture is a rule-based democratic system. Indeed, only force makes actions legitimate (see Iraq intervention, Cuba's embargo that is against WTO rules, and heaps of other interventions).
In my opinion behind the decision to intervene in Libya stays a clear intention to re-establish a regime willing to maintain "normal" relations with western core interests. Democracy is just an excuse, the real point is that Libya has the third biggest oil reserves in the world. The Japanese disaster, the destabilizing movements in the arabic countries and the difficulties to come out from the GFC are leading the world to a new and devastating energy crisis. Further, I would add that it seems quite likely that the american intervention is also a way to show to the entire world that the US are still able to conduct a war and that Iraq is just the past.
World sucks
Thank you. As you surely know there are a lot of schools of thinking in the International Relations discipline. They all try to answer your questions. Your answer is definitely close to Realism, the problem is to understand what kind. Which do you think is the reason that makes countries act like they do?
I agree that the current international system is not based on a democratic paradigm, do you think that something could change in the future or the international system structure is immutable? If just "force" makes actions legitimate, why do you think that the US waited for the UN's resolution to intervene in Lybia? Weren't the US presumed interests in the area the same as after the UN's resolution?
If it's true that countries just act according to their interests, I don't think that the Japanese disaster would avoid nuclear energy production, at least as long as they think that the nuclear way is the most "convenient" one to generate energy.
I disagree with you about the US intervention. To me the US just showed a really weak strategic sense and are just being overcome by the events. On the contrary, I think that it is quite interesting the huge interest for democracy and human rights that France is currently showing to the world...nostalgia for La Grandeur? aiming to gain the vacant european leadership? Who knows.
Sorry but in my opinion it’s unlikely that the most powerful country in the world has been overcame by the „events“. The decision to wait so long time before a military action was necessary is perfectly coherent with Us foreign policy. Libya is (from the US perspective a rogue state) and trying to solve the problem with diplomatic tools (like in Egypt and Tunisia) would have meant, probably, the renounce of a military action and further the possibility to establish a “friendly” government willing to open their market to western investor (oil companies at first). France of course is not the new Paladin of human rights and democracy, in fact the country is a great sponsor of heaps of dictatorships all over the world (Just a week before of the riots, foreign minister used to go on holiday with Tunisian leaders) . Sarkozy has lots of problems in France and the war was just an excuse to rise its popularity in proximity of the regional elections and the next presidential in 2012.
The way in which international relations are shaped is fascinating and difficult to analyse in few lines. Even though I think that the main forces that shape foreign policies are expression of the dominant forces within countries, and in western countries these are the interests of the capital. On the international level there is a group of core countries that dictate the priorities to the peripheries and this hierarchy is well established through institutions that are still hegemonic (IMF WB WTO and Security Council). Changing the international system is possible only if a counterhegemonic block overthrown the actual one. China’s rise is going to shuffle the actual unipolar system who knows in which ways…
Dear Anonymous, why do you think it is unlikely? Isn't it exactly the confirmation of the changing balance of International Relations that you are writing about? If the US were actually acting according to Power Politics and to their presumed interest in accessing the Lybian market, they would/could have acted in two opposite but equally effective ways: the first one would have implied to use as many diplomatic tools as needed, to keep the situation stable and to create a good relationship with the ruling government; the second one would have implied to intervene militarily as soon as possible, urging the world for a military intervention, and to lead the reconstruction of the country, ensuring their prevailing position in the world. But they didn't. For this reason I think it is a clear indication of the delicate and changing position of the US in the hierarchical international system. Unipolarism presupposes the existance of a leading country, which acts like a leader and doesn't hesitate in front of crucial crisis like the Lybian one. France indeed acted according to Power Politics, it did exactly what it had to do for its real benefit. Do you think that China is going to come out from its beloved isolationism? Does it remind the US before the World War I?
Of course they intervened as soon as they could. They intervened, together with France, when it was clear that the rebels were unable to continue the confrontation. They waited for the perfect moment and that was when their intervention was essential. Diplomatic tools and soft powers are, in Washington’s view pussy instruments. Power is what count. Everywhere and any time!
At the moment I don’t see a possible change in the hierarchy of the international system. Even if the United States currently finds itself–“a lone superpower that lacks true power, a world leader nobody follows and few respect, and a nation drifting dangerously amidst a global chaos it cannot control” (Wallerstein), they still can count on a pretty solid institutional international framework that guarantees their hegemony. It is quite likely that in 2025 China will be the first economy in the world and that would mean a drift in the balance of power. We have just to hope that the US will accept this fact otherwise … Changes of Hegemonic powers, since now, have always ended up with wars…
By the way it’s quite funny but I am really critic to realist interpretation of IR. Not a realist or liberal scholar, I swear!!
PS. Do u really think that France alone can express a credible power politic? How can it compete with regional powers like China, US, Brazil, India?
Thank you, I am glad you explained me so clearly how you think Soft Power is seen in Washington. I agree that the international institutional framework is pretty solid and unwilling to change soon , but I am also pretty sure that some strong change signals are already visible. Don't you think that there are more kinds of power? I really do. I have never said that France can compete with regional powers like China, US and so on. I actually affirmed that it acted exactly as it had to act according to Realpolitik.
I can't believe it, you really write as if you were an ultra-realist, btw to be critic is a good thing, not taking things for granted let us "live".
Ok, I put it down...
American foreign policy makers have always been strong realists, therefore by analysing their decisions it is difficult to interpret them in a different way (as liberals often try to do). the point is to understand who holds the power and who is reaching almost all the benefits from power politics. My answer is: capitalist class.
:-)
So it comes down to the places where Realists and Marxists overlap.
Thanks for provoking and sustaining this interesting discussion.
Post a Comment