Are liberal and realist views of international politics still applicable?

Liberalism and realism- the two theories that shape our perception of global politics. I like to think of them as two arch enemies who discover a long the way they actually have a few things in common. But this isn't about superheroes vs. villains unfortunately, this is about international theory which I'm sure is just as exciting...

So what is realism? Realism begins with human nature. Classical realists such as Thomas Hobbes believe we are inherently self seeking and egotistic. They believe that instinct always prevails over intellect and therefore conflict is inevitable. This in turn influences how a state acts, realists like Niccolo Machiavelli argue that political life is characterized by strife because humans are, by nature, violent and insatiable. 

(Disclaimer: I may or may not be paraphrasing Hobbes and Machiavelli here)

This logic also implies that global governance cannot work, no one group is strong enough to establish dominance over the international system. Therefore, realists argue international politics operates in a state of nature, meaning the international area is an area of anarchy. 
What are the implications of anarchy? Well, neo-realists argue that conflict (note: not necessarily war) is inevitable for three main reasons. Firstly, states are only concerned with maintaining their position relative to other states. While states may benefit from a particular action, those states are primarily concerned with whether another state has benefited more so. Secondly, because states are separate and autonomous they must rely on their own resources (i.e self help), they cannot rely on other states to help them. Lastly, there is always suspicious between states, we only have to look to the security dilemma to see that self-help means the build up of arms for defense, however this runs the risk of being interpreted as aggressive by other states. 

Realists therefore argue that conflict can only be contained by a balance of power. Neo-realists associate bipolar systems with stability and multi-polar systems with instability, for example they view the Cold War as the "long peace". The problem with applying this concept to our modern day system is that it is, for the most part, a multi-polar system. There are a number of great powers today such as Britain, China, America etc. that have yet to see any extreme conflict occur between one another. 

(George Bush + the security dilemma)

Then there's liberalism. Liberalism stems from idealism and focuses on harmony in that while groups/individuals may pursue self interest there will always be a natural equilibrium. Liberalists have a more optimistic view of human nature, while they agree people are naturally self-seeking they also suggest there is a harmony of shared interests meaning conflict can be resolved. For example, in 2012 several Asian countries pledged to contribute a significant proportion of the $456 billion offered to the IMF to combate the financial crisis, showing it's commitment to international cooperation.

Liberals look to intergovernmental organisations like the EU and UN for global governance based on collective security and respect for international law. While the UN and EU have certainly grown over the years, is this applicable today? What does Vladimir Putin think of international law? That isn't a rhetorical question I honestly don't know -someone ask him-  but if Russia's actions in Crimea are anything to go by I'm going to guess he isn't too bothered by it. 

Neo-liberalists also believe in complex interdependence, where states are affected by what happens elsewhere e.g. climate change which is classed as low politics. Realism on the other hand places far more importance on high politics, like defense. Liberalism in this case can be applicable as low politics is a fundamental concern for states, just as much as high politics. For example in June this year the G7 leading industrial nations agreed to cut greenhouse gases by phasing out the use of fossil fuels by the end of the century.

Liberalists would argue than international institutions such as the EU would be capable of encouraging cooperation between states and therefore move away from power politics (the fundamental principle of realism). So, naturally, the migrant/refugee crisis should be an excellent example of modern liberalism in action, right? We should see states coming together and cooperating, and yet so far the crisis has only served to further divide the EU. For example, while liberalists may see the EU's resettlement scheme (approved on Tuesday by a majority vote) as an act of successful global governance (the 'rule of law') it has received backlash from some member states who are not willing to cooperate with the quotas set. For example, Slovakia is launching a legal challenge against mandatory resettlement quotas. Surely this reinforces the realist concept of state-centrism, that the state is the key international actor and global governance doesn't work? 

Realists believe that states that have relatively more power have fewer restraints than states with less power. This can be seen to influence the international system today and be applied to the recent migrant/refugee crisis. Jordan, a country significantly less powerful than some EU member states, have taken over 600,000 refugees/migrants compared to, say, the UK which has a GDP 78 times that of Jordan but has stated it will only take 20,000 over the next 5 years. This is clearly an example of power politics and therefore surely realism is more applicable than it's counter theory in the migrant crisis. 

Furthermore, the Dublin Regulation, an established EU law, requires a refugee to stay in the state they arrived in first. This means border states were put under immense pressure. This includes countries such as Greece which, as we all know, isn't doing too good right now economically. These border states are left to struggle with the influx of refugees while there are states who outright refuse to accept refugees/migrants. For example, Arab States of the Persian Gulf haven't accepted any refugees despite international actors like Amnesty International calling it "shameful"- and if NGO's are being ignored by states then that reinforces the concept of state-centrism. 

However, liberalism argues cooperation is a gradual process that takes time, and certainly we have seen gradual improvement and more cooperation since the image of the drown Syrian child sparked international outcry from civilians. At the EU summit on Wednesday (the 23rd) Donald Tusk (European Council President) called for "a concrete plan" on how to stabilize the border crisis "in place of the arguments and chaos we have witnessed in the past weeks."

And yet, it is quite clear we are still not doing enough, we are not acting fast enough and we are by no means cooperating enough. It will take years to make a significant change in the crisis and we're highly likely to see more divisions in Europe and the western world on the way. Therefore I would argue that the theory of realism is very much applicable to the recent refugee crisis. 

_______________________________________________

Bibliography/Further reading

• Migrant Crisis: EU splits exposed as talks take place
• The World Tonight BBC Radio 4
• The European and Refugee Crisis Explained 
• Why is EU struggling with migrants and asylum?

#piggate

This relates to international politics because... live animals are a partof trade in the European Union and, according to the Dell Theory, trade and shared investment across member states is essential in conflict prevention...? But what if no one in Europe wants to trade with Britain anymore because of the #piggate scandal. David Cameron could have caused WW3 for all we know. 

Palestine and State Sovereignty

(At least you tried Obama.)

Trying to research the Palestinian Problem without using bias sources was like getting blood from a stone. It seems like everyone has an opinion on who are the Good Guys™ and Bad Guys™ but the real question is: what does this mean in terms of state sovereignty?

Like most problems in the Middle East and Arab, the origins of the Palestinian problem can be traced back to Western Colonialism.  After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire mandates (i.e. trusteeships) were established by the UK and France over areas including Palestine, and although these mandates were dropped in the 1930s/40s western influence remained strong. The declaration in 1948 of the the State of Israel was seen by the Arab states as an expansion of colonialism from the West- actually very few of the yishuv themselves supported the idea of binationalism. The Arab-Israeli wars that followed lead to many Palestinians becoming refugees in neighbouring Arab states and only served to worsen the anger and humiliation expressed by the Arab world. The opinion of many is that an independent Israel came at the cost of dismantling the Palestinian community. 

The conflict between Israel and Palestine is a question of external sovereignty, Palestine seeks to establish a sovereign state in territory which is claimed by Israel, which Israel perceives as a threat to it's sovereignty. In 1964 the formation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization did strengthen the concept of Palestine as a nation, but it was the Palestinian Authority that gave Palestinians a defined territory and effective government- two of the four qualities that a state needs to be classified as a state as defined by the Montevideo Convention. Having said that, it still lacked de jure (lawful/right) sovereignty. 

The UN plays a significant role in legitimating the status of a state. The UN Security Council did not endorse Palestine's transition into a non-member observer state which means it isn't a full member of the UN and, consequently, cannot claim statehood. Although, in 2013, 132 members of the UN recognized the Palestine as a state. 

As for resolving the conflict between Israel and Palestine, it must be noted that limited progress in finding a solution is partly because both sides favour military solutions over political ones. Having said that, those who argue the case of Palestine being granted statehood tend to favour the two-state solution. They are of the opinion that by continuing to deny Palestine statehood we worsen the hostility towards Israel and, in doing so, worsen relations between the West and Islam. 

Furthermore, there are a range of practical implications when establishing a Palestinian state. Firstly, the Palestinian Authority is divided between Hamas (controls the Gaza Strip) and Fatah (governs the West Bank).

(Hamas and Fatah as snakes devouring each other. Snakes are cool.)

Additionally, if a Palestinian state was established according to the 1967 borders this would result in roughly 500,000 Israelis technically living in a different country. Although most Israelis seem to have more concern about the two-state solution, they fear Palestinian hatred for Israel would lead to a sovereign Palestine posing a threat to the survival of Israel. 

Peace of Westphalia

I'd never heard of this 'Peace of Westphalia' up until a few days ago, but don't let the squad of sombre looking old men in the picture above fool you, it's actually fairly interesting. And important too.

The 24th of October 1648 saw the signing of  the Peace of Westphalia in Osnabrück and Münster, which officially ended the 30 year war in the Holy Roman Empire, and the 80 year war between Spain and the Dutch. 

The Treaty of Westphalia begins as follows:
"In the name of the most holy and individual Trinity: Be it known to all, and every one whom it may concern, or to whom in any manner it may belong, That for many Years past, Discords and Civil Divisions being stir'd up in the Roman Empire, which increas'd to such a degree, that not only all Germany, but also the neighbouring Kingdoms, and France particularly, have been involv'd in the Disorders of a long and cruel War"

In English this is basically stating how the 30 year war (1618-1648) was one of a huge scale with a devastating impact. Certainly, it involved most of the countries in Europe and was primarily fought on German soil- it was triggered by the Austrian Habsburgs who attempted to implement Roman Catholicism on their Protestant subjects in Bohemia. But it wasn't just a case of Catholics V. Protestants, there was fighting across various groups. The Holy Roman Empire was pitted against France, the Princes and Princelings of Germany were fighting both each other and the Emperor, and France fought the Habsburgs of Spain. 

The devastation of Germany was so great that estimates range from a 25-40% reduction of the German states population, in fact there are even some reports of cannibalism due to the starving population that survived. There's even a poem written after the war about it's impact- which just goes to show how "wars don't end when the last bullet is fired or the last bomb is dropped" as Jeremy Corbyn said in his speech on Saturday (disclaimer: naturally, this blog is completely 100% unbiased and if a Tory ever says something enlightening I'll be sure to include it). 

It took four years of negotiations in Westphalia to settle the terms of the treaty, and when the signing ceremony finally took place in 1648 it granted Swiss Independence from Austria and the Netherlands independence from Spain. Most importantly perhaps, it established the legal status of the nation-state as sovereign. Not only did this mean all states were legally equal, but also that nation-states enjoyed complete independent control over what happened within their own borders and what crossed their borders (however, since then globalization has seen a rise of cross-border migration and communication which could mean the state has become weaker). 

The Treaty of Westphalia was one of several key events that saw the rise of the European nation-state. It was to be followed by the French revolution in 1789 which saw the transfer of power from the monarch to a body of citizens, setting an example for modern democratic systems that would later be established across the world. 

9/11 and Global Terrorism

It seems only fitting that this pessimistic blog begins with one of the greatest tragedies of our history: 9/11.  

While I will be focusing on the political implications of the event in relation to global terrorism it is important to acknowledge the human suffering that occurred. The total number of deaths of September 11th as a result of the attacks stands at 2,996. In response to 9/11 the US invaded Afghanistan to dismantle Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government that harboured them. This invasion subsequently meant the loss of 2,361 American troops, 453 British service men and women, and (a more difficult statistic to be certain of) up to 21,000 Afghan civilians. 

The attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda are perhaps the most prominent example of global terrorism, however this point should not be overstated as it was not the first incidence of international/transnational/global terrorism. For example, in the 1960s left wing groups such as the Japanese Red Army and the Italian Red Brigade were of the belief that they were part of a global struggle against Capitalism and aimed to remove the U.S's military presence in Western Europe. 

Modern terrorism can be seen as a result of globalization, firstly the increased flow of ideas, people, money etc. across borders is of benefit to non-state actors at the expense of the state as terrorist groups in particular are capable of exploiting this. Secondly, increased international migration has helped to support terrorist campaigns- the Tamil Tigers for example are partly funded by diaspora communities in Western Europe and Canada. Thirdly, the consequence of globalization is that it has generated a backlash against cultural globalization (the spread of western ideas, values and goods)- furthermore the global capitalist system has contributed to a growth in political militancy by creating imbalances that have impoverished certain parts of the world. 

Having said that, globalization alone cannot explain the emergence of transnational/global terrorism. Jihadist terrorism, an example of transnational terrorism, is a response expressed through political-religious ideology to political developments from the 1970s onwards. First of all, popular opinion turned against the autocratic and corrupt regimes that failed to meet the economic and political demands of the citizens- the defeat of Arab nationalism led to an increasingly religious based movement to overthrow apostate Muslim leaders in countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Pakistan. Secondly, the growth of U.S. military influence in the Middle East further exacerbated the situation- support for apostate leaders across the region and troops in the 'holy ground' of Saudi Arabia made the U.S. appear a threat to Islam. Finally, the growth in religious fundamentalism, much of which can be attributed to the 1979 Iranian 'Islamic Revolution'. 

These are the circumstances from which Al Qaeda evolved- it's goals are transnational and can be seen to represent Islamist terrorism as a whole. It seeks to overthrow Muslim apostate leaders whilst simultaneously expelling U.S. influence. It has cells and organisations across the globe and terrorist attacks in states such as Yemen, Saudi Arabia and Kenya have been associated with the organisation. This does seem to support the idea that modern terrorism has developed onto a global scale- by defining its aim as the overthrow of a civilization (liberal/secular society) it expands its target beyond the U.S. However, the globally united nature of modern terrorism must not be overstated. The jihadist movement is not a single entity, rather it encompasses a range of groups with, usually, very different beliefs and aims. They are, in a sense, religious nationalists as opposed to revolutionaries. For example, to link attacks such as 9/11 to the 2005 London bombing and the 2008 Mumbai bombings and see them as unified by purpose or inspiration is a misunderstanding. Secondly, terrorist attacks usually have taken place in a relatively small number of countries such as Israel, Afghanistan and Iraq- meaning much of the world isn't significantly affected by terrorism. Lastly, the concept of modern terrorism is much to do with the response to terrorism. The global 'war on terror' has sustained the idea of modern terrorism. 

Furthermore, not only has terrorism in some views expanded to a global scale but it's impact as a significant security threat as increased- of course 9/11 is the most prominent example here. There is no doubt 9/11 had a costly impact- the lives lost, as mentioned above, and the significance of its targets as institutions of global political power, financial power, and military power. Having said that, the causalities of 9/11 were relatively small in number compared to other forms of warfare, such as the Battle of the Somme which claimed the lives of 1.5 million men. 

To conclude, the real significance of 9/11 is that it highlighted an uncontrollable security threat- a threat that has the potential to wreak catastrophic devastation and is near impossible to protect against.