BASICS OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS III

Edward H. Carr was a British historian and political scientist renowned for his book “The Twenty Years Crisis”, in which he criticized the “utopian approach” and studied the origins of World War II outbreak.

Carr takes a psychological stance in his book; directing his attention towards the arrogance
of men, he believed that the passions of war results in an easy attribution of the causes of war to the ambition and the aforementioned arrogance of men. It is the overwhelming and the overarching power of the privileged few which dictates that morality is a product of power.

E.H. Carr (Source: https://api.curtisbrown.co.uk/media/57321/show/328x328)

“Ethics must be interpreted in terms of politics, and search for an ethical norm outside of politics is doomed to failure.”

Carr believed that the state is the main actor in international relations, and does not attach special attention or importance to other actors. Exceptions could be made of intergovernmental organizations.

It is important to understand this statement taking into the context the United Nations. It has often been criticized for being too benign a presence; incapable of making decisions without the influence and the hearsay of certain countries. Dag Hammarskjold, the second UN secretary general, framed it best: “The United Nations was created not to lead mankind to heaven but to save humanity from hell.”

70 years later, a pervading question continues to loom about the perceived influence and the importance of the United Nations as a global peacekeeping organization. Criticism has been aimed at its bureaucratic framework and the presence of “red tape”. 

UN Photo/Rick Bajornas A view of the Secretariat Building, with Members States’ flags flying in the foreground, at United Nations headquarters in New York.

There remains a need to understand why it is important. Amongst all the negativity and bitterness, the United Nations remains a vital intermediary, a necessary presence to take action and deal with the repercussions. In an article titled “Think Again: The United Nations” in the Foreign Policy website, Madeline Albright writes, “U.N. peacekeeping has maintained order in such diverse places as Namibia, El Salvador, Cambodia, eastern Slavonia, Mozambique, and Cyprus. The traditional U.N. mission is a confidence-building exercise, conducted in strict neutrality between parties that seek international help in preserving or implementing peace. U.N. peacemaking, however, is quite another matter. During my years as the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations, the tragic experiences in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Somalia, and Rwanda showed that traditional U.N. peacekeepers lack the mandate, command structure, unity of purpose, and military might to succeed in the more urgent and nasty cases — where the fighting is hot, the innocent are dying, and the combatants oppose an international presence. Such weaknesses, sadly, are inherent in the voluntary and collective nature of the United Nations. When the going gets tough, the tough tend to go wherever they want, notwithstanding the wishes of U.N. commanders.

By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33721573

However, to understand all this, one has to harken back to the timeline post the Second World War. Hans J. Morgenthau, the renowned German international relations expert, created the six principles of political realism in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. These included the possibility of developing rational theories to reflect objective laws in politics, the concept of national interest, power being the control of man over man, the moral significance of political action, the concept of interest defined in terms of power and the autonomy of the political sphere.

There are also defined, the three “S” of political realism.

Statism- by its very nature international relations is a state centred social structure which means that a state dominates in international politics.

Survival- the most important task for every state is to ensure that it survives in an aggressive anarchical international environment.

Self-help-  Nobody can help, nor save a state from external threats. Every single alliance is temporary and is dependent on the balance of power.

Anarchy can be defined as the absence of a centralised authority to protect states from one another, resulting in each state surviving on its own. For any state, it is assumed that national security tops the list of international issues, and this very issue dominates discussions and international politics.

Political realism dug its roots on some key assumptions. These included:

The entire international stage is anarchic by nature. No higher controlling authority dictates matters and states must form relations with other states on their own.

Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international stage. Other institutions and non-governmental organizations and corporations are seen as having little to no influence on matters.

States are working and moving towards their own national interests, and there is general distrust of long-term cooperation and alliance.

Such points are visible even today, and Morgenthau aptly describes a political climate which is unravelling in front of our eyes. Mutual interests are few and far between, and there is a predatory view and instinct for protection and action.

                        

                     Based on the course “Understanding  International Relations Theory” in Coursera, by the National Research University: Higher School of Economics