Tag: International relations

Realism

Realism has been the most important approach of international relations over the years. It has been the dominant way of explaining international behaviour. Realism emphasizes relations among nations, as they have been and as they are. It is not concerned with the ideal world. It is the international interpretation of human behaviour. Individuals are essentially selfish, and they seek power to serve their interests and to prevail over others. As Morgenthau wrote in the 20th century, power is the control of men over the minds and actions of other men. And, there is constant strife leading to conflicts and clashes between individuals having divergent interests and seeking to acquire power. Thus, there is an ever-present struggle for power in the society. The same is the tone of nations that are guided by the same considerations as individuals.

Political Realism

Realism, or political realism, as an approach of international relations has evolved over the centuries. Prominent among its earlier advocates were Indian scholar Kautilya, Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, and Greek scholar Thucydides. Much later, Italian scholar Nicolo Machiavelli and English philosopher Thomas Hobbes also contributed to the evolution of realism. Their ideas may be called classical realism, though Morgenthau is now considered the principal classical realist. However, according to the view expressed by Robert Jackson and George Sorensen (1999) and many others, Morgenthau’s theory may be described as neo-classical realism. But, Morgenthau was the most systematic advocate of realism. However, British Professor E.H. Carr, who wrote The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1919-39) had prepared the ground on which Morgenthau developed his theory of realism.

Carr criticized democracies like the UK and France for their failure in defeating the designs of dictators. He blamed the democratic countries for failing to recognize the power realities in the world. Carr divided the scholars of international relations into two groups. These were ‘utopians’, or ‘idealists’, and the ‘realists’. He described the utopians as optimists- children of enlightenment and liberalism. The liberals held the view that reason and morality could structure international behaviour of the states towards peace. Wilson and (his) League of Nations were cited as main examples of utopians. Carr, who himself was a a realist, described realists as pessimists, or children of darkness, who emphasize power and national interest. Commenting on Carr’s views on power, Michael G Roskin and Nicholas O Berry wrote, ‘This does not necessarily mean perpetual war, for if statesmen are clever and willing to build and apply power, both economic and military, they can make the aggressors back down…’

Political realism is a significant theory in the field of international relations that seeks to explain state behavior under a set of specific and rigid assumptions. At its core, political realism is guided by three S’s: statism, survival, and self-help.

Statism asserts that states are the only entity on the international stage that matter and that they are unitary (acting alone) and rational (acting in its best interests) actors. Survival identifies the state’s primary goal is to survive in an international system characterized by anarchy. The final S, self-help, conveys the assumption that states cannot trust others in their pursuit of survival and must secure their security.

Political realism is further delineated into sub-theoretical frameworks, including:

  • Classical realism
  • Liberal realism
  • Neorealism
  • Neoclassical realism

While each sub-framework has its own nuance within the broader political realist theory, all forms of political realism fundamentally believe world politics is a field of conflict among states pursuing power.

Structural Realism

Structural realism, also referred to as neorealism in the academic community, is a major branch of political realism derived from classical realism. While the latter incorporates analysis of human behavior within state decision-making, structural realism focuses predominantly on the anarchic structure of the international system. In other words, structural realists see global conflict as inevitable because there is no supranational body that could prevent or mediate conflict between individual states. Therefore, structural realists assume that states must always be preparing for conflict because war could break out at any time.

Structural realists believe that understanding the international system is guided by the three S’s of political realism. However, they do incorporate analysis of inter-relationships between distinct state entities, particularly regarding power relationships. A key concept in structural realism is polarity, the balance of power within the international system. Today, international theorists often describe the world as unipolar, with the United States acting as the sole superpower endowed with the ability to dominate international relations via their economic, political, and military supremacy.

REFERENCES : International Relations By V.N. Khanna

Evolution Of The Cold War

Cold War After The Truman-Stalin Era

In early 1953, there was a change in the leadership of both the superpowers- the US and USSR. In the US, President Truman’s tenure ended in January 1953. He was succeeded by Dwight Eisenhower. an ex-army general who had commanded the Allied forces in Europe during the Second World War. Meanwhile. Soviet leader Stalin died in March 1953. He was succeeded as party chief by Nikita Khrushchev and by Georgy Malenkov as prime minister. The two Soviet leaders were not very comfortable with each other. Malenkov was replaced by Nikolai Bulganin in 1955. He was more acceptable to the party chief.

But in 1958 even Bulganin was dropped and Khrushchev assumed the prime ministership as well. President Eisenhower led US for eight years till he was succeeded by John F Kennedy in January 1961. Khrushchev remained at the helm of affairs till he was overthrown in 1964 by the troika of Leonid Brezhnev, Nikolai Podgorny and Alexei Kosygin. After the Truman-Stalin era, the US-Soviet relations eased considerably, but the Cold war showed no signs of ending. During 1953-64 several steps were taken by both the sides to improve relations, but at the same time tension got accelerated on different occasions.

CRISIS IN POLAND

Poland was the first to ignite. In June 1956, riots in the industrial city of Poznam were brutally suppressed, leaving dozens of people dead and hundreds wounded. A conflict occurred in the Polish Communist Party between two factions – one owing allegiance to Boleslaw Bierut, who had died earlier the same year, and the other led by Gomulka, who was a Nationalist Titoist communist, and had remained in jail since 1949, and was recently released. Gomulka faction succeeded.

In October, Polish Communist Party issued a proclamation that Poland would henceforth pursue a ‘national road to socialism’, and Gomulka was elected Secretary of the Polish Communist Party. The Soviet leaders decided not to use force against Gomulka. This was second set-back to USSR after Yugoslav decision in 1948 to follow Nationalist Communism.

REVOLT IN HUNGARY

Since the end of Second World War, Hungary was governed by an orthodox Communist leader, Matyas Rakosi, a nominee of Stalin. (He had been freed from jail before the War on Stalin’s initiative after the Soviet Union returned old Hungarian flags captured by the Czar in 1849.) The Rakosi regime was severe ‘even by Stalinist standards.’ In 1953, he was summoned to Moscow, reprimanded and replaced by a reformist communist Imre Nagy.

A more intangible effect of 1956 arises with the spread of its talented diaspora. Many thousands of gifted Hungarians left their country and settled as far afield as Australia, the United States, and across Western Europe. The contributions they made to their adopted countries were incalculably beneficial. Nowhere have I heard the kind of objections to Hungarian refugees that one regularly encounters in relation to other refugee and asylum-seeking groups. To some degree this is because everyone knew what the Hungarians had fled from; they received instinctive sympathy. But it also reflects the performance of the Hungarians in their adopted countries. They assimilated well and quickly, and were soon more than repaying their hosts.

Even though assimilated, however, they were eloquent voices critical of communism and the Soviet empire. The eminence many soon achieved in their fields of scholarship and enterprise added weight to their criticisms. And in the United States especially, they formed the influential “captive nations” lobby with other émigré groups, to press for a realistic foreign policy and, in time, to provide Reagan with intellectual heft.

REFERENCES : International Relations By V.N. Khanna

International Relations

Introduction

The term ‘international relations’ was first used by Jeremy Bentham in the 18th century, although its Latin equivalent, ‘intergentes‘, was used a century earlier by Rijehare Zouche. Both of them had used the term in the context of what later came to be known as international law. Today, nation states have become highly interdependent, and relations between them, political or economic, have developed into an essential area of knowledge.

The term ‘international relations’ (IR) may be used both for a ‘condition’ and a ‘discipline’ Quincy Wright, for example, makes such a distinction. The official relations between sovereign countries are described as international relations, though according to Wright, ‘… the word “interstate” would have been more accurate because in political science, the state came to be the term applied to such societies’. Viewed thus, international relations, as a condition, refers to the facts of international life, that is to say, the actual conduct of relations among nations through diplomacy based on foreign policy. It also includes actual areas of cooperation, conflict and war. According to Quincy Wright, IR should tell the ‘truth about the subject’, i.e., how such relations are conducted and, as a discipline, IR should treat them in a systematic and scientific manner.

Meaning Of International Relations

International relations as a subject is concerned with the relationships among the governments of various sovereign states. Many people may think that relations among nations are regulated and conducted by presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, officials of the foreign offices and diplomats. This is partially true. The scope of international relations is not merely political. Today, economic activities such as international trade, role of multinational corporations, terrorist activities and impact of environment are all embraced in the fold of relations among nations.

Most scholars agree that the term ‘international politics’ is used to describe official political relations between governments acting on behalf of their states. The term ‘international relations’ is broader. According to Stanley Hoffman, ‘The discipline of international relations is concerned with the factors and activities which affect the external policies and power of the basic units into which the world is divided.’

International Relations As A Field Of Study

As a field of study, international relations analyses a wide range of political activities. These include war, peace, diplomacy, trade relations, treaties, alliances, cultural, exchanges, participation in international organizations, etc. Each of these activities makes up distinct issue areas on which scholars and foreign policy makers focus attention.

The scope of international relations is often defined by subtitles, like ‘questions of war and peace’ as a subtitle of international security. Joshua S Goldstein wrote, ‘the movements of armies and of diplomats, the crafting of treaties and alliances, the development and deployment of military capabilities – these are the subjects that dominated the study of IR in the past… and they continue to hold central position in the field.’

Besides these, religious groups and movements working in two or more countries also act as non-state actors in the international relations. These may include large followers as the Catholic Church has, or a spread out population as sought to be represented by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

References

International Relations By V N KHANNA and LESLIE K KUMAR

Afghanistan-India-Taliban

India-Afghanistan relation:

The relation between India and Afghanistan dates back to the post independence period. Both Government of India and Royal government of Afghanistan have happily signed the Treaty of Friendship in 1950.

India-Taliban relation:

In 1996, the capture of Kabul by Taliban have posed serious threat to the Indian interests and influence in Afghanistan. Hijacking of IC flight 814 and followed landings in Kandahar, Afghanistan added fuel to the existing disturbances between India and Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The U.S have shown it’s heroic characteristics in it’s invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 when it ousted Taliban from Afghanistan. The situation is saved for India. This gave vaccum for the India to regain its influence in Afghanistan and made investments worth over $3 billon. From then onwards economic and defense ties have cemented between India and Afghanistan.

Current situation in Afghanistan:

The withdrawal of U.S troops from Afghanistan base gave an opportunity for Taliban to bag more territories under its control. Over third of Afghanistan which tantamount to more than 400 districts have came under Taliban control.

Is this gonna be headache to India?

Yes of course it is. As India made huge investments in Afghanistan, there is a need for India to be concerned about the political situation in Afghanistan.

About the talk-to-the-Taliban option:

Considering the investments made in Afghan, it is necessary for India to count all it’s stakeholders. As Taliban powers have accentuated with the withdrawal of U.S troops, India should think about the talks with Taliban in order to safeguard it’s interests.

India should develop stronger ties with Taliban as anything less than that would give more space to occupy for Pakistan which pose threat to India’s internal security.

Taliban was also in desperate need of recognition in international community. So the chances for Taliban welcoming India’s partnership are more likely.

As Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan are competing to portray themselves as shapers of Afghanistan’s political and geopolitical destiny, India cannot be the odd one out in this regard.

The proactive approach would aid India open up the congested north-western frontier,proceed for back channel talks with Pakistan, to give way for India’s continental strategy.

Recommendations:

India talks with Taliban shouldn’t dilute the existing cordial relationship between India and Afghanistan.

India should shed it’s inhibitions and replace the hesitant and indulge in open talks with Taliban instead of doing backchannel talks.

Taliban even in a desperate need for recognition in international community so it is obvious that Taliban would be intrigued to have more global partners.

India should adopt a layered approach in dealing with the issues in Afghanistan. Safeguarding India’s interests should be short term goal while finding a solution for political situation in Afghanistan being the long term goal.

India should be the part of unfolding great game in and around Afghanistan.

Conclusion:

Non-engagement with Taliban would do more harm than good. The talk-to-the-Taliban is indeed the best of the many less than perfect options available to India. Any step taken in the direction of developing talks with Taliban is welcoming in both strategic and economic sense.