So I decided to go back to taking online courses, which I should have done way way earlier to prepare myself for masters. And in 2016 I just jumped into a program with a blank slate except for tidbits of knowledge gained from reading newspapers. The struggle was real, and even up to now, I still struggle with many concepts and theories. The -isms drive me crazy. So in the third week of COVID-19 lockdown (or ECQ/ Enhanced Community Quarantine if you may), I decided to enrich my knowledge of IR concepts, which I hope, will be useful in the future. I'm putting my notes here for posterity's sake since keeping written stuff requires paper. I'm going paperless. Everybody is welcome.
WEEK 1
IR- question of peace and war, conflict and cooperation
- more inclusive in terms of actors and relations (inter-state, inter-society, state-society relations, inter-region, international organization, economic relations)
Thucydides- "History is Philosophy teaching by examples."
- essential task is to understand origins of war
Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC)- after Greeks won over Persian expansion
- between Athens (naval) and Sparta (land-based)
Thucydides's Trap- the fear associated with the shift in the balance of power contributes to the beginning of war. Fear makes states suspect others of betrayal and power for self-defense. International politics is driven not by individuals but by laws of history.
Melian Dialogue- Athens persuading Melos to pay tribute but the latter declined and the Melians were slaughtered. Melos wanted to preserve neutrality.s
Athens: "Right as the world goes is only in question between equals in power, while teh strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
- morals and rights only exist between equals and power.
"The standard of justice depends on the equality of power."
Decline of Classical Tradition
- rise of Roman Empire (Pax Romana) left no place for the balance of power concept (no other state to challenge Rome)
- Romans consider those in their periphery as uncivilized and barbarians, who put a threat to their advanced domestic order
(Note: Explains why China never developed IR theory because they never treated others as equals.)
Christian universalism (16th-17th centuries)- permanent transformation from one condition to another with the final destination as end of hitory/ "Kingdom of Heavens"
Renaissance and Return of Classical Tradition
-Italian Wars (1494-1559), the first centralized states, first post-feudal balance of power in Europe
- two powers want the same thing is the beginning of conflict
Decline of the authority of the Roman Pope- Lords of many states' disrespect for Rome and emerging equality of relationships becomes one of the most inspiring reasons for Renaissance political thought.
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)- "The Prince" written for Lorenzo de Medici
"War should be the only study of a prince."
- war is a normal condition as states are always competing. The main responsibility of the rulers is always to defend the interests of the state and ensure its survival. His only responsibility is to protect his power and the people in his country.
"The promise given was a necessity of the past; the word broken is a necessity of the present."
- states can give promises to others but may not bear moral responsibility with regards to others. If necessary, a ruler must be ruthless and deceptive while defending self-interest.
"Politics have no relation to morals."
- A responsible ruler should not follow Christian ethics, is states follow these values, they will disappear in the end.
- Similar to what Thucydides said that only strength matters. Politics is so serious that a prince should not approach politics with a normal human attitude to questions like morals, justice, humanism.
Machiavelli draws a clear line between internal and international. What is permissible internationally does not exist inside the society, and what is normal inside of the society like morals or justice does not exist in International Relations
Side note: I was once surprised to find my ex with a copy of "The Prince" and back then I remember feeling he might be corrupted by Machiavellian thought because you know, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I was right. Looking back, he really acted like a Machiavellian prince except his domain is his family and not a state. He never sincerely cared for others and everything he did is for his family and to increase his stature in his clan's eyes too redeem himself for his past misdeeds. This is why he can easily manipulate people without feeling guilty. He was obsessed about power and glory and never cared about values like integrity, respect, and justice. Looking back, his dividing line serving as basis for how he treats a person is if that person is within his ethnic circle or not.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
- human beings lived in a condition of "war everyone against everyone" (state-less state of nature) thus a state is needed toe scape from this situation. Leviathan (sovereign state/ supreme ruler) will maintain order and end anarchy, thus making possible economic development, art, and knowledge.
- social contract between individuals and government and the important unit is not the individual, but the state.
Clash of Leviathans: The Thirty Years War
- States are in continuous competition and rivalry because of their independence and jealousies. Survival is the main purpose.
Achievement of personal security and domestic security through the creation of a state leads to international insecurity that is rooted in the anarchy of state system.
Leviathans are doomed to fight a war everyone against everyone because of feelings of insecurity and eagerness for power, wealth, and glory.
It is impossible to establish a Leviathan over Leviathan as states will never give up their sovereignty. Anarchy is a norm and the eternal state of the international system. Individuals can only give up freedoms to the national government for safety and security, and not to world government.
Hobbes was inspired by Thirty Years War (1618-1648; war against the the Hapsburg hegemony)
Peace of Westphalia (1648)- realist triumph
- several negotiations among bureacrats (lawyers) instead of heads of states.
3 principles of Westphalian sovereignty
(In IR, by order, refers to Westphalian order)
1. "Whose realm, his religion"- a sovereign defined religion in a certain area
2. "Every king is the emperor in his kingdom"- all states are independent and equal to each other
3. No one can be stronger than others- balance of power as the key principle of international politics.
And if we look at the international relations nowadays after the end of the Cold War, we will find that when one nation tried to become stronger and become dominant over the others, the others resisted. And the reason for the anarchy in international relations, the reason of the decrease of the order in international relations is exactly because of the conflict around the terms of one power to become the strongest and dominant and resistance of the others.
Henry Kissinger on the Westphalian order- Not about substance but about procedures, about how states should treat each other, about rules, order, law.
