This article attempts to examine two very contrasted schools of policy outlines the perimeter of international relations. It defines international relations as the relational ship between states, actors, multinational organizations, multinational corporations, environmental organizations. Yes even terrorist groups and international criminal organizations. International relations are not defined by a single player group or state rather how they interact with other bodies on the world stage.
Dr Condoleezza Rice one of the preeminent foreign policy minds of the Neo- Conservative movement is the purist extension of Reagan’s Cold War philosophy of deterrence through strength with the addition of some new and sinister, the theory of “Preemption. Preemption being the idea that under sovereignty of the US , it can and will engage any state or non state threat any where and at anytime with out international recourse and that the US alone holds this power as was tested in 2008 by Russia in Georgian incursion. She has established that the United States must take a lead role in the worlds affairs in order to maintain our preeminent position in the world. This is apparent in her career. Most notably in her role as US Secretary of State. if we in the United States are not going to change who we are — if we are to preserve the nature ofour open society — there is only so much of this “hardening” we can do. We must also address the source of the problem. Dr was quoted in a speech on August 7, 2003 as saying
“We have to go on the offense. Rooting the Taliban out of Afghanistan was the first battle because they had provided the home base and primary sanctuary for al Qaida. Everyday across the globe unparalleled law enforcement and intelligence cooperation efforts are underway, successfully breaking up and disrupting terrorist networks. Today, the United States and many other nations are helping Afghans rebuild their country, and form a representative government, with democratic institutions that protect the rights of their citizens and help them build a more hopeful future — and so that Afghanistan is never again a haven for terrorism.”
The hawkish and assertively pragmatic posture is quintessentially Reaganese in tone and posture and harkens to the Cold and many schools of thought are the only. I harkens to a realistic foreign policy philosophy . The first is analytic units which is the political entity that is being analyzed in the studied or it is the ‘what’ or ‘whom’ that is being studied. Next is the view of the actors which is participates or entities in the sphere of international relation. Third is the behavioral dynamic which is a description of how a system or an individual unit functions with respect to time. The assessment can be made with contemporary history that Dr. Condoleezza Rice has been the most influence figure from a philosophical position since Dr. Harry Kissinger
Carl von Clausewitz theory of War vs Contemporary Policy
Carl von Clausewitz theory is obsolete despite the development of multiple international powers, regional powers and non state actors due to the progressive evolution contemporary humanitarian law. Article 2, Section 1 of the UN Charter states that “The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.” Section 3 states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations.”( Un.org). Clausewitz’s establishes three major principles in the first three chapters and throughout his writings. The first being that war should never be seen in what he calls a “Purpose to itself”, rather a way of “physically forcing an entities opposition. To quote Clausewitz directly in chapter one he defines war and says “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, political commerce” (Clausewitz ,1982). Clausewitz next principle is war falls into two categories; wars that disarm and wars that achieve limited aims. Clausewitz‘s third principle is that war tends to favor the party employing more force and resources.
Clausewitz is quoted in chapter 11 “ War is Politics by other Mean “ as saying “ The political object, as the original motive of the War, will be the standard for determining both the aim of the military force and also the amount of effort to be made. This it cannot be in itself, but it is so in relation to both the belligerent States, because we are concerned with realities, not with mere abstractions.” The continence of war can exist in accordance to humanitarian law a state simply must understand that human rights articulate aims rather than mechanisms. They describe what should be achieved, not how it should be achieved. This makes them flexibility and adaption to diversity of existing and emerging forms of governance.
Dr. Susan though less notable but equally relevant positions its self from a globalist posture being that . With the her falter on issues such as Rwanda and Tora Bora one can only question her strategic judgment and vision in retrospect. To her credit her experience of lack there of may be her saving grace. The question one has to pose is “ How does a dove pin wolves. This is the dilemma that Dr. Susan will hav to face every day in a post 9/11 world. To understand the foundation of her foreign policy one would have to examine the core principle of her policy. Simply put she is globalist. By that I mean Globalism is the there are three assumption laid out modern political scientist which are , starting point of international relations is global context, second is all international relations is viewed from historical context, and last coalitions focus on the mechanism of domination When examining globalism one cannot help but draw the conclusion that organizations such as the United Nations, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the infamous International Atomic Energy Agency. Under the first assumption the “big picture” ideology is paramount and primary to the approach to actual governance. The idea that the parts are less important to the whole is the mission and goal of the globalist ideology. This assumption makes no room for nationalism or protectionism.
The United Nations is the premier globalist institution design explicitly for the purpose of governing international politics and regulations. The current trends of political, social, and economic globalization provide both challenges and opportunities for the international community. Some nations experience the forces of fragmentation while others experience integration. With these recent changes has come an increase in the number of conflicts, exacerbated by instability, social and economic injustice, and political competition. In this environment, the United Nations has an uncontested role as the leading organization for the maintenance of peace and security, development of political stability, social and economic progress, and well-being. The issues of peace, governance, democracy, and development are closely interrelated and must be simultaneously addressed. This situation not only demands greater efforts by the Organization to find political and financial solutions, but also requires the United Nations to identify and explore appropriate and adequate human resources, particularly in this field.
The second assumption of globalism is that each view point of international relations be taken from a historical perspective. One can easily argues that the study of the rise of the world capitalist system has to be primary while this is important one can counter with that the study of the historical significance of Colonialism, Cold War and Industrial Revolution had an equal if not more importance as did the rise of the rise of capitalistic system to the social evolution of the global community. Establishing the assumption of “historical perspective” in the context of globalism is complex. The safe assumption is to engineer a better society based on the collective history of interaction and to use significant global events as a marker for policy e.g. WWI, WWII, September 11th etc.
The third and final assumption is the state- as-actors, but he focuses on is the mechanism of domination. One has to focuses on the exploitation of poor people to fuel the capitalistic machine. Many developing countries are the main source of human capital for multinational corporations. The destinations of choice are Latin America, Africa, and Asia. These regions become vital to the world supply chain because of lack government regulation and extremely cheap skilled labor and endless supply of impoverished workers both domestic and migrant workers. Weather they are Pakistani workers migrating to Dubai for construction projects or Malaysians domestic workers headed to Indonesia they drive for cheap labor is the same .
US/EU defense policy is defined by our nationalistic assertive pragmatism. The ideology derived from the what many call the “ Manifest Destiny” a term that is coined by the American Jacksonian Democrats in the mid 19th Century to justify the aggressive polices. As stated in Unit 1 of this coarse American Foreign Policy establishes that the themes of American defense policy where a consistent through the mid –nineteenth century This assertively pragmatic approach is made clear on pg. 99 of American Foreign Policy when Lentlesion is quoted as saying ” for the most part the United States has played the role of regional hegemon. This role goes back the Monroe Doctrine’s warning to European powers no to seek to recolonize or any other way extend their system to any position in this hemisphere.” The by Neo conservatives who subscribe to the Barry Goldwater conservative foreign policy of the Richard Nixon and Regan Administration and has been the focal point of “Shining City on the Hill “ speech that has been the rallying cry of Modern conservatives.
Current Mission Defined
The current mission is defined by multipolar powers tugging at the heart strings of the developing world, policymakers want the U.S. military to contain China while courting India ; transform failed states such as Lybia and the Sudan into stable Jeffersonian democracies; engage terrorists where ever they might take root as well outsourcing the foreign militaries to chase terrorists; protect sea lanes; keep oil cheap; democratize the Middle East; protect European, Asian, and Middle Eastern states from aggression; spread good will through humanitarian missions; respond to natural disasters at home and abroad; secure cyberspace, and much more. For the supporters of such missions, the military forces and budget needed to pursue these goals can never be enough. So we must redefine and reengaging our countries most urgent priorities. Arguments about defense spending are arguments about defense strategy. What you spend depends on what you want to do militarily, which depends in turn on theories about what creates security.
One easily that due to U.S and European dominance in conventional warfare has given non state adversaries (terrorist) and there state sponsors (rogue nations) the necessity to adopt asymmetric techniques to counter or neutralize our advantages. For this the DOD has decided to implement irregular warfare techniques that augment conventional combat methods. U.S/EU threats also seek to equal the level warfare capability by developing or obtaining chemical, biological, and especially nuclear weapons as well as cyber techniques that can disrupt US/EU warfare dominance. The 2008 NSS outlines the development and proliferation of anti-access technology and weaponry is worrisome as it can restrict our future freedom of action. These challenges could come not only in the obvious forms we see today but also in less traditional forms of influence such as manipulating global opinion using mass communications venues and exploiting international commitments and legal avenues