The EU: A Hallmark of Liberalism

After the end of World War Two, and into the beginning of the Cold War, several Western European states formed a new, supranational community.  This community was called the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) and was originally composed of France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. (Britannica) While the creation of the ECSC had its stated economic benefit of creating a huge, common market for a variety of coal and steel products, it also calmed a politically and militarily turbulent Western Europe.  The creation and international ratification of the institution of the ECSC dissuaded armed conflict between any of the member states for fear of disrupting the healthy, multilateral economic benefits.

The ECSC continued successfully from 1951 to 1957, when, in 1957, the member states of the ECSC signed and ratified another treaty called the Treaty of Rome.  This treaty established a new economic union, the European Economic Community (EEC), that superseded the ECSC (BBC).  The EEC allowed for an expansion of the benefits of the ECSC by opening up the community to a large number of products, while also creating uniform trade tariffs for all outside trade and the complete abolishment of trade tariffs between all member states.  This made the flow of good between member states enormously easier as well as making the global market healthier through simpler trade policies. 

The EEC continued to thrive until 1993, when it was replaced by its successor, the European Union (EU).  In 1993 the original members of the ECSC drafted and ratified the Maastricht Treaty, which created the European Union (NPR).  The EU was originally based upon three pillars: European Community unification (a collection of pre-existing social, and economic institutions among several European member states, these included institutions like the ECSC), common international foreign and security policy, and domestic police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters (CVCE).  The three pillars took the core of the ECSC and the EEC and expanded them, in a giant leap, to include common domestic and foreign policies. In addition, in 2002, the EU consolidated 12 of the 15 member states’ currencies into one currency, the Euro. 

The system of the three foundation pillars of the EU ended in 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon abolished the pillar system and simplified the EU into a legal personality.  In other words, the EU had become more state-like.  With legal personality the EU could be a party to international treaties and other agreements.  Following the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon, the EU gained entrance into the World Trade Organization (WTO).  The abolition of the three pillars was welcomed by scholars around the world, who had long seen and knew of the absurdity of one pillar represented all of the concrete institutions while the other two represented abstract policy. 

Under the Treaty of Lisbon, EU governance was restructured into three super categories that show how authority is divided between the EU and the member-states: Exclusive Competence, Shared Competence and Supporting Competence:

The Exclusive Competence of the EU is the Union’s exclusive right to govern a predetermined group of things.  These include “the customs unions, the establishing of the competition rules necessary for the functioning of the internal market, monetary policy for the Member States whose currency is the euro, the conservation of marine biological resources under the common fisheries policy, [and] common commercial policy.”

Shared Competence is broken into three different sections.  The first section is policies and regulations that member states cannot independently establish policy upon because the EU already has common policy.  These include “the internal market, social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty, economic, social and territorial cohesion, agriculture and fisheries, excluding the conservation of marine biological resources, environment, consumer protection, transport, trans-European networks, energy, the area of freedom, security and justice, common safety concerns in public health matters, [and] for the aspects defined in this Treaty.”  The second section is restricted areas of policy that the EU cannot act on.  These include “research, technological development and space, development cooperation, [and] humanitarian aid.”  The third and final section is that the EU can create supplemental policy that affects individual member states so long as the policy does not already exist or conflict with existing policy.  This applies to “coordination of economic, employment and social policies, common foreign, [and] security and defense policies”

      Supporting Competence refers to the EU’s ability to act in support of a member states’ action. This category includes “the protection and improvement of human health, industry, culture, tourism, education, youth, sport and vocational training, civil protection (disaster prevention), [and] administrative cooperation.” (Wikisource)

      The EU and its evolution is the perfect illustration of liberalism.  The seemingly innocent and minor creation of an international body to regulate and streamline to production and trade of coal and steel both domestically between the member states and internationally led to the peaceful economic and political integration of the EU. The ECSC was built upon a common interest: to make money, and the ECSC brought the member states together in order to do that in the most efficient way.  By eliminating internal tariffs, trade between local states became simpler and cheaper, and had the added benefit of stabilizing the region, and by creating a common tariff for international trade the member states formed a huge, common free market. 

      The simple notion of several states coordinating rules and creating conditions in which cooperation is ration is the core of liberalism.  In the years that followed the creation of the ECSC, the scope of coordination that had been established grew to include other products beside coal and steel, and eventually grew so that all member states pool their economies. By entering into the ECSC or the EEC or the EU, each member state was asked to forfeit some of their sovereignty and in return the member state received an economic benefit, and then, as time moved on, a social benefit (with the inclusion of social institutions in the creation of the EEC), and then policy benefits, including the coordination of foreign policy.  By acting together in international relations, the countries of the EU have a more influential voice.

      Liberalism is the notion that states can work in a plurality, and that the existence of that plurality results in a world that is better than if that plurality did not exist. What the progression of creating and combining institutions, from the ECSC to the EU, showed member states and the world, was that the process of coordinating government, and consequently resources, is possible and makes member states more successful. The existence of the EU is better for the member states than its non-existence.

            Despite the apparent positives of the liberal EU system, there are those in opposition.  There are member states that refuse to adopt the Euro or other policy adopted or drafted by the EU.  There are nations who could seek entry into the EU, but have not, and there are nations who have tried to seek entrance and have been denied.  Questions still remain about whether the EU is actually a blanket positive and why the EU, if it is truly liberal, would not accept all European nations, with the expectation that the EU would want more partners in the interest of a greater group power.

"European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 30 Sep. 2011. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/196004/European-Coal-and-Steel-Community>.

"BBC News - EU Glossary: Jargon S-Z." BBC - Homepage. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11769554>.

"A Brief History Of The EU : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128389419>.

"The Three Pillars of the European Union." Accueil - Cvce.eu. Ed. CVCE. CVCE. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://www.cvce.eu/c/portal/layout?p_l_id=13617>.

"Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union/Part One: Principles - Wikisource." Wikisource, the Free Library. Web. 30 Sept. 2011. <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_Treaty_on_the_Functioning_of_the_European_Union/Part_One:_Principles>.

(NOTE: the Wikisource is a reformatted, unedited version of the official EU document, found at: "Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union - Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union - Protocols - Annexes - Declarations Annexed to the Final Act of the Intergovernmental Conference Which Adopted the Treaty of Lisbon - Tables of Equivalences." Publications Office of the European Union. Web. <http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2008:115:0001:01:EN:HTML>.)

Somalia and Institutions

Many of the nations in the continent of Africa have been in a state of war since their independence from their European colonial masters. One such nation is Somalia, a country situated on the Horn of Africa in the east of the continent. The history of the nation is peculiar; having for most of its existence has been ruled by two different parties. During colonial times, the northern section of the current day state was a British colony, while the south was a colony of Italy (Bruton). The two sections were finally united in 1960 when Somalia became an independent and sovereign state. Shortly after in 1969, the Somali military lead a coup d’état against the government, which lead to the establishment of communist rule until 1991. During this period, Somalia was united under one government, and all of the Somalia was included in it. After the ousting the communist government in 1991, the various tribes of Somalia reemerged and started fighting each other for power. After one group of tribes took over the capital of Mogadishu and started seizing international aid shipments, the United States and UN launched a campaign to dislodge the tribal control of the capital to allow the aid flow to the rest of Somalia (Bruton). This fighting would culminate into the event that we now know as “Black Hawk Down”, but the effort did manage to kill or capture a few ranking tribal militia members. However, both US military and UN peacekeeping personnel sustained substantial casualties and after the UN issued a declaration condemning the attacks, withdrew remaining peacekeeping forces (UN Security Council). Following the international withdrawal, an official government known as the Transitional Federal Government (TFG), was slowly being formed to retake control of Somalia, but at the same time Islamic fundamentalists were uniting clans and gaining more and more territory and power in the country (Bruton). The TFG would not be able to take on the various clans on their own, so they have been receiving international military support, most from the African Union (AU) (BBC).

The TFG and their allies have been fighting the various clans that claim control in Somalia for the past decade. And even today, AU member nations continue to pledge more and more of their own soldiers (particularly from Ethiopia, Uganda, and Burundi) to fight to establish the TFG’s control of Somalia and to increase Somalia’s security (BBC). Looking through the lens of a realist would make this situation seem absolutely bizarre. Nearby nations donated their own military assets to establish the security and power of another? Especially one strategically positioned on the coast with potential to become economically powerful through sea trade. By thinking as realists, this situation would be seen as these nations voluntarily decreasing their own security and power to enhance the security and power of another nation. And this view is because in the realm of realism, security and power are objects that are non-divisible. Despite all of this, the theory of Liberalism can explain the situation in Somalia.

The actions taken by the AU in Somalia can best be explained by Liberal Institutionalism. Action taken by Institutions, in the case the UN and AU, in Somalia are for the security of the region and the world and will create peace and stability. This is an example of collective security. The reasoning behind this would have to be that if Somalia is finally calmed down, then various problems of the lawlessness of country will also disappear. One of these problems is the Somali piracy. This applies especially to the AU, who would want to pacify the region to allow the establishment of a more fluid and free economy. The three most involved African nations in the Somali conflict are Uganda, Burundi, and Ethiopia. Now why would these nations want to create peace and stability in Somalia? The nation with the most obvious motive is Ethiopia. Ethiopia, which contains the seat of the AU in its capital of Addis-Ababa, is Somalia’s neighbor and receive the benefits of having a secure border plus a decline in refugees that have been steadily streaming across its borders since 1991 (Bruton). They are the most heavily invested in the international military effort (BBC). Burundi and Uganda however are not neighbors to Somalia, so why are they pledging more soldiers to be used to secure Mogadishu? Liberalism would explain that they are doing this to build bonds with the future Somali government as well as with the rest of the AU and UN. This way, the landlocked Uganda and Burundi will have a history with Somalia, which is has plentiful amounts of coastline. Potentially, Somalia could be a vital trading partner with these two nations when the political situation over there finally calms down. But the bottom line is clear, in Africa collective security is an important goal to achieve due to the close proximity the African nations have with each other.

But still, are the motives of the AU and Uganda and Burundi really this pure and good? Perhaps they actually are just involved in the Somalia conflict just to come out possibly come out with some ceded territory, instead of forging a diplomatic relation with the new Somali government. And would peace really come to Somalia if a democratic government was installed first before security was established? Especially with Islamic militant groups fighting for Sharia law in the country, would the Liberal formula for peace work in this situation? Personally I am doubtful any progress will occur in Somalia until the violent clans are suppressed and the TFG is firmly placed in power.

Works Cited

Bruton, Bronwyn. "Somalia A New Approach."Council Special Report 52 Mar 2010. n. pag.CIAO. Web. 29 Sep 2011.

BBC, . "African Union to get extra troops for Somalia mission." BBC News Africa. BBC, 27 Sep 2011. Web. 29 Sep 2011. .

"Resolution 837 (1993) Adopted by the Security Council at its 3229th meeting, on 6 June 1993." RefWorld. UN Security Concil, 06 Jun 1993. Web. 29 Sep 2011. .

Nukes, what are they good for?

In January, 2002 then President of the United States, George W. Bush, referred to three countries as an "Axis of Evil": Iraq, Iran and North Korea.  In March 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and overthrew the government of Saddam Hussein. 

In 2006, North Korea tested its first nuclear bomb, Pyongyang’s desire for nuclear power steaming from “ingrained insecurity vis-à-vis the United States” (Lee), or, the threat the US possesses to North Korean security. Thus, in theory, if the US were to guarantee security, and in essence, to not attack the Korean island, one would assume that North Korea could be denuclearized. However, in 2009 the North detonated a second nuclear device and since has launched a sustained attack on an island of U.S. ally: South Korea, reportedly attacking and sinking a South Korean ship.  There has been no military response to the North's actions. The 2009 test was not only a display of nuclear power, but also another reminder to the United States, playing on the nations fear of a nuclear competitor. Nonetheless China, who is not only North Koreas partner but also a “major supplier of such basic needs as food and energy,”(Roy) was angered by such testing. One can safely assume that “fear of aggression by the United States and its allies is a principal driver of North Korean foreign policy,” (Roy) nevertheless; Pyongyang continuously supplies reason for American aggression.

Thus, I ask the following question: What lessons might have Iran taken from the recent history of the other "Axis" countries?  Considering a Realist lens, should Iran develop its nuclear program?

I have chosen to answer this question through the Morgenthau perspective, which states that, “a tragic perspective enables us to confront more squarely the harsh realities of politics, the evil aspects of human nature, and the ethical compromises action requires.” (Klusmeyer)

 When first considering these questions, I could not help but think of Raison d’état – the term Raison d’état roughly translates to national interest and is used to explain the actions of states in the international system.  Personally, I believe that North Korea acted on the basis of Raison d’état through the ideals of Morgenthau’s works, as did the United States in regards to Iraq.

Thucydides Melian Dialogue acts as a perfect analogy and parallel to the dynamic between these four countries. In the dialogue, the Athenians wish to conquer the Island of Melos, to threaten and impose fear on Sparta. In essence, the Athenians offer to the Melians an ultimatum: surrender or be destroyed. The Melians argue that they are a neutral country and should not be attacked. The Athenians then explain that not attacking Melos would make them in turn look weak. The dialogue continues, and explores the morality of destroying Melos.

The US began by taking the role of the Athenians, treating Iraq as a Melian, just as in the dialogue, attacking them and ultimately taking over as a show of strength, power and oppressive ideals. North Korea, seeing this, acted upon Raison d’état and adopted #4 of Morgenthau’s Essential Assumptions of Political Realism: States, above all else, are concerned with their security. Instead of letting the US get to them first, North Korea decided to advance and consolidate their respect.

Although I do not support North Korea, by waiting it out and working with self-interest and survival they insured themselves a position as a potential threat, and one that cannot be easily defeated.

Thus, if Iran were to approach and adopt Morgenthau’s plan, their first plan of action would be to also develop nuclear weapons, as to not be the only ‘axis of evil’ to not have a way to defend itself. By developing nuclear weapons, a country is able to inherit both respect and power, two things Iran needs if they wish to get ahead as a state. This would ensure power on an international scale, and hopefully generate enough fear for things to work.

However, one must also look at the implications of Realism, and the negative affects nuclear weapons could have on Iran, specifically in regard to its security. Israel, the only Middle Eastern nation that possesses nuclear weapons, would see Iran’s possession as a threat. “It is clear from statements of Israeli military and intelligence officials and numerous press leaks that planning for a military operation to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is well under way in Israel” (Riedel). If Israel were to attack Iran, one could assume that the United States, an ally of Israel, would seize the opportunity to join the attacks – a war Iran would loose.

From a Realist perspective, although Iran would face major negative implications if it were to develop its nuclear program, it faces the larger risk of being a target if it does not. By becoming a nuclear competitor, Iran will not only rise to the level of countries like Israel and the United States, but it will not longer be the threatened. Thus, it is in Iran’s best interest to learn from North Korea’s actions, and protect itself; survival of the fittest style.

 Works Cited:

LEE Chung, Min. "Nuclear Sisyphus: the myth of denuclearizing North Korea." Australian Journal of International Affairs 61.1 (2007): 15-22. International Political Science Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.

KLUSMEYER, Douglas. "Beyond tragedy: Hannah Arendt and Hans Morgenthau on responsibility, evil and political ethics." International Studies Review 11.2 (2009): 332-351. International Political Science Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.

RIEDEL, Bruce. "If Israel attacks [Iran]." National Interest 109.(2010): 6-13. International Political Science Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 22 Sept. 2011.

ROY, Denny. "Parsing Pyongyang's [North Korea’s] strategy." Survival 52.1 (2010): 111-136. International Political Science Abstracts. EBSCO. Web. 21 Sept. 2011.

Realism in the Basque Region of Spain

Realism in the Basque Region of Spain

What made war inevitable was the want for power, the need for individualism, the want of isolation and the closed-mindedness of opposing states. All of these factors have had a role in the attempted separation of the “Basque Country” or “El Pais Vasco” from Spain. From before the Spanish Civil War in 1936 until today the Basque’s have always been trying to find a way to separate and become an independent state. Their reasoning behind this want for separation can be described through a realist point of view.

The Basque region has a very interesting and unique history. For a very long time, the area was divided between Spain and France; this division has caused many nationalists problems. The Basque region is a very nationalist area and nationalism has had an extreme importance in the region. This is one of the reasons why the Basque region is so unique. Another reason would be despite the fact that it is a part of Spain; the Basque region doesn’t necessarily speak traditional Spanish; they speak a “dialect” of Spanish that in reality has very little relation to actual Spanish at all. As Spanish is considered a “romantic language” many do not consider Vasco anything close to this. The Basque region has taken much pride in its differences from the rest of Spain and this pride leads to their individualism.

As Spain’s government and monarchy went through many changes many people immigrated out of traditional regions and into area such as the Basque. The nationals of the Basque region considered this abundance of immigrants as an invasion of their territory that demolished their identity. This lead to the nationalist defense of the region; the Basque region has always been known as very defensive and independent. Outsiders were not welcomed in the Basque region; they truly wanted to be isolated and left to their own ideas.

The Basque region followed an idea known as “carlismo”. Carlismo was a tradionalist and legitimist political movement that questioned who could be in charge of the Spanish throne. The Partido (Party) Nationalist Vasco (PNV) came about from this movement during the rule of Francisco Franco. In 1959 the ETA (today a very violent party in Spain) was formed by a young group of nationalists that weren’t satisfied by the previous national party known as PNV. The group ETA believed in the importance of their language, their religion (strong Catholics) and social justice. They were anti-capitalist and were also anti-imperialist. They did not really gain a reputation of violence until 1961. It has been said that the terrorism of ETA is without a doubt, the principal obstacle Spain faces in trying to have unity and protection as explained in the Constitution of 1978. The ETA is a part of very violent nationalism; their party on a political scale is very far left and is even considered Marxist.

Today the ETA in the Basque region is still pushing for independence but has been rather calm. Since 1959 the ETA has killed over 820 people in acts such as car bombs and shootings. “But the group has been decimated in recent years by arrests of its leaders and members, and has not killed anyone in Spain in more than two years” (NPR). There are over 700 ETA prisoners in jail between Spain and France; many believe this is the reason why acts of violence have been so low. In fact, the ETA has even been in a ceasefire since September of 2010. Despite the fact that no violence is coming from the group, they still hold protests frequently and still are trying to get their independence.

Perhaps realism can explain why the Basque region’s want for independence is strong? As we saw in class and through our lab, realism can help explain why people go to war. When looking back at what made “war” inevitable in the Basque regions we saw that the want for power played a huge role. As we know, the idea of realism supports the concept that there will always be a want for power. Realism shows us that there is a reason behind everything; and that motives lead to these reasons. Some motives that explain the actions of the Basque region and the ETA include their individualism and their want to be a separate state. We saw in realism that security also played a large role. When the Basque region had multiple groups of immigrants invading their territory they felt threatened and needed to increase their own security. The Basque region simply did not trust the other regions of Spain or the other ruling powers of Spain. Why was the ETA so violent? Violence was a motive to them; violence was a way to gain their independence. To this day, these concepts that support the idea of Realism can still explain what is going on between the Basque region and the rest of Spain; it explains why they so desperately want independence.

Realism cannot explain though what will happen in the future in the Basque region. Will the ETA stray away from its ceasefire and come back into a world of violence? Many believe that in the upcoming November elections in Spain the ETA will strike again. Realism cannot explain whether or not the Basque region will ever gain its independence; only time will tell.

Works Cited

Book, The. "Jailed Members Of Basque ETA Renounce Violence: NPR." NPR: National Public Radio: News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts: NPR. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. .

Pereira-Muro, Carmen, and John Beusterien. "Capitulo 9." Culturas De Espan%u0303a. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003. Print.

US Stake in China-Taiwan Relations

There is no denying that China’s power is rapidly growing. If we use a realistic point of view and assume that the United States is the world’s current hegemonic power, China can only be viewed as a threat to this unipolar system in place. The US must tread carefully in order not to upset China, especially when it comes to delicate issues like Taiwan.

Taiwan, or the Republic of China, has been separate from China (the People’s Republic of China, a communist regime) since 1949, and the end Chinese Civil War, when the Nationals (the ROC) fled to Taiwan after the Communist takeover. Both the ROC and the PRC lay claim to all of China - that is, the mainland and the island of Taiwan. Due to the PRC’s advantage from sheer size and additional power, the ROC (from here on - Taiwan) has had no official seat in the UN since 1971. China has also decreed that it will not have formal relations with any country that formally recognizes Taiwan. Since China is such an economic powerhouse, the United States (and other countries) can hardly afford to ignore this sanction.

Taiwan’s potential bid for total independence will be in vain until China agrees to cooperate. Taiwan cannot achieve status as an independent sovereign state because of China’s influence in the UN and its permanent position on the Security Council. If Taiwan claims independence, China has threatened the use of military force, which is no small threat. China’s population of 1.3 billion alone is enough to intimidate Taiwan’s 23 million inhabitants.

Despite this, China remains one of Taiwan’s largest exporters, as Taiwan is a key trader in Asia.

Enter the United States. In a perfect world, this hegemon wouldn’t have to worry excessively about the ties between China and Taiwan. However, due to China’s rising economic prowess, the US must be able to showcase its power without causing offense to a possible hegemonic usurper.

A recent example of US involvement in Taiwan while treading carefully around China was featured in the New York Times. The United States passed a bill in 1979 mandating that it supply Taiwan with sufficient munitions to defend itself. The Obama administration has decided to forgo giving Taiwan new F-16’s and is opting to instead upgrade their air force fleet, which was given to them in 1992 by the first Bush administration. To many, this seems as though the US is catering to China, since China disapproves of any arms trades with Taiwan.

Many assume that the United States’ subtler support of Taiwan is fed by a “nervous hegemon” phenomenon. In Kennedy’s article in Asian Survey, a basis for argument is that the United States simply has to be content with Taiwan’s de facto independence from China, as the possible consequences for supporting Taiwan outright could involve economic alienation - a huge problem - or unwanted military conflict. This would upset the United States’ stability as the perceived hegemon, and increase China’s threat.

A lot of this diplomacy involves veiled threats, especially with China. By creating assumptions through a realistic viewpoint, China trusts neither the United States or Taiwan. Taiwan’s building up of their military force with US help enforces Taiwanese security, which has the potential to scare China. By creating stability for itself, Taiwan also creates international instability.

It can be argued that the US also uses these strained Cross-Strait ties to its advantage. By supporting Taiwan, the US takes away a piece of China’s power - essentially, the hegemon is attempting to keep the other countries in line. Another reason for the US to support Taiwan is their more capitalist setup, whereas China still operates under a Communist government. By playing the role of benefactor to a societal structure more similar to their own, the United States is ensuring that they have support.

The example in the New York Times article also displays realism in action. Not only is the United States catering to one of its perceived threats; it is also keeps Taiwan at a disadvantage in Cross-Strait relations by not selling them the F-16’s. Recent Chinese military buildup has created a definite Chinese edge in military superiority. By assisting the Taiwanese military in a more confined manner, the US simultaneously prevents a smaller player on the global stage from advancing too far.

Collectively, the US-China-Taiwan relationship is an excellent case study for realistic theorists. However, there are still some issues to be addressed; specifically, why is it so important to China to attempt to retain some hold of Taiwan? This could possibly be answered by taking a look at the volatile relationship between the US and China, along with China’s recent ascent to power. Modern events cannot explain everything, as history and cultural identity also play heavily into China’s relationship with Taiwan. By just using the narrow lens that realists provide, we miss out on some of the driving factors behind this IR phenomenon.

Kennedy, Andrew Bingham. "China's Perceptions of U.S. Intentions toward Taiwan: How Hostile a Hegemon?." Asian Survey. 47.2 (2007): 268-87. Print.

Landler, Mark. "No New F-16's for Taiwan, but U.S. to Upgrade Fleet." New York Times 18 Sep 2011. n. pag. Web. 20 Sep. 2011. <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/world/asia/us-decides-against-selling-f-16s-to-taiwan.html?_r=1&ref=asia>.


"Taiwan country profile." The British Broadcasting Corporation. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sep 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1285915.stm>.

Economic parallels of Realsim

An article in the newest version of the Economist (September 17) caught my eye in that it displayed contrasting points of idealism and realism. While reading and thinking about the material we covered in class, I was confronted with an unexpected but well received notion. Through reading I realized how this article brought together the ideals of realism with the theories of capitalist economics. I want to take this opportunity to compare the two spectrums and show the striking similarities between the two. The article, titled The Tents of Righteous, focuses on a financial organization based in Paris which concentrates on eliminating sleaze and cronyism from the international political and economic spectrums. When in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries must pass laws outlawing international bribery and are closely monitored to insure the laws are being strictly enforced. Almost all countries outside of the OECD co-operate with the organization in some way, but recently the only formal application has come unexpectedly from Russia, while others such as the remaining BRIC nations (Brazil, India, and China), South Africa, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia remain outside of the organization. Many are surprised by Russia’s application citing the vast amount of favor-swapping inside Russia. However, the OECD only deals with international dealings, so theoretically a country could be full of sleaze at home while maintaining a clean sheet in business abroad. Latter, the article makes a point regarding America which I think is worth noting. “Even the United States…has had to undergo scrutiny at the hands of peers and listen meekly to ideas for better enforcement. That contrasts sharply with the rejectionist American approach to many other forms of international legal scrutiny.” This statement left me wondering why the United States would join such an organization, and how realism and idealism comes into play when a state joins any international organizations.

There are two schools of thought regarding organizations, one is economistic, rooted in rationality and efficiency and the other is sociological, focusing on legitimacy and power. (Adler) While on the surface, it may seem that states join these organizations for idealistic reasons, to benefit the common good; these organizations are truly an instrument to gain power and influence. International organizations often become sources of power through the legitimacy and legal authority they embody and control over expertise and information. (Adler) These organizations are often responsible for classifying the world, giving meaning to these classes or categories and creating new standards, principles, and actors around the globe. Relating back to the article, many countries choose to participate in this organization not only because it is truly of good intent, but because it allows them to keep watch on other countries actions which intern, increases their sense of security. Theoretically, most countries would not want a global government keeping watch on them, telling them what to but if there is going to be some variety of international organization, naturally a country would rather be the one who has input in the decisions than one who obeys them blindly. However, many significant countries do not participate in the OECD and other International Organizations. What seems the most sensible is that these countries have calculated that the costs of being in these organizations, whatever it may be outweighs the organizations’ benefits. This type of decision is the foundation for modern economic theory which poses remarkably similar ideologies.

Realism, as economics is based on the principle that every man or in this case every state will act according to their own self-interest. As people act in self-interest, only doing what is best for them, the invisible hand will always theoretically move the market towards equilibrium price and quantity. While socialism or acting on behalf of the common good is plausible in theory, in practice it is a failure due to little incentive to produce and little incentive to progress technology. (Colander 82) Perhaps international relations follows the same values in that what is best for you will actually be the best for the group as a whole. Perhaps the realists have learned something from economics and are using that knowledge as a basis for their ideals. Although there are a few differing forms of realism, they all seem to relate to economic theory in their own unique way. In the Classical Realism approach, states place their self-interests ahead of the ideologies, placing benefit ahead of morals or even social norms (Goldstein 43). In the market, consumers are always acting on the law that if the marginal benefit outweighs marginal cost, it is a good economic decision. In both instances, the state and individual fail to take into account the effects on a third party. In the market, the government imposes taxes or bans to discourage these behaviors but in international politics, there is no supreme authority to hinder the undesired behaviors. In structural realism, forces above and below the state is the cause of a state’s actions (Goldstein 56). In the market, the consumer is often influenced by factors such as social norms and the state of the economy, neither of which is in the relative control of the consumer. Lastly, Statecraft is the art of managing state affairs and effectively maneuvering in a world of power politics among sovereign states (Goldstein 73). In this practice, a state may strategically take a short term loss in order to gain future power and influence. Comparing this to the market, often times business will take a loss when starting a branch of their business or entering a new market in order to ensure long-term growth and prosperity.

What this article introduced was that although all states may have similar aspirations to gain as much power as possible, they road in which to get there varies. While some states may join organizations to enhance their world influence, others may prefer to stay out and do business against society’s rules. The latter may see the costs of changing their ways may be too detrimental to the economic and political systems and not worth the future benefits. Power, just like the free market is a zero-sum equation, the more power one state has, the less power another has. Power, like resources, is scarce. There is not an unlimited supply for all to share, there is a fixed amount going to the highest bidder. While idealists may have the ‘right’ values that states should abide by, realists seem to have the edge with an economic comparison. History shows us that while it may not be perfect, capitalism is the best system we have. Socialism, on the other hand, has proven to have an even greater list of pitfalls, most notably a halting of growth. Does economic history show that when countries act for the benefit of the group and forget self-interest there is a loss in some type of progression? Or perhaps all the similarities between realism and capitalism are just coincidences and that correlation really does not prove causation. While economists often use theories and principles to gain a better understanding of the past, realists and idealists are attempting to shape our future. One can never really know which side is truly correct, but we can see whose predictions hold true and whose ideals continuously shape our evolving society.

Adler, Emanuel. “The Politics, Power, and Pathologies of International Organizations.” International Organization 65.3 (2011): 707+710. Print.

Colander, David. Microeconomics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. Print.

Goldstein, Joshua S. International Relations. New York: Longman, 2010. Print.

“The Tents of the Righteous.” The Economkst 17 Sept. 2011: 62-64. Print.

We Went to War Because...

George Washington went to war with Great Britain for a variety of reasons, including British over-aggression. However, he made an alliance with the Oneida Nation during this time of war because he needed their help in conducting military actions, a move which reflects realist principles.

Ulysses S. Grant went to war in order to preserve the union of the United States, a cause in which he firmly believed.

US Navymen went to war out of a sense of nationalism. As President John F. Kennedy said, "Any man who may be asked what he did to make his life worthwhile can respond with a good deal of pride and satisfaction, I served in the US Navy."

Friedrich von Steuben went to war to help the American colonies and continue his military career after serving Fredrich the Great of Prussia. Furthermore, he provided aid to the colonies for strategic reasons, given that his own country would have much to gain from the downfall of Great Britain.

The enemy of the enemy is my "ally"…

For nearly the last half century the U.S and Pakistan have been in a mutual beneficial relationship with each other. It started during the Cold War, where the U.S and the U.S.S.R were in a bipolar world fighting for influence and dominance in the world. The U.S.S.R began to become very friendly with India and began to provide them with aid in order for them to have a major ally in South Asia. The U.S grew increasing concerned with this relationship as it felt that it jeopardized there national interest and security in Asia, and tipped the balance of power towards the U.S.S.R. So in response to this relationship the U.S supported and gave aid to Pakistan, which is the natural enemy of India in order to swing back the balance of power in Asia. The U.S Pakistani relationship became even more crucial to the U.S during the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, as the U.S began to move supplies and weapons through Pakistan to Afghani fighters in Afghanistan (Hilani). They helped armed the Taliban and Mujahedeen fighters in their resistance to the Soviets, and it could be argued that they change the course of the war with the introduction of the Stinger missile to the Afghan fighters (Grau). Pakistan benefited from this relationship by getting both economic and military aid from the U.S which allowed them to compete with their arch rival India.

However where U.S and Pakistan interests collide with each other is on the subject of the Taliban and Muslim terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. Pakistan and Afghanistan have a long sense of animosity between the two countries and as a result they take any opportunity in order to weaken one another. Pakistan eligible harbors the Taliban and other Muslim fighters in order to weaken the Afghan government; therefore allowing them to gain an upper edge. They also do this as well to keep a check on its other arch rival India (Ghosh) or could be used to keep the U.S hostage in keeping giving aid to Pakistan. There are also reports that the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI and their military have ties to the Muslim terrorists in Pakistan, which further offers a reason to protect them. Experts have suggested that Pakistan might allow terrorists to roam around in Pakistan in exchange for promising a ceasefire and not attacking Pakistani targets.

So why does the U.S put up with Pakistan if this is the case? It is because Pakistan location, resources and power make them invaluable allies, that the U.S is willing to tolerate them. One of the main arteries for U.S supplies and troop into Afghanistan is from Pakistan, which means if Pakistan cuts the U.S off from their land; that the U.S would most likely lose the war in Afghanistan. Pakistan is also a nuclear power so in order to make sure that no nuclear weapons make it into the hands of terrorists or other rogue nations; the U.S needs to have access to Pakistan to make sure of this (Ghosh). While Pakistan might harbor some terrorists in its land, they too are in a war with the extreme Muslim terrorists. They have suffered far worse causalities and death from this war compared to the U.S. They are also essential in hunting down terrorists between the Afghan and Pakistan border, and denying major places for the Muslim terrorist to operate. They have played a key role in helping the U.S capture or kill key terrorists such as Al Qaeda’s new number two Abd al-Rahman. They also continue to play a role in balancing the power in Asia with regards to China (Ghosh), which is considered by some to pose a bigger threat to the U.S than do terrorists. It is also most likely that if the U.S were to drop Pakistan as an ally that they would surely become allies with China, Russia or Iran.

Currently there is a debate in the government over the issue of funding aid to Pakistan, even though we might not be on the best terms with them. Many argue it is not worth wasting our time and money on Pakistan when they might be stabbing the U.S in the back. However I would say the majority of policy makers in Washington would still support sending aid to Pakistan and developing closer ties with them; because the U.S stands to benefit more with an alliance with Pakistan than it does to lose Pakistan as an ally. The war in Afghanistan is difficult as it is without the additional stress of losing a major supply route in Afghanistan if the U.S-Pakistan relation were to fall apart. It would also not fix the issue of being able to go after terrorists that are hiding in Pakistan with or without Pakistan government help. On the contrary it would make it extremely more difficult as they would no longer even try to get rid of the Taliban and terrorists flooding into Afghanistan. The U.S would no longer be able to continue their use of drone strikes to strike key targets in Pakistan, and thus the only other option to continue the war on terror would be to invade Pakistan. With would further drag down the U.S, draw more Muslims into fighting the U.S and risk a conflict with a nuclear armed country. Pakistan also provides a key position and ally in case of an attack by Iran on Israel in which the U.S would probably be dragged into. It is also in the U.S interest to keep sending aid to Pakistan because they still need to keep the current Pakistani government in place, and not let a more extreme anti U.S government rise to power.

It will be seen in the future if the U.S decision to support the overthrow of Mubarak will hurt or help U.S interest in the Middle East. As for now Pakistan provides the U.S with a sense of stability in the region and if the U.S were to lose Pakistan as an ally; would shake the U.S off its balance in the Middle East. So the U.S can think of Pakistan as its little brother; while he may annoy you to no end, at the end of the day you still need him and are better with him than without.

Bibliography

Hilali, A. Z. U.S- Pakistan Relationship. V.T: Ashgate Publishing Company. 2005. Print.

Lester W. Grau, Gress, Micheal A. The Soviet Afghan War. KS. The University Press of Kansas. 2002. Print

Ghosh, Palash R. “Why Would Pakistan Harbor Terrorists?” International Business Times. The International Business Times Inc, 21 May.2011 Web. 20 September 2011.

They Went To War Because... with Ethan, Rachael, Courtney, and Patrick

Simon Bolivar, The Liberator, sought to free the northern part of South America from Spain starting with his home country of Venezuela. Following the sentiments of the people, he went to war to be free of Spanish rule because he no longer felt that the continent owed allegiance to the Spanish empire after the start of its decline. His quest for independence began in the early 1800’s, where he and his troops defended the territories of Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador. Independence was finally achieved in 1822, and Bolivar soon decided to help eradicate Spanish presence from South America forever by ultimately conquering the Spaniards in Peru. Bolivar’s military actions were critical in gaining independence for these areas; he was overall one of the greatest leaders in the Latin American independence movement from Spain and was reveled as a grand politician and general.






Nathan Hale went to war because he wanted his country to be free. Joining the Continental Army was not enough. Serving as a Captain, leading troops in the Battle of Long Island was not enough. He believed in the United States so much that he volunteered to go on a daring espionage mission to report British troop movement back to his superiors. Unfortunately, after the mission he was captured, and then executed for his patriotism.

The US went to war in World War II for multiple reasons from different viewpoints. Some believe the US went to war in Europe to protect themselves; at the time small attacks and threats were coming to the US. Another reason for war could have been the fact that it was a moral fight; a battle to protect the rights of citizens and fight against discrimination, racism and human genocide. At the beginning of war, not many people supported the European cause. From looking at the viewpoint from Japan, the US was attacked so war was the only extreme option at the time to defend the nation.

Tadeusz Kościuszko went to war because after coming to America in August 1776, he read the Constitution and was so moved that he entered into American politics and eventually enlisted in the Continental Army as an engineer and eventually became the head engineer for the Continental Army.

 We also saw the White House.

And Patrick played with some ducks