BASICS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - I

 

“In a scientific sense theory means a set of propositions allowing us to generalize- thoughts providing explanation (establishing a casual relationship between the variables) serving as a source of explanatory concepts or a source of ways of evaluating the point or use of meaning of such concepts.” - 

Austin Harrington, Modern Social Theory: An Introduction

Defining international relation sciences is a vital approach to understanding the burgeoning need to understand the gauge the importance of studying international relations. Broad definition indicates that international relation sciences focusses on a certain field of social relationship- the relationship between nations and states. It is, by no means, mellifluous. Social relationships are dictated by the ebb and flow of time, reason and emotions. In some ways, understanding all these social contracts might seem drab, and a dull affair. However, a hugely attractive prospect of studying international relations, is, by extension, the fact that it manages to encompass philosophy, history, economics and geography, while also enabling us to understand the Machiavellian instinct that seems to be prevalent inside of all of us. Nations and states are run by humans, humans with agendas and motivations. Understanding this is of importance, not just for us, but for the future generations as well. Looking back, they will see what we did right, and what we did wrong.

There are two traditions of IR theory, broadly speaking;

·        the ancient or the classical tradition

·         the Christian tradition.

The ancient tradition functions on the assumption that human nature dictates international politics, and adopts a more pessimistic view on the very nature of international politics. The tradition espouses that there is no way to advance international politics, and there is no way to bring about “eternal peace”. This very concept lends itself to the idea of Realism, which is the amalgamation of various beliefs which ultimately point to the eternal and unchangeable nature of international politics.

The Christian tradition, on the other hand, is more focused towards the “Kingdom of Heavens”- that “eternal peace” is inevitable and that all the development taking place is leading towards a certain “end of history”. Liberalism and Marxism fall under the umbrella of this tradition, a certain viewpoint that there will come an “end of history”.

The term “end of history” may remind you, the reader, of Francis Fukuyama’s influential essay which three years later was published in book form, “The End of History and the Last Man”. Fukuyama stated in the book that with the arrival of liberal democracy, the end of history had been reached. Stressing that he was talking about the idea of liberal democracy rather than the way it was being implemented, Fukuyama opined that liberal democracy constituted the “end point of mankind’s ideological evolution” and the “final form of human government”.

Taking examples from across the world, and citing philosophers and the political thinkers including the likes of G.W.F. Hegel and Karl Marx, the author said that there came a point when all the underlying principles and ideologies were agreed upon, and no further development was left to be made.

Fukuyama agreed that while there have been cycles as far as fortunes regarding democracy is concerned, and that the growth of democracy had not followed the path of continuous progress. Latin America, for instance, had fewer democracies in 1975 than it did in 1955, and that the whole world was less democratic in 1940 than it was in 1919.

However, it was observed that all these setbacks, caused by various human factors, which had seemed to reverse the whole progress that democracy had made, had tended to reverse themselves.

Fukuyama also cited Nicolas de Condorcet’s Progress of the Human Mind, which contained a ten-stage universal history of man- the last stage of which- would be one of equality, opportunity, liberty et al. Condorcet also left room for an eleventh stage, admitting that there was end to human perfectibility.

Having taken this little detour, we come back to the topic in hand.

“History is philosophy teaching by examples.” – Thucydides

Thucydides was a Greek historian who witnessed the Peloponnesian War which took place from 431 BC to 404 BC. The war was fought between Athens and Sparta, with assertion of power and strength one of the major reasons behind the fighting, according to Thucydides.

Thucydides’ trap was first noted here by the historian. It is the trap of fear and compensation. Whenever there is fear that there has been a shift in the balance of power, there comes a need and an urge to compensate for it, to counter against the rising power of the opposition. Wars, according to Thucydides, began because of this need to counter, the necessary to show power and strength.

Sparta, afraid of losing its role in the Hellenic world, took counter measures to build its military strength. Fear drives the need to react, and in certain cases, the need to act. Wars are thus mere traps, a seemingly endless circle of fear and the subsequent actions and reactions.

In the “End of History and the Last Man”, Fukuyama mentions Immanuel Kant and his 1784 essay, “An Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View”. It highlighted the mechanism required to help mankind reach the highest level of rationality. It was, surprisingly, not reason; rather, it was ‘asocial sociability’, which makes men leave war and join together and encourage the arts and the sciences.

The erstwhile mentioning of war and the Thucydides trap and Kant’s views in his essay are, in essence, contradictory, and yet to an extent, the same.

Classical tradition declined with the emergence of the Roman Empire, which brought with it the idea of PAX ROMANA- universal state civilization. The collapse of the Roman Empire resulted in the new idea of Christian universalism- a belief that the international system was dynamic in nature, rather than static (which is what Thucydides believed), and that the final destination of mankind was the end of history, i.e., the Kingdom of Heavens.