International relations
Introduction
Abraham was given his name by God because he was promised he would be ‘father of many nations’. Throughout his family’s (Israel) history, God gave specific instructions about their relationship with other nations, and as the story develops we see the folly of ungodly alliances as well as the strategic way nations and national figures were used by God to bring about his sovereign purposes.
Whilst the nations of today vie for supremacy, as nations have through the ages, we are assured that when Jesus returns there will be representatives from ‘every tribe and language and people and nation’ (Revelation 5:9) in his Kingdom. Only then will the peace the world longs for be realised.
With this in mind, an understanding of international relations is a way of helping us make sense of what is going on in our world, and fuels our prayers that ‘your (God’s) will be done on earth as it is in heaven.' What follows is a very brief introduction to the subject.
The state system
‘Modern’ International Relations (IR) has been an issue since the sovereign state system began in the 16th century. Up until then medieval political authority was dispersed. In contrast modern political authority had centralised authority which resided in the government and the head of state. This kind of state system is now global, containing states of different types: great, small, substantial and weak quasi-states. Today the entire population of the world lives in an independent state of some kind.
Basic values
IR seeks to understand how people in these states are provided, or not provided, with the generally agreed basic values of:
i Security
ii Freedom
iii Order
iv Justice
v Welfare
The state system is considered to be a valuable core institution of modern life. If the basic values are not being provided, they are seen in the opposite light. This is the case in many Third World states, especially sub-Sahara and Africa, and those established at the break-up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
IR schools of thought
There are four major schools of thought in IR:
i Idealism (or Liberalism)
ii Realism
iii International Society
iv International Political Economy (neo-Marxism)
In this article we’ll look at each in turn.
Idealism
People have tried to make sense of world politics for centuries and especially so since International Politics became an academic discipline in 1919. Academics expected their study of the subject to enable them to make recommendations to politicians which would result in the world becoming a better place. Opponents of this view characterised it as Idealism in that it had a view of how the world ought to be and tried to assist events to turn out that way.
One of the main proponents of this view was Woodrow Wilson after WW1, who wanted to bring liberal democratic values to the rest of the world. He believed that democratic governments do not and will not go to war against each other. So liberal democracy in Europe would put an end to autocratic and warlike leaders, and peaceful governments would replace them, preventing any future world war. Having been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1919, his ideas influenced the Paris Peace Conference, which tried to institute a new international order based on liberal ideas. The result was the League of Nations (superseded after WW2 by the UN).
Liberalism suffered hard blows with the growth of fascist and Nazi dictatorships in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Also, the new states of Central and Eastern Europe which were supposed to be democracies became authoritarian and militaristic.
Realism
Opponents of Idealism preferred an approach they called Realism, which stressed seeing the world as it really is rather than how we would like it to be. Realists see the world as an unpleasant place; human beings are at best selfish and probably much worse.
Scholars such as E H Carr recognised profound conflicts of interest and desire between countries and people, rather than co-operation. He saw that some are better off than others and therefore seek to defend their privileged position. Hans J Morgenthau concurred, recognising that human nature was at the base of IR. Humans are self-interested and power seeking, and this easily leads to aggression. Realism gained support as the events in, for example, Mussolini’s Italy, took place. As WW2 demonstrated, IR in the 1940s was a struggle for power and for survival. Far from Wilson’s dream, history painfully indicates that each generation tends to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Realists are essentially pessimists; they see no prospect of change in the situation. They see independent states in an anarchic international system as a permanent feature of IR. An essential element of Realism is the belief in states as legally sovereign. In other words, there is no actor on the world stage above the state that can compel it to act in specific ways.
The debate continues
The debate between Idealism and Realism still continues. Realism has been the dominant way of explaining world politics in the last hundred years, whilst Idealism has fuelled the establishment of multi-national and global coalitions, such as NATO, UN, G8 and EU.
International Society
This school of thought believes that IR should be understood as a ‘society’ of sovereign states, where states have no existence apart from the human beings who compose them and who act for them. Therefore it’s important to look at the history of IR as it is experienced by the people involved (presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers, and others who act on behalf of states in foreign affairs) and to understand that their experience and history, past and present, affects their decisions. IS scholars view IR as a special branch of human relations that occur in historical time and involve rules, norms and values.
Compared to other schools of thought, IS is not as optimistic as Idealism nor as pessimistic as Realism, and it refuses to choose between them. Rather, it analyses the foreign policy trends of states and their leaders, taking into account their interests, concerns, intentions, ambitions, desires, fears, doubts, uncertainties, etc. Like Realists, IS scholars see states as the ultimate authorities and they do not believe in hierarchies of states. IS sees common interests, rules, institutions and organisations which are created and shared by states as the factors that affect the relations between states. Hedley Bull sums it up as ‘the anarchical society’ – a worldwide social order of independent states.
IS has four fundamental values:
i Order (meaning ‘a pattern or disposition of international activity that sustains the basic goals of the society of states’ (Hedley Bull, 1995)
ii Justice (moral rules which ‘confer rights and duties upon states and nations’ such as self-determination, the right of non-intervention, and the right of all sovereign states to be treated on a basis of equality (Hedley Bull, 1995)
iii State sovereignty (states respecting each other’s independence, and non-intervention)
iv Human rights
Martin Wight, an IS scholar, sees IR as a never-ending dialogue between realist, revolutionist and rationalist ideas. None is true or false, they are different ideas which compete with each other.
International Political Economy (IPE)
IPE is about wealth and poverty, and about who gets what in the international economic and political system. It examines the complex relationship between politics and economics, and between states and markets. As a general rule, in the 1950’s and 1960’s, economics and politics were isolated from one another, but by 1970 the ‘case of mutual neglect’ (Strange) was increasingly being questioned. The change in attitude came about partly because the ‘Bretton Woods’ system (fixed exchange rates) came to an end, followed by the oil crisis of 1973 and later, the end of the Cold War.
There are three theories, or more accurately, sets of assumptions and values, which most scholars see as the main theories of IPE, which we will look at very briefly:
i Mercantilism
ii Economic Liberalism
iii Marxism
Mercantilism
This outlook is similar in some ways to Realism. Mercantilism developed when modern states were established, in the 16th and 17th centuries. It takes the view that economic activity is, and should be, channelled into the primary goal of building a strong state. Economics, then, is primarily a tool of politics and a basis for political power. Like Realists, Mercantilists see international economics as an area of conflict between differing national interests, not an area of co-operation and mutual gain (as Idealists do). One state’s gain is another state’s loss.
Mercantilists believe it is of paramount importance that states concern themselves with relative economic gain; if they don’t, material wealth in one state may be used as a basis for military/political power against other states. They see Britain’s prominence in world politics in the last two centuries tied closely to her successful industrial revolution. Therefore, they underline the need for countries to industrialise if they wish to gain national power. Mercantilism has been popular in countries which lagged behind Britain in industrial development and who want to catch up industrially so they can compete with Britain.
Economic Liberalism
This outlook is akin in some ways to Idealism. Economic liberals reject theories and policies which subordinate economics to politics. Adam Smith (1723-1790), known as the father of economic liberalism, believed that there is spontaneous expansion of markets in order to cater for human needs, so long as governments don’t interfere. He believed that political interference and state regulation is uneconomical and a retrograde step, often leading to conflict. His key notion was that the economic marketplace is the main source of progress, co-operation and prosperity.
Liberal economics has been called ‘a doctrine and a set of principles for organising and managing economic growth and individual welfare’ (Gilpin 1987). It believes the individual is the most important actor as a consumer and producer. However, there is a recurring debate among economic liberals over the extent to which political interference may be necessary on occasion, since some kind of politically constructed legal framework is necessary for markets to flourish.
Marxism
Karl Marx, the 19th century German philosopher and economist, rejected the economic liberal view that the economy has benefits for everyone. Rather, he saw the economy as a site of human exploitation and class inequality. Marxists put economics first and politics second. They see the capitalist economy based on two antagonistic social classes, the bourgeoisie (who own the means of production) and the proletariat (who own the labour which is sold to the bourgeoisie). Under capitalism, the proletariat puts in more work than it receives in pay and the bourgeoisie gain a profit derived from labour exploitation.
Marxists see states not as autonomies, but as people driven by ruling class interests. So capitalist states are primarily driven by the interests of their respective bourgeoisies. They argue that conflict and wars between states should be viewed in the economic context of competition between capitalist classes of different states. Class conflict (which is not confined to state borders) is more fundamental than conflict between states. They see the class system which birthed imperialism and colonialism morphing into economic globalisation led by giant transnational corporations. Marxists and Realists agree over the on-going competition between states, but the Marxist view is that when states come into conflict it’s because they are trying to achieve the international dominance and control sought after by the ruling classes.
Developing a Christian world view
Whatever views we might hold – and Christians don’t all agree on this subject – it’s important to recognise that all theories are flawed if they’re developed without reference to the sovereignty of God over the nations of the earth from beginning to end. However, when decisions are made on our behalf by our political leaders, it’s helpful to have some understanding of the IR views which shape these. Until Jesus is crowned King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and the nations take up their rightful place in his Millennium Kingdom, we need to pray, as Paul encouraged Timothy:
I urge then . . . that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness (1 Timothy 2:1-2).
. . . an understanding of international relations is a way of helping us make sense of what is going on in our world, and fuels our prayers that ‘your (God’s) will be done on earth as it is in heaven'