Introduction to International Relations

I found it unfortunate that it took the Holocaust to change the international view and opinion of Human Rights and their application to all people of all backgrounds.  The disparity with which human rights were distributed prior to this is a crime.  It is truly surprising and disturbing to me that advances in technology occurred such as the airplane and the automobile before the idea that all humans have similar needs and rights.  This suggests that the importance of human rights on the international scale lags far behind advances in technology, but with the technology curve and increasingly advanced technology, hopefully advances in human rights will increase similarly.

For me, one of the most difficult aspects of international relations is learning how to let go of my cultural bias.  I have grown up in a world dominated by certain perceptions of how the world works and how other nations “should” behave.  For the most part, it’s all wrong. As I finish up my final paper for this class I am struck by how much the world changes depending on where you were born.  Many of our dealings with other nations are predicated on assumptions that we cannot make, and that others suffer for.  Sometimes we must make a stand.  On questions of human rights and national preservation there can be no compromise (I am reminded of our unit on Rwanda).   Yet, we must always remember that we cannot make the rules for the rest of the world to live by.  I think that at the end of this semester that is what I really feel I appreciate about this course.  We have developed tools that help us to analyze a nation fairly objective and, while that doesn’t mean that they’re easy to understand, at least we have a chance of letting go of or more personal beliefs.

Women are at major disadvantage in the world of politics. It’s not surprising though, politics is an area where men have dominated for years. As human rights and politics merge together, there is a huge gap that needs to be filled where women will be more useful, especially when it comes to laws and treaties that impact women the most. Feminist theorist are trying to highlight these ideas through what is known as a gender-sensitive lenses. I found it interesting that there is still a significant labor wage difference between men and women. Women do most of the unpaid work, even when they work for wages, its what feminist call the double burden. Also, the terms “bread winner” and “house wife” perpetuate the stereotypes that prevent women from moving past this social norm.

Major powers have suffered some serious setbacks in face of theoretically weaker opponents in the past such as the US in Vietnam and Russia in Afghanistan. Despite these defeats they do not seem to learn that trying to come into a nation and impose your own ideals and government is not merely the act of overthrowing the old order an replacing it, but actually a conversion of the population by winning their respect and belief and not hatred. Even if people hate their government they are still of the same nationality, yet when a foreign power intervenes and assumes control, independent of their motivation they will be viewed as invaders, and local powers will take advantage of this and play themselves as victims of oppression thus gaining the support of the masses. To prevent this from happening states must take more indirect actions such as supporting an already existing opposition faction though not to the point of making them seem like puppets, while simultaneously working to improve the lives of people, which involves their living conditions and not their ideals, religion or any other cultural aspect.

I believe that very often communication fails because either one or both sides do not believe the other is being completely truthful, seeking to bluff or outright manipulate the other so as to gain an advantage. This can most evidently be seen in public negotiations and discussions between groups and or states, where the wording and choice of facts to highlight are used to manipulate public opinion to one side.

I find the issue of whether the human rights of a states citizens is more important than the sovereignty of a nation really fascinating since it has so many factors playing into it from political interests to NGO’s seeking to protect violated populations. While it seems like a no brainer that intervention should be justified when a states population is having is human rights violated, we must take into consideration factors such as who and how can determine when the intervention is justified and even if it is should nations be allowed to intervene unilaterally? Also we have to question if intervening in nations such as Afghanistan and the DR Congo is justified when we wont intervene in stronger states such as China or Iran, or even Saudi Arabia which supplies a lot of the worlds oil and thus shields itself behind the financial interest if other states in order to maintain an abusive monarchy. The justification for R2P to override sovereignty is highly questionable in the face of the obvious political and economical motivation behind many interventions, and as such I feel that it is impossible to create a universal standard for intervention, which can only be wholly justified when their is a blatant and outrageous violation of human rights such as an obvious genocide or a state specifically requests aid.

Well I feel that at times that the book takes the metaphor a bit too far and becomes frivolous and slightly lacking in academic value, Daniel Drezner’s analogies where he describes the hypothetical response of each school of thought is very interesting because I feel that it highlights some of the weaknesses they possess. In terms of the liberals the assumption that nations would cooperate under the risk that the cooperation would spread the infection seems a bit naive to me, and the ridiculousness of the zombie scenario help to highlight the unrealistic views of this school. Also the constructivists belief that they could negotiate and create organizations to work with the zombies is simply irrational and has no proper foundation since zombies have always been portrayed as mindlessly focused on killing all humans.

I agree with Morgenthau on the principles of realism. If we think about it logically, all systems created by humans must be driven by our basic nature, since when we create something it is based on our ideas, which in turn are based on out nature and the way we are genetically wired to think. In nature, life will always seek to gain the strongest position possible, evolving so as to either dominate or prevent domination which is a form of power in itself. Thus it is only logical that the same principle apply to international relations. Even when it seems that something is being done solely for the sake of helping another such as in humanitarian aid, their is still a driving force behind it seeking to gain some form of advantage. An example would be that when one state provides aid to another such as in the case of USA and Pakistan they expect something in return such as right of passage and logistical support. Thus helping Pakistan develop is only an after thought to advancing US interests in the region.

Miller’s essay answers the pivotal question of how we can not only end the war in Afghanistan, but also “win” the war. Although it is hard to quantify what winning a war is, but vis a vis the American effort in Afghanistan winning the war would be eradicating the Taliban rule and establishing a functional democratic, capitalistic Afghan society. Currently there is debate within America as to whether or not America can win the war in Afghanistan. Political corruption, and perennial government weakness are the primary actors that plague a dysfunctional Afghanistan. Miller addresses these problems within Afghanistan, yet sees improvement on the aggregate in Afghanistan. Miller asserts,  “Although Afghanistan remains poor, violent, and poorly governed, it is richer, freer, and safer than it has been in the last two generations.” (Miller 6) Thus he concludes that time is the only remedy to the situation in Afghanistan. Further, there are programs and strategies in place that have the potential to help Afghanistan become more independent.

Afghanistan is a difficult situation because it is hard for Americans to see the results and benefits foreign aid has had on Afghanistan’s economy. We are persistently given violent images or images of poverty in Afghanistan on the news so we are disposed to feel that we are wasting American effort and money. It is important that we withdraw from Afghanistan so they can halve independence, but it must be calculated as to not lead to panic in Afghani government and reverse a decade of gains

In describing the origins of WWII in Europe, Hughes focuses on Britain public policy toward Germany and how they failed to deter German Expansionism. Post WWI, Adolf Hitler is elected Grand Chancellor of Germany and immediately embarks on militarization efforts and political ambitions to create a unified, contiguous German state. As the continental hegemon in Europe, Britain, inherited the role of checking Germany’s ascendance into to an international power.  Chamberlin’s policy was a reactive policy – i.e. he had a tendency to make decisions based on maintaining the status quo rather than being a revisionist power. Britain would bureaucratically enable Germany to occupy many of the neighboring territories in Eastern Europe. Allowing Hitler to adopt the mindset that Britain would acquiesce to any potential plea of Germany gave Hitler the impression that the two powers would be allies. Further, undeterred by British air force armament, Hitler continued to build Germany’s military and power internationally.

In hindsight it is always easy to point out policy errors and other mistakes. I agree that Britain is predominantly at fault for allowing Germany to build its power as a nation on the presumption that they could occupy all their neighbors. No one variable can be deemed significant for causing WWII, there are a multitude of factors that all had an affect on the outbreak of WWII.