International Relations Study? The Field

¶ … International Relations" study?

The field of "International Relations" studies (as might be expected) the relationships between states on an international level, particularly focused on the foreign policy of states, but also considering the actions of international organizations, non-governmental and other international organizations or movements, and global corporations which have an international affect.

Briefly define the Theory of Realism?

Realism is a rather Machiavellian school of thought which holds that the international system is as inherently anarchic competition between nation-states and cannot be controlled by any international institute. Realism claims that each of these competing states is a rational actor working in its own self-interest and pursuing its own stability while trying to amass resources and power. In this scenario, states are seen as inherently aggressive and expansion-oriented, and this is held in check only through competition. In this theory, the most powerful nation in the world emerges as a hegemon, which dominates all the others, unless (as minimal-realism suggests) the many small states band together to balance out the power of the one.

3.Understanding that Realism is the considered the "mainstream" theory in IR, list the various alternative theories.

Alternative theories include liberalism (which includes commercial liberalism, liberal institutionalism, idealism, and regime theory, and neo-liberalism), and less well-established theories such as postmodernism, feminism, and neo-marxism.

4. Choose one alternative theory and compare and contrast it with Realism.

Liberalism claims that the preferences/culture of states, rather than their sheer economic and political power, are the primary factors which determine state behavior. Culture, economic system, type of government, racial make-up, past history, and other such determinants are in this case all more serious predicators of state behavior than is mere military capacity. Realism, on the other hand, focuses on the military and economic power of nations to crush one another, and it is assumed that power to expand correlates with the will to expand. The two systems would make different predictions about which countries are most likely to clash.

Question 2:

Chapter 4

1. Define Foreign Policy. What factors "drive" or "shape" a country's foreign policy?

Foreign policy is the complex of political goals which drive the laws and policies of a nation regarding interactions with other nations. Many factors drive a country's foreign policy, including economic concerns (including desire for land and resources, and economic competition with the other states), religious conviction, other "national interests," security issues, and ideological or religious goals, and international opinion.

2. In your observation, is foreign policy affected by public opinion in the United States?

I believe that foreign policy in America is somewhat influenced by public opinion in the United States, because public policy is limited by acceptance of the voting community. Public support is necessary for the reelection of those who make policy. However, this said, public opinion is America does not seem so much to presage events (such as the invading of Iraq) as it does to follow them. Before the invasion, for example, there was over a year of campaigning, as it were, on the part of the Bush administration to convince the public to go along with the plan. Stories were told that strongly linked Iraq to a number of threats, which were later dismissed or denied by that same administration to maintain public support. The public seems very willing to get behind any patriotic plan, regardless of whether or not they would have thought it up on their own -- which tends to indicate that their opinions are being shaped rather than volunteered. Foreign policy is not so much created by opinion, then, as it is limited by how far that public goodwill can be stretched. In all, I think experts make the majority of the decisions, and that the public only affects the process in as much as it begins to react poorly.

Question 3:

Chapter 5

1. Compare and contrast the various types of "interest conflicts" and "conflicts of ideas." What are the key factors of each?

Generally speaking, conflicts of interest involve tangible goals on either side, while conflicts of ideas are obviously ideological with intangible and sometimes uncertain goals. Examples of some interest conflicts would include territorial disputes, control of governments, and economic conflicts. The key factor of a territorial dispute would obviously be issues of land. For example, the Second World War was preceded by Germany's territorial disputes regarding many "German" lands that had been lost during the first war. Control of governments could be as simple as two countries supporting different parties in a third countries elections, or as complicated as America's invasion of Afghanistan to replace the existing government. Economic conflicts would range from trade issues to international debt. Conflicts such as this often end in war or other such difficulties. Conflicts of ideas may also end in violence, of course. These conflicts may include ethnic, religious, or ideological conflicts (sometimes these three areas of conflict are difficult to distinguish, however). Many people believe such conflicts of ideas are really at the heart of the war against terrorism, rather than the surface conflict regarding security. Of course, often these areas of conflict overlap, as happens now between Palestine and Israel, where territory, religion, ethnicity, ideology, and economics are all bound up together.

2. In your view, which type of conflict is more common today?

I feel that today the most common form of conflict is one which combines conflicts of interest and ideas. For example, in Iraq America originally went in proclaiming that we had pressing national security concerns regarding nuclear weapon and an attack on our own soil. Today, the media reports that we entered Iraq for ideological reasons, aiming to establish democracy. Many antiwar activists protest the "war for oil," and suggest we are fighting for economic gain. It seems that such confusion is rampant across the world. Ideological, racial, and religious imagery is far more inspiring to soldiers than the idea of going to war so that their commanders can get rich or get land. Even in World War I, where the warring nations were remarkably similar in terms of culture, faith, and race, and the war really fought over other issues, propaganda created conflicts of ideas.

Question 4:

Chapter 6

1. What are some reasons why a country/state would want to develop and maintain a military force?

The most obvious reason is to defend against invasion. Countries invading others is extremely common, and most strong countries have at some point invaded their neighbors. (Hussein invaded Kuwait, for example, and America has invaded two countries recently). Having a standing army may not be able to protect a nation from invasion, but it might discourage aggressive neighbors somewhat. Of course, armies are also useful for invading other countries, or for throwing one's weight around in order to convince other countries to make concessions under fear of military retribution. Standing armies may also be useful for putting down riots, protests, and other civil disorders.

2. List the various types of forces. Remember to include conventional forces as well as WMDs (weapons of mass destruction).

Weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and nuclear weapons, get a lot of attention. However, there are other equally important sorts of forces. These include non-human weapons, such tactical ground-launched missiles, intelligence gathering satellites, and robotic troops (which are still in development). Human troops include air forces (surveillance ships, bombers, fighters, and helicopters), ground troops (including heavy and light artillery, infantry, and calvary [horses are outdated]), and marine troops including all sorts of ships, divers, and so forth. There are also stealth units of various sorts who do sabotage or specialty missions. Guerilla troops and civilian-based militia troops may also be relevant, particularly in defense.

3. Scenario -- "You are an emerging nation"