University of the West Indies, Mona

Department of Government

GT12A Introduction to International Relations

Lecturer: Ms. Diana Thorburn

Lecture Two

Topics: Origins and development of the discipline of IR; IR for the Caribbean student

Objectives

By the end of this lecture, students should:

Know the origins and trajectory of the development of the discipline of International Relations
Understand how the development of the discipline parallels the theory and practice of IR
Have a clear understanding of the terms "polarity" and "balance of power"
Be able to situate the Caribbean in the IR discipline and in its practice, and understand what studying international relations as a Caribbean student entails

The discipline of International Relations

Why knowledge of the history of the discipline is particularly important for us as Caribbean students
The history of the discipline of IR is by and large a Western development
The principles of IR (sovereignty and nation-states) are derived from the Thirty Years War in Europe and the ensuing Treaty of Westphalia of 1648

The Thirty Years War in Europe and the Treaty of Westphalia 1648

o The concepts of sovereignty and the nation-state emerge out of this war, which is why it is so important.

o Prior to the war, the dominant political order in Europe was the Holy Roman Empire. The war was waged against the hegemonic rule of the Roman Catholic Church in Europe, and church’s widespread imposition of the Catholic religion. After the war, European leaders refused to recognize the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

o The Treaty of Westphalia 1648, that ended the war, was originally intended to grant all states the right to choose their own religion

o At the same time the Treaty and the system that followed recognized the equality of all the newly independent states, where each had control over their own territory, the freedom to conduct foreign relations and to negotiate treaties with other states, and the authority to establish whatever form of government they chose.

The study of IR as a separate discipline in US academia began after World War I as part of the American (and international) quest for world peace
There was a need for specialized training in what was then a new field of political and diplomatic practice
The main objective of the discipline was to study how to break the cycle of war between nations
The initiative was largely led by the US not only as an academic pursuit, but also because the US had emerged as the world’s most powerful nation after WWI
Thus the study of IR from the beginning paralleled the international reality
The first school of thought emerging in IR was that of "Idealism"

— how international cooperation could prevent war

— embodied by the establishment of the League of Nations in 1919

When World War II broke out Idealism seemed to have been a failure and a "Realist" approach to IR was adopted

Realism saw that peaceful cooperation was not a feasible objective because of the innate tendencies of nation-states to selfishly seek their own maximum power and advantage, and so sought more "practical" means to prevent war and protect international security, namely via military advantage

Both schools of thought—which will be explored in much greater detail when we look at theories later on in the course—had three main objectives vis-à-vis IR:

1. Prevention of war

2. Maintenance of peace

3. Pursuit and reinforcement of national security (meaning the safety of its territory, citizens and economic progress)

These objectives remain the primary objectives of the study of IR for most Western countries

How the development of the discipline parallels the theory and practice of IR

The study of IR came about as a direct response to the need for knowledge and policy and the new international system emerging after WWI—bear in mind that WWI was a particularly devastating war
Up until the post-WWII era when many colonial states became independent, IR—in study and practice—was limited to a few powerful nation-states, many with overseas empires
The world was multi-polar, with powerful nations continually shifting alliances thereby precluding the emergence of any one major power
Thus the study of international relations was concentrated on the security needs of these sovereign states and the balance of power between/among them

Polarity and the balance of power

o Often used terms/concepts in IR—often used loosely and thus can end with different interpretations

o Polarity comes from the word "pole"

o A pole in IR is a centre of power in the international system

o There are different configurations of poles and "polarity":

o Unipolarity—concentration of power in one nation-state—this situation amounts to the existence of a world hegemon—a world political leader

o Bipolarity—where power and control are concentrated in two nation-states (or groups of allied nation-states)—Cold War situation where international power was concentrated in the US and the USSR

o Multipolarity—where power is distributed among nation-states—essentially the situation between 1648-1939 (outbreak of WWII)

*Question: Are we today in a unipolar or multipolar world?

Balance of Power

o The equilibrium or balance (or lack thereof) between the poles of power in the international system

o Exists in an international system of sovereign states where there should be an equal distribution of power between them, but in reality there isn’t

o The balance of power is used to describe just how, in reality, the power is distributed between sovereign states

The discipline changed from one of a study of international cooperation to one of international military arms buildup, including the development and use of nuclear weapons, and the prevention of attack from nuclear weapons after WWII—again in tandem with the developments in the actual international arena with the failure of the League of Nations, the outbreak of WWII, and the use of the atomic bomb against Japan at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Situating the Caribbean in IR discipline and practice

Given the history of the discipline of IR we can see that its orientation has generally been focused on the concerns and realities of the US and Europe

Caribbean countries as sovereign entities did not exist when IR was originally conceived of; in many ways, "mainstream IR" is not applicable to the Caribbean’s situation in the international arena

The study of IR did not begin in the Caribbean until Caribbean countries became independent sovereign nation-states in the 1960s and 1970s
The Institute of International Relations at St. Augustine, for example, was established in the early 1960s in order to train Caribbean diplomats for jobs that didn’t exist prior to independence
Prior to 1962 (in the cases of those Caribbean countries that became independent then) Caribbean actors were not international actors in the traditional sense of the term—though Caribbean countries have always been profoundly affected by international relations
Caribbean independence was in large part due to international developments after World War II

Major Powers

A loosely-used term but is generally accepted to mean those nation-states whose influence tends to hold sway in the international system.
Who is a major power changes depending on the dynamics of the international system.
Since the First World War, as we shall see when we get to that topic, the US has been one of the world’s major powers.
The Soviet Union via Russia was a major power up until 1991. Whether it is a major power now or not is a hotly debated issue.
China is today seen as an emerging major power; for example the fact that the US’ is now engaging in arms talks with China lends credence to this prediction

Micro-states

The UN definition of a micro-state is that which has a population of less than a million people
By definition, then, most Caribbean countries are micro-states—though Jamaica and Trinidad have more than 1 million people, their international security challenges are very similar to those of micro-states

Micro-states face their own challenges of international security—while at the same time being completely vulnerable to international politics beyond their control—mainly those concerning the major powers.

Are the major powers’ concerns of peace and international security the same as ours? Are their concerns of concern to us? Should we study them?
Despite the very different realities of IR for the "major powers" and for "micro-states" Caribbean countries are directly and indirectly affected by the international relations of the major powers
Thus for the Caribbean to look about its international security it must consider and understand the IR of the major powers at the same time as it understands the IR of its own situation
For the major powers IR is primarily about military security, peace and, especially in the post-Cold War era, the expansion of international trade
For the Caribbean, international relations is primarily about three things:

Economic development
Regional integration (also as a means toward economic development)
Status in the international system—i.e. maintaining a viable and visible presence as international actors—also helped by regional integration via the objective of a coordinated foreign policy

Nevertheless, the Caribbean must not only understand where it fits into the international arena, but it must understand how the international arena operates, even if those operations do not directly involve the Caribbean as active participants, for two reasons
Reason one—pragmatic/policy minded—though Caribbean nation-states might not be the principal actors in much of what is considered world politics, they are directly and indirectly affected by the international relations of the "major powers"
E.g. 1: Middle East politics and the oil crisis of the 1970s
E.g. 2: US-EU relations and bananas
E.g. 3: China, Taiwan and international aid (also Libya)
Reason two—academic integrity—as is the case in many fields of study, particularly in the social sciences which is heavily if not entirely shaped by Western thought and philosophy, we are faced with the challenge and imperative of understanding the mainstream at the same time as we must investigate and understand our own particular situation, even if it lies outside of the mainstream or is insufficiently addressed by the mainstream

Additional Notes for Lecture Two

Jingoism (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

An attitude of belligerent nationalism, the English equivalent of the term chauvinism. The term apparently originated in England during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78 when the British Mediterranean squadron was sent to Gallipoli to restrain Russia and war fever was aroused. Supporters of the British government's policy toward Russia came to be called jingoes as a result of the phrase "by jingo," which appeared in the refrain of a popular song:

We don't want to fight, yet by jingo, if we do, We've got the ships, we've got the men, And got the money, too!

· Xenophobia (Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary)

Pronunciation: "ze-n&-'fO-bE-&, "zE-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin
Date: 1903
: fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign

Links to more on xenophobia:

Institute of Race Relations Homepage

http://www.irr.org.uk/dispersal/

UN Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination and Xenophobia http://www.unhchr.ch/html/racism/

· Nationalism (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

…an ideology based on the premise that the individual's loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests.

Nationalism is a modern movement. Throughout history people have been attached to their native soil, to the traditions of their parents, and to established territorial authorities; but it was not until the end of the 18th century that nationalism began to be a generally recognized sentiment molding public and private life and one of the great, if not the greatest, single determining factors of modern history.

Identification of state and people

Nationalism, translated into world politics, implies the identification of the state or nation with the people—or at least the desirability of determining the extent of the state according to ethnographic principles. In the age of nationalism, but only in the age of nationalism, the principle was generally recognized that each nationality should form a state—its state—and that the state should include all members of that nationality. Formerly states, or territories under one administration, were not delineated by nationality. Men did not give their loyalty to the nation-state but to other, different forms of political organization: the city-state, the feudal fief and its lord, the dynastic state, the religious group, or the sect. The nation-state was nonexistent during the greater part of history, and for a very long time it was not even regarded as an ideal. In the first 15 centuries of the Christian Era, the ideal was the universal world-state, not loyalty to any separate political entity. The Roman Empire had set the great example, which survived not only in the Holy Roman Empire of the Middle Ages but also in the concept of the res publica christiana ("Christian republic" or community) and in its later secularized form of a united world civilization.

As political allegiance, before the age of nationalism, was not determined by nationality, so civilization was not thought of as nationally determined. During the Middle Ages civilization was looked upon as determined religiously; for all the different nationalities of Christendom as well as for those of Islam there was but one civilization—Christian or Muslim—and but one language of culture—Latin (or Greek) or Arabic (or Persian). Later, in the periods of the Renaissance and of Classicism, it was the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations that became a universal norm, valid for all peoples and all times. Still later, French civilization was accepted throughout Europe as the valid civilization for educated people of all nationalities. It was only at the end of the 18th century that, for the first time, civilization was considered to be determined by nationality. It was then that the principle was put forward that a man could be educated only in his own mother tongue, not in languages of other civilizations and other times, whether they were classical languages or the literary creations of other peoples who had reached a high degree of civilization.

· Power (Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary)

… possession of control, authority, or influence over others b : one having such power; specifically : a sovereign state c : a controlling group

Six criteria for a country to have power in the international system: (From Friday’s lecture)

Secure geographical boundaries
Large territory and population, relatively free of civil conflict
Self-sufficiency in food, energy and basic services (or at least the ability to be self-sufficient)
Industrial advancement
Strong and modern military capabilities
Access to and level of technological advancement

Can we add a seventh: An educated population?

· Balance of Power (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

… in international relations, the posture and policy of a nation or group of nations protecting itself against another nation or group of nations by matching its power against the power of the other side. States can pursue a policy of balance of power in two ways: by increasing their own power, as when engaging in an armaments race or in the competitive acquisition of territory; or by adding to their own power that of other states, as when embarking upon a policy of alliances.

The term balance of power came into use to denote the power relationships in the European state system from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to World War I. Within the European balance of power, Great Britain played the role of the "balancer," or "holder of the balance." It was not permanently identified with the policies of any European nation, and it would throw its weight at one time on one side, at another time on another side, guided largely by one consideration—the maintenance of the balance itself. Naval supremacy and its virtual immunity from foreign invasion enabled Great Britain to perform this function, which made the European balance of power both flexible and stable.

The balance of power from the early 20th century onward underwent drastic changes that for all practical purposes destroyed the European power structure as it had existed since the end of the Middle Ages. Prior to the 20th century, the political world was composed of a number of separate and independent balance-of-power systems, such as the European, the American, the Chinese, and the Indian. But World War I and its attendant political alignments triggered a process that eventually culminated in the integration of most of the world's nations into a single balance-of-power system. This integration began with the World War I alliance of Britain, France, Russia, and the United States against Germany and Austria-Hungary. The integration continued in World War II, during which the fascist nations of Germany, Japan, and Italy were opposed by a global alliance of the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, and China. World War II ended with the major weights in the balance of power having shifted from the traditional players in western and central Europe to just two non-European ones: the United States and the Soviet Union. The result was a bipolar balance of power across the northern half of the globe that pitted the free-market democracies of the West against the communist one-party states of eastern Europe. More specifically, the nations of western Europe sided with the United States in the NATO military alliance, while the Soviet Union's satellite-allies in central and eastern Europe became unified under Soviet leadership in the Warsaw Pact.

Because the balance of power was now bipolar and because of the great disparity of power between the two superpowers and all other nations, the European countries lost that freedom of movement that previously had made for a flexible system. Instead of a series of shifting and basically unpredictable alliances with and against each other, the nations of Europe now clustered around the two superpowers and tended to transform themselves into two stable blocs.

There were other decisive differences between the postwar balance of power and its predecessor. The fear of mutual destruction in a global nuclear holocaust injected into the foreign policies of the United States and the Soviet Union a marked element of restraint. A direct military confrontation between the two superpowers and their allies on European soil was an almost-certain gateway to nuclear war and was therefore to be avoided at almost any cost. So instead, direct confrontation was largely replaced by (1) a massive arms race whose lethal products were never used and (2) political meddling or limited military interventions by the superpowers in various Third World nations.

In the late 20th century, some Third World nations resisted the advances of the superpowers and maintained a nonaligned stance in international politics. The breakaway of China from Soviet influence and its cultivation of a nonaligned but covertly anti-Soviet stance lent a further complexity to the bipolar balance of power. The most important shift in the balance of power began in 1989–90, however, when the Soviet Union lost control over its eastern European satellites and allowed noncommunist governments to come to power in those countries. The breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 made the concept of a European balance of power temporarily irrelevant, since the government of newly sovereign Russia initially embraced the political and economic forms favoured by the United States and western Europe. Both Russia and the United States retained their nuclear arsenals, however, so the balance of nuclear threat between them remained potentially in force.