sir221 2016 ft unit 1 - actors in ir + realism theory(1)

Unit 1Actors in international relationsRealism

SIR221 - Introduction to International Relations BIRD II, Mulungushi University (2016)

Lecturer: T. Reinke - torbenrr@gmail.com

Content of unit 1

Actors in international relations

Theory: Realism

Classical Realism

Neo-realism

The Prisoner’s dilemma

What is international relations?

IR is the discipline of studying how mainly states interact

No country can isolate themselves completely from the outside worldNo country can successfully give away all their autonomy to foreign actors must be a balance for the optimal outcome

Zambia as exampleVery dependent on the global economy (e.g. copper prices)Poverty and indebtedness has to varying degrees compromised Zambia’s autonomy

Debt crisis (1980s and 90s) IMF and World Bank conditionalities2016 - new IMF programme about to be agreed upon

Level of analysisLevel of analysis: Characteristics: Suitable to explain:

The systemic level

• Distribution of power among states

• Their economic and political interdependence

• Wars, conflicts, peace

• Cold war stability• International

cooperation

The nation-state level

• Strength of state• Type of government• Relations to groups

in society• Bureaucracy -

agency interests

• Why powerful nations do not always use force if society is strongly against

• Domestic instability• Humanitarian

intervention

The level of the decisionmaker

• Way of thinking• Beliefs• Personal priorities• Rationality?

• Crisis events• Cuban Missile

crisis• 9/11• Syria

Inspired by Waltz 1959, p. 228 in

Jackson & Sørensen, 2007

Role of the stateAristotle: ”People are social animals”

It’s part of acquiring skills to interact

A group provides security

A group provides a sense of belonging and self esteem

We / themSeparated through barriers of social communication such as language, distance, religion, education etc. World politics is like that with alliance formation:

“Either you are with us or you are against us” (George W. Bush as he initiated the War on terror after 9/11)

The creation of nationsNationalism created in Europe out of a “we-feeling”

Loyalty to a group – an imagined communityThe intention to separate from larger empires

Multiple loyaltiesFragmented geographicallyDiffuse authorityInternational relations were between royal families

Manufacturing, trade and communication expandsEconomic development and a merchant class develops

A demand for security and orderMonarchs need to raise taxes to provide

Bureaucracies createdMobilise military to get more land to extract from

Peace of Westphalia1517 – Martin Luther challenges the spiritual authority of the Pope

Lutheranism spreads across Northern Europe —> Protestant reformation

Religious wars including the Thirty Years War beginning in 1618Ends in 1648 without real winner

Peace of Westphalia 1648“He who rules a region, determines its religion”Rule of lawThe King supported by his bureaucracy had the sovereignty of the regionMonopoly of the use of force

No other authority has the right to intervene = sovereignty

Peace of Westphalia - 1648

European states became strong and through its ability to generate wealth it had a comparative advantage

From 7% of the world’s territory in 1500 to 84% in 1914

European powers tried to balance each othersToo little military force could induce attack19th century very limited wars

The peace of Westphalia established the norm of today where a country’s sovereignty must be respected

Institutionalisation of protection

The creation of “The League of Nations” in 1920 to avoid wars and protect sovereignty

An IGO aiming at establishing collective security

The ambition to transform international relations “from a jungle to a zoo” (American President 1913-1921, Woodrow Wilson)

Failed with the outbreak of the 2nd World WarThe United Nations was instead created at the end of the 2nd World war, which has been the global peacekeeping institution since.

Non-state actors in international

relations

Intergovernmental Organisations (IGO)

Composed of statesDelegates serves the interest of their governmentAlso “neutral” employees accountable to the IGO

Universal membership

Restricted membership

General purposeLeague of Nations

United Nations

European UnionAfrican Union

The Commonwealth

SADC

Limited purposeIMF

World BankWHO

NATOASEANNAFTA

COMESA

Non-Governmental Organisations

Unlike IGOs states are not represented in NGOs.

NGOs often operate in many countries

NGOs providing aid - mobilise funds in developed countries and then target developing countries

Often functions as pressure groups on governments

Specific purposes - Save the Children, The Red Cross, Amnesty International

Terrorist organisations?

Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Hezbollah, Boko HaramNormally not considered NGOs but worth to have in mind that they share features of NGOsMany of the contemporary threats against nations comes from cross-border terrorist groups rather than states

Multinational Corporations (MNC)

Very powerful actors because of their economic capabilities

Countries cannot ignore the interests of MNCs because of dependency on FDI

Are often involved in domestic politics recognising the importance of lobbyism and gaining influence on policies

MNCs do not play a large role according to the classical IR theories realism and liberalism, but they do according to International Political Economy approaches (unit 4)

Who are in control in Zambia?GRZ or mining companies?

Conclusion on actors in IR

International Relations (IR) is predominantly the studies of how states interact.

States have developed to be the preferred unit of belongingA unit that provides national security to its citizensPeace of Westphalia recognised as the birth of the current system of nations

Globalisation has however led to the increased importance of non-state actors

Theory: Realism

Realism

The systemic levelOur focus today is on the distribution of power among statesRealism ignores the nation-state and decision making levelRealism ignores non-state actors

They serve the interest of the most dominant statesThe dominant countries have more power in the UN Security Council, while small countries can’t influence much

Human nature

The assumptions of realisms are based on assumptions about human nature

People are selfish and preoccupied with their own well being

People desire power

“The human lust for power” (Morgenthau 1965: 192)

People cannot be trusted because of their selfish desires

Anarchy

World politics unfolds in international anarchy

No authority above states, hence strong states can do as they wish = anarchyAs the realist assumption of human nature is that nobody can be trusted, all states must be alert and protect themselves in a condition of anarchy

State survival and domination

In the world of anarchy the goal is state survival and domination

Essential goals to provide the good life to its citizensJust as people can’t be trusted, states cant be trusted either

No moral obligations between statesNational security is essential for a state to be able to provide the good life to its people

Even a moral obligation

Classical realism

Classical realism is founded on the work of classical political philosophers

Thucydides - (460- 395 BC)Competition between ancient greek city states

No equality “…the strong do what they they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”

A leaders responsibility to act according to its capabilities

Classical realismMachiavelli (1469-1527)

National freedom the ultimate goalStatesmen must be both lions (exercise strength and create fear) an foxes (astute and crafty)

The world is a dangerous place with opportunities

”Do not wait for things to happen. Anticipate the motives and actions of others. Do not wait for others to act. Act before they do”.Foreign policy is an instrumental activity based on intelligent calculationsBe prepared to engage in pre-emptive wars

Classical realismHobbes (1588-1679)

Permanent state of war among peopleThe constant risk for people made them collaborate

Creating states for protectionPersonal security dilemma can thus be solved, but the international one cannot

International anarchy, as no “World government”States create the best possible protection and freedom for its citizens

But there will always be a risk of war (state of nature)

Morgenthau’s realismContemporary realism mostly influenced by Hans Morgenthau (1904 - 1980)

We are born as political animals - born to pursue powerFreedom from foreign interventions can only be achieved if a state mobilises powerThe state should only be responsible to its own people

Even a superpower should refrain from trying to spread its ideology to other countries

US interventions in countries not posing an immediate threat, would be considered unwise as it is a dangerous activity threatening peace and security

Morgenthau’s realism

We cannot compare human ethics with the ethics of states:”A political leader does not have the same freedom to do the right thing that a private citizen has. That is because a political leader has far heavier responsibilities than a private citizen: The leader is responsible to the people who depend on him or her”

It is a moral obligation of a state leader to go to war when it serves the national interest

Personal morality does not count and sacrifices and suffering along the way is acceptable

Neo-realism

Neo-realism - Kenneth WaltzClassical realist such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Morgenthau have the focus on state leaders

Their tasks to secure the national interest

In neo-realism the ambition is to explain international relations scientifically where the structure of the system is in focusThe relative distribution of power important

Capabilities matter

States share the same foundation and have the same tasks to serve their people

But they differ in capabilities

States are “distinguished primarily by their greater or lesser capabilities for performing similar tasks” (Waltz, 1979:97)

Change in international relations occurs when great powers rise and fall and the balance of power shifts accordingly

Ethical dimension

Neo-realism does not consider human nature and the ethical dimension much - unlike classical realism

It’s a theory based on the structure of the international system

There is however still a core value of the sovereignty of states in his writing

“None is entitled to command; none is required to obey” (Waltz, 1979: 88)

PolarityPolarity in IR describes the way power is distributed within the international system

Distinction between unipolarity, bipolarity and multipolarity according to how many power centres exist in the world

Economic and military capabilities essential in determining how power is distributed and which of these types of polarity exist.

For neo-realists polarity can explain how peace and security is maintained in the world through a balance of power

Balance of Power (BOP)

The Neo-realist assumption of Balance of Power (BOP) dominant during Cold War

Waltz (1979) – ”Theory of International Politics”Alliances are outcome of the international systemPower is distributed according to capabilitiesStates form alliances to balance the states/coalitions for two reasons:

They avoid a hegemon dominating IRThe strongest state is the biggest threat to a country

By joining a weaker coalition a state increases it’s relative influence in the coalition

Balance of Power (BOP)

Alliances according to Waltz are defensive in nature

Not aggressive as according to classical realism

Balancing happens:Internally: arms build upExternally: allying with other countries

In Cold War internal balancing most important due to two major powers

Waltz – Balance of power

Great powers are crucial for world peaceBi-polar systems most stable (Cold War)

Both superpowers act to maintain the system and the balance of powerThe balance of power is the ability for the poles to reach an equilibrium between their capabilities

If equilibrium is not reached, the more dominant pole will use its power to impose its will upon the rest

Unipolarity will make the hegemon dominate other countriesFor that reason unipolarity is not likely to last as countries will aim at balancing.The unipolar world from the end of Cold War is gradually developing into a multi-polar world.

Multi-polarity less secure than a bi-polar world (Waltz / Mearsheimer)Existing from the Peace of Westphalia - 1648 until end of 2nd World warDeterrence more complicated with more actorsMiscalculations are more likely

Why do countries balance?

The realist assumption of a dominant country’s interest to use its dominance against countries with less capabilities

If a country or a group of countries (an alliance) is at risk, they are better of getting more allies to achieve a balance of power to deter the opponent pole

Classical Realism vs. Neo-realism

Classical realism is normative

Focus on political values of national security and state survival

Not just a fact of political life but a matter of political responsibility

Neo-realism

Scientific approach which focus on the structure of IR

The relative distribution of power leads to predictions of the structure of IR

The structure compels states to act in certain ways

Are nuclear weapons a security threat?

Waltz (and most realist) would argue NO.“More nuclear weapons may be better” (Waltz, 1981)

Balance of powerCurrently 9 nuclear equipped countriesUsed as deterrence towards superpowers

George W. Bush identified the “axis of evil”Invaded IraqHas increased the interest in deterrence for countries such as North Korea and Iran

Nuclear powers act responsibleIt is self-destructive to engage in war

When should power be used?

According to classical realists the use of aggression is generally seen as advisable

Most contemporary realists do however not agree with this (Morgenthau, Mearsheimer and Waltz)

States must seek power, but excessive use of power can be counterproductive

An example can be the discussion if it was correct according to a neo-realist logic for the US to invade Iraq after 9-11

Mearsheimer, 2005 - “Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq War: realism versus neo-conservatism”

Link: https://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-americanpower/morgenthau_2522.jsp

The Prisoner's dilemma

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

In situations of conflict, cooperation can be hard to reach because it would not be rational for the one part to trust the other. This is despite both parts would be better off to cooperate

Game theory, such as the prisoner’s dilemma, provides us with the insight into understanding why other actors cannot be trusted as suggested by realism

(Russet et.al. (2013), p.206 – 214 )

The Prisoner’s DilemmaTwo people are arrested for armed robberyThey are separated and asked if they can confess:

Confess the robbery and testify against partner

If the buddy keeps quiet:0 years prison for the confessor10 years prison for the buddy

The buddy is presented with same optionsIf you both confess:

7 years prison eachIf both keep quiet:

Both gets 1 year, just for arm possession

The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Keep quiet ConfessKeep quiet 3,3 1,4Confess 4,1 2,2

Robber 1

Robber 2

• For robber 1 confessing is better than keeping quiet when robber 2 confesses (2 > 1)

• It is also better for robber 1 to confess if robber 2 keeps quiet (4 > 3)

• —> The dominant strategy for robber 1 becomes to confess• The same logic applies to robber 2, so he will also confess = 2,2

• The social optimal outcome would have been that both kept quiet= 3,3

• As robber 2 would face the same dominant strategy, we will end in the outcome where both confess, and reach outcome, 2,2

Balance of power- but not the optimal balance

The prisoner’s dilemma can be used for many conflicts where there is lack of trust among the involved.The US and Soviet Union’s arms race during The Cold War

Two options: Arm or disarmThe social optimal outcome would be a balance of power with no arms, as money could be spent for other purposesBut dominant strategy becomes “arm”

Can the Prisoner’s dilemma be overcome?

Not according to realism!We need two elements:

Communication to agree on the social optimal outcome (possible)Trust (NOT possible according to realism)

In the US - Soviet arms race, communication was available but the trust was not existing

Repeated encountersMakes optimal outcomes more likely

Incentives for the parties to build trust for future cooperation

Critique of realism

Does realism describe the world as you see it?Are countries so eager for power as realism describes it or what drives countries when they intervene in other countries’ affairs?Is it really states we need to be afraid of in the 21st century or non-state actors?

Conclusion

States continue to be the most relevant actors in international relations but non-state actors have been of increased importance in recent decades

As there is no authority above states the world is anarchical which make the powerful nations do as they wish

We distinguish between classical realism (aggressive) vs. neorealism (defensive)

Realism suggest states can never trust each other - this leads to a prisoner’s dilemma logic where more arms are acquired

This is where our next theory (unit 2) - liberalism - suggest we are able to cooperate to overcome the dilemma