Diplomacy discussions, week 1 & 2

Are International Relations (IR) a science or an art?

I believe that contemporary international relations (relations between nation-states) are indeed an art crafted based on evidence that is derived from science; therefore International relations ought to be considered both an art and science. The application of evidence-based scientific prescriptive formulas setting forth ways of how states should behave requires an art that puts into perspective the cultural, religious and societal differences among nation-states and civilizations when deciding which “color to paint to world politics with”, as phrased by Baylis et al pp.4

The world has endured major transformations throughout the twentieth century which witnessed two global industrialized wars, decolonization of European empires, and the end of the cold war. The traditional philosophical theories of world politics seemed inadequate to better explain and deal with the challenges and intellectual complexities of a new globalized world.

Thus, a new approach to international relations has emerged utilizing to a greater extent the comparative study of quantitative data and reinforced by the rise of analytical and quantitative research concepts, models and methods in order to look for pattern of behavior and for probabilities that certain behavior would occur (Russett & Starr, pp 17-18)

What is the value of studying International Relations from a theoritical perspective?

Studying International Relations (IR) from theoretical perspective enables us to understand how a complex world works and helps us determine which things matter and which don’t when dealing with the dynamic and ambiguous nature of the post-Cold-War international environment.

In their chapter “How do we think about world politics” Russett & Starr defines theory as an intellectual tool that provides us with a way to organize the complexity of the world and order facts into data (Kauffman et al, pp 19). Similarly, Smith defines theory as a kind of simplifying device that allows us to decide which facts matter and which do not (Balyis et al, pp.4)

Yet, many scholars doubt the ability of the four dominant theories in IR to meet challenges and the dynamics that underline global politics. Therefore, a fifth debate has emerged intersecting traditional theories with the Complexity Theory (CT) which found its way into social science soon after its development in the natural science (Emilian Kavalski: Emergence of complex international relations theory. Cambridge Review, Sept. 2007, pp 437). Retrieved [September 8, 2008], [EBSCO host, Norwich]

Being theoretical means to be able to describe our world and explain policy decisions we make, as well as having the ability to predict events and prescribe solutions for the world’s challenges in a systematic fashion, as Kauffman et al explain in their analysis of the four primary tools of IR to measure against events (Kauffman et al, pp.1-2)

Do you agree with Rosenau that “to think theoretically one must be constantly ready to be proven wrong.”

Yes, I do agree with Rosenau that when thinking theoretically one must be constantly ready to be proven wrong. Since theory is a science—all relevant data pertaining to the theory in question including hypotheses, research methods and analysis must be laid out and scrutinized in order to determine the validity of its conclusions. Critiquing a theory and testing its hypothesis in systematic approach will uncover any possible flaws that might prove it to be wrong; such process highlights the hallmark of science.

Russet & Starr also explain that unlike clinical or laboratory experiments, in social science we simply cannot conduct a real-life experiment, therefore we depend on “thinking experiment” based on rigorous empirical data on the case we are discussing (Kauffman et al, pp.23). One major challenge is the complexity of human behavior and individual relations within a society, with many different factors influencing the probabilities of an event, and our knowledge of these complex phenomena is still so imperfect (Kauffman et al, pp. 21)

This complexity could be paramount when policy makers have to make decisions dealing with unfamiliar cultures where values, traditions, religion and history have to be taken into perspective. A vivid example is when the U.S invaded Iraq in 2003 and hypnotized that Iraqis would welcome U.S soldiers who came to topple Saddam Hussein and his authoritarian regime. The next thing we know is an insurgency that dramatically changed the war tactics and expectations. War strategists failed to carefully examine and recognize the complexity of Iraqi society where religious teachings and tribal values prohibiting aiding foreign occupation transcend political disagreements.

How is the state power measured?

According to David Armstrong, in modern international society, state power lies in its ability to establish centralized and efficient military power, in addition to other elements which include professional diplomatic service and an ability to manipulate the balance of power (Balyis, et al (Ed.), 5th ed., pp.44)

Although Armstrong emphasizes the state political power, I believe that in today’s world where globalization is the main international actor, a state power is more inclusive and can be mainly measured by the strength of its national economy and its ability to maintain its sovereignty and identity while competing in an open and free market. State power also can be measured by the abundance of its natural resources, the coherence of its social structure, and the level of freedom and equality its citizens enjoy.

Stopford and Strange in 1991 echoed similar meaning when they concluded that states were manifestly less interested in the acquisition of territory than in the pursuit of wealth for the national economy: "national choices of industrial policy and efficiency in economic management are beginning to override choices of foreign or defense policy as the primary influences on how resources are allocated" (Geoffrey R.D. Underhill (2000, March). Gobal economy and the decline of state power. Working paper. pp.4) Retrieved [September, 3, 2008) from [Ciao]

Measuring the power of the state by its ability to serve its best interests and resorting to the carrot and stick policies in dealing with other nation-states can be viewed as selfish, and imply a form of state supremacy which can be best described as a realist view of world politics (more accurately for realists international politics), which will eventually lead to struggle for power between states each trying to maximize their national interests, according to Balyis et al, pp. 5
Balyis also argue within this realist scheme, states must ultimately rely on its own military resources to achieve their ends and the potential for conflict is ever present.

Moreover, the definition of what exactly represent a national interest can vary from one political party to the other, and therefore the measure of the state power can be subjective based on which party is in power.

Most of the problems that we are encountering in the world today are caused by the desire and active pursuit of states to influence others. And if we expand this statement by including non-state actors like organizations and groups, we will actually get to the cause of the core problems the world is facing today ranging from wars to terrorism and their repercussions on global economy.

States should not attempt to influence others whether utilizing their soft or hard power, rather focus on achieving prosperity to its citizens and make a good example for other states to follow if they themselves deem suitable based on their cultural and religious values.

Huntington’s assumption in 1996 that Western and non-Western values are simply incompatible is true to a large extent especially when it comes to social values and religious beliefs, much as Christianity and Islam interacted in the Middle Ages. Huntington’s warning of an imminent clash civilization could be understood based on the desire by one culture to influence the other.

Hurrell argues the need to develop globally institutionalized political process in which norms and rules can be negotiated on the basis of dialogue and consent, rather than simply imposed by the most powerful (Balyis et al, pp. 50-51)

Is globalization an actor, which implies that it can accomplish things? Or is it a condition that has an effect?

Globalization is a much disputed term in itself, however analysts at least agree that it describes a one-world system where all actors have to play by the same economic rules. (Balyes et al pp. 75). Prahalad in 2007 described globalization like gravity: there is no point denying its existence. So, although we still cannot agree on what exactly that can best define globalization, but we have seen its impact on humankind and its accomplishments in the twentieth century.

Isn't the abundance of natural resources one of the strengths of a state, more like capital that can be put to good use during financial hardships than a true measure of power? For the coherence of social structure and level of freedom and equality of its citizens, I think those are actually things that are measures of a country's development, rather than the power they can bring to bear on a given situation. Although resources, development, freedom and equality are important, how does a state accomplish its international goals?

I agree that the abundance of natural resources is one of the strengths of a state, and I also agree with her that the coherence of its social structure and the level of freedom and equality of its citizens could be a measure of a country’s development. However, I consider that a nation’s economic strength and its social and political development are indeed some of the aspects of its power, and they’re things that we should be able to use to measure a state power.

I believe that a powerful state is the one that has strong economy, stable political environment, a free society, strong social structure and a powerful military power that can deter the enemies of the state from threatening its prosperity. This argument actually raises a fundamental question of how do we actually define state power?

What is globalization? How does it combine elements of politics, economics, culture, society, and more besides? What does it mean to speak of the "globalization of world politics"?

Globalization simply means a “shrinking world”. The massive advances in global communications, transport and informatics technologies over the past several decades have created worldwide interconnectedness causing transnational spread of ideas, cultures and information in an accelerating pace. The result is a world that became a single social space with global tendency evident in all sectors including economic, military, legal, ecological, cultural and social aspects (Balyis et al, pp. 16-21)

However, globalization is also complex process; it is asymmetrical (not uniformly experienced across all regions), and multidimensional (patterns of economic and cultural globalizations are not identical) (Balyis et al, pp22)

Globalization represents a conceptual shift in the way we think about global politics. It transformed politics from the state-centric geopolitics and the struggle for power to an era where states are becoming embedded in an overlapping web of a Global Governing Complex within which interests are articulated, decisions are made and policies are conducted through transnational political process (Balyis et al, pp24-25)

Within this global governance complex civil society or private and non-governmental agencies have become increasingly influential in the formulation and implementation of global public policy, and in some cases exercising political power across national boundaries and undermining the state authority (Balyis et al, pp.26-27). Thus, contemporary globalization although did not abolish but has shaken and transformed the very basic covenants of the Westphalian constitution (territoriality, state sovereignty and autonomy) which established the legal basis of modern statehood (Balyis et al, pp. 23-24)