International relations journal overview

International Relations

I believe that arms treaties lessen international tension, to the extent that their constituent nations follow them. In this past year, Russia has voted to exit arms treaties, the result of which has been increased tension in Europe (Euronews, 2009). At present, many nations are seeking treaties with respect to the curtailment of nuclear weapons development in nations such as Iran. Such a treaty would likely reduce tensions in the Middle East, if Iran were to hold to its terms.

It is important that nations hold fast to the terms of such treaties. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, for example, was signed in 1968, but neither the U.S. Nor the U.S.S.R. ceased production of nuclear weapons. As a result, tensions over nuclear war increased until the late 1980s when the U.S.S.R. began to adopt more open policies.

While the NPT was certainly a good idea, in the context of the Cold War it was not likely tenable. Governments have a vested political interest, in most countries, in maintaining high levels of military spending. Pearl and Smith (2008) demonstrate that military spending is "an unambiguous way to improve the esteem of one's country in the international community." Thus, high levels of military spending are popular with many nations. While arms treaties are valuable for ensuring a nation's security, political support often hinges on high levels of defense spending and in the case of some countries like the U.S. And Russia, occasional truculence on the global scene.

This can threaten the effectiveness of treaties, but when the countries involved actually adhere to the terms of arms treaties, those treaties are effective in reducing international tension. It is only when the treaties are broken that they fail in this regard.

2. Barber (2002) argues that Islamic response to science and modernism is unlikely to be favorable. Enlightenment, he posits, is "inherently universalizing." Corporations, brands and cultures begin to merge and the sense of national identity is lost. The world will be brought closer together, but it must inherently do so under common values, common languages and common goals. This was once the foundation of the nation-state, the unification of like-minded and closely-related peoples.

Today we see that enlightment has spread to the point where national identity has begun to erode. The notion that this is "objective and impartial," however, would be patently rejected to any Muslim. The terms of the enlightenment are dictated by its participants. Thus, the Islamic world, however, has responded to an enlightment with a decidedly Sino-American slant with its own version of this enlightenment. Islam has, in most of its nations, embraced a move towards a global economy but has done so on its own terms. Muslims have proven willing to adopt certain marques and customs from around the world, but have made every effort to promote a competing version of this enlightenment.

Hence we see the rise of Gulf-based airlines, Islamic banking, and increased economic unity among Muslim nations. These nations are willing to participate in the global economy, but when it comes to participating in the enlightenment, they have determined to become a force unto themselves rather than lose their religion-defined sense of identity.

It is no surprise that jihadists have an underswelling of support in the Muslim world. Their means may not be appreciated but they provide the military voice to a vast, disparate people who wish to simultaneously join the enlightenment but also preserve their own values and heritage.

3. Realism and idealism are opposing approaches to the definition and pursuit of national objectives abroad (Graebner, 2009). Realism is defined as placing the value of a policy on its ability to achieve specific means. It is associated with the use of force in the international context. Idealism relies more on vision and utilizes diplomacy as an international relations tool.

For much of its history, the United States had more success under realistic policies than under idealistic. However, in the latter part of the 20th century, that has changed. The United States continues to follow realism-based approaches in many parts of the world, most notably Iraq and Afghanistan. It has had the most success in stabilizing regions and winning concessions through idealistic policies. The reason for this is simple: ideas and money travel faster than bullets.

Diplomacy may not always deliver the immediate results that the use of force and intimidation may have, but information, ideas and money have much stronger, lasting results. The Cold War ended and Eastern Europe was pacified not because Reagan built more bombs (he didn't), but because Eastern Europeans longed for the freedoms and wealth enjoyed by their counterparts in the west.

The United States cannot be an isolationist nation, and indeed the division of isolationist/internationalist barely holds relevance today. Few nations are truly isolationist. The nature of global trade and travel has allowed for economic and ideological spread to penetrate the borders of all but the most determined nations. A United States filled with new immigrants and trading with the world cannot be isolationist, even if it decides to stop playing world police.

4. The tragedy of the commons refers to the fact that when a point of stability is reached, population is allowed to increase rapidly. This places a drain on the resources of the land, which negatively affects us all (Hardin, 1968). The tragedy is that we have reached a point where our desired goals (improved health care, access to clean water, relative peace) have also brought us population explosion and pollution on a destructive scale.

It is prophetic, perhaps, that Hardin used the metaphor of the herdsmen and the patch of grazing land. This ties directly into what happened in the 19th and 20th centuries. Medical and technical advances have allowed for longer human lives which in turn has given rise to a population explosion. We would normally view these developments as positive, but in effect the added strain of each incremental reduction in infant mortality or each incremental increase in life expectancy is that more resources are taken from the earth.

Eventually, we will have difficulty feeding ourselves, or finding access to fresh water. Our supply of fossil fuels will run out, our air will be dirtier and our environment more polluted. The strain of successfully surviving is causing us to have an increasingly difficult time surviving. We are destroying the resources on which we depend to survive, simply because those resources allow us to survive.