Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
The international system is the interaction between units whereby various variables at the systemic level come together to influence the external behavior of a state. In this case, foreign policies are determined by the activities at the international level. In other words, the effectiveness of foreign policy depends on the interpretation of international system, states do not formulate policies based on their available resources or manpower but instead rely on the activities taking place at the international system.
Harold Sprout and Margaret Sprout came up with ecological triad to explain foreign policy formulation techniques. In this case, the environmental factors are to be considered in coming up with a policy that would determine the relationship between a particular state and another. The ecological triad captures the interaction between policy maker and the international system.
The triad is composed of the actor-state, environment that surrounds the actor and the actor-environment relationship. In foreign policy, the actor is surrounded by the international system. The policy maker must behave within the complex environment that is, the international system. The environment is usually complex because there are various units such as religions, civilizations, economics and international organizations (Held 158).
The environment can constrain the foreign policy maker, can provide opportunities for a certain behavior and can affect the willingness of decision makers to take advantage of those opportunities. The environment controls decision makers because it controls all limits that actors should do or not do.
These entities are actually states and international organizations. The states are only controlled by the international system. In this paper, the involvement of the international organizations that is, the NATO and the UN in Iraq is discussed. In the real sense, realists would argue that the organizations represent the interests and wishes of the developed states such as the US, France, Britain and Russia. On the other hand, the liberalists would argue that the international bodies exist to further the interests of the people of Iraq.
Involvement of the International Actors
NATO established itself in Iraq in 2004when the alliance was charged with the responsibility of assisting the people of Iraq to form an effective military that would counter the influence and the power of the Al-Qaida. Furthermore, the NATO alliance was supposed to offer training services to the Iraqi military in order to be counted as an international body that would operate in accordance to the international standards.
On 31 December 2011, the alliance was requested to leave the country since it was perceived that its mission had been accomplished. Other actors in the international system complained about the existence of NATO since it did not have any legal mandate to operate in the country. The NATO training mission was established after the UN Security Council resolution.
This was after the interim government of Iraq requested the UN to use the NATO to train its soldiers. It should be understood that the formation of the NATO –Iraq was not aimed at suppressing the insurgents, as though by many people. Its main role was to offer technical and military support to Iraqi combatants. In other words, its major role was based on training, offering modern equipments, advising and offering military aid to the forces of Iraq.
The NATO alliance would also guide the Iraqi into becoming an international military force that would offer quality services to the people of Iraq. Since its formation in Iraq, the alliance was effective since it managed to offer training services to 5000 Iraqi soldiers from 2004 to 2011. Apart from training the military personnel, it also trained over ten thousand police and other security staff in the country. The member states of NATO provided various training courses to the Iraqi military.
It is argued that all the 28 members of NATO offered over two thousand courses. The courses were costly by the members of NATO went ahead to offer them to the people of Iraq. Apart from training services, it is true that the Iraqi military received over 115 million Euros in form of military aid through equipments and over 17.7 million Euros in form of trust fund donations.
The activities of NATO can be interpreted differently, depending on the scholar’s viewpoint and orientation. According to liberal scholars and policy makers, the main aim of NATO was to facilitate a democratic process in the country. The security sector would be modernized since the knowledge possessed by the military generals could not allow leaders to exercise personal and autocratic forms of leaderships. In this regard, the Iraqi government had to establish a working relationship with the NATO forces to achieve the above objective.
According to liberalists, there are usually many actors in the international system. In this sense, the international system is a community of both states and human beings. Therefore, the foreign policies of Iraq had to recognize the existence of all actors, including NATO and the UN.
Liberalists would argue that actions of units in the international system must be based on morality and actors must observe international codes and morals. It was upon the realization that the Iraqi military was not observant to the international codes that the NATO set its foot to salvage the situation. The military in Iraq was accused of being partisan since it only favored one side that is, the government. Saddam Hussein used the military to unleash terror to the citizens and eliminate any form of political and cultural opposition.
In this case, the international actors were not happy at all. When the environment gave chance, it was the good time for NATO to act. Through this argument, universal interests are usually valued in the international system. It was the interest of each actor for peace and tranquility to be achieved in Iraq. NATO forces were therefore formed to bring this peace. As Hoffman could argue, states have a duty beyond their borders.
A state should always be concerned about the affairs that take place another state. It is the responsibility of the developed nations to ensure that human rights are to be respected and upheld at a higher esteem worldwide. The United Nations Security Council endorsed the formation of NATO –Iraq since the lives and the militia groups led by Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein did not respect THE rights of citizens.
NATO forces would therefore restore normalcy and constancy in the trouble state. The US, France, Britain and Russia had to act beyond their borders since they respect the sanctity of life. Therefore, they had to facilitate training services and other forms of military aid such as provision of equipments and techniques. According to liberalism, the end does not justify the means because the means should be just and humane.
In Iraq, the Hussein administration applied all forms of techniques to achieve state interests. The state interests included domination of the region and cutting links with the west (Gerd 45). This could be obtained by forming a military like administration whereby the rights of people are not respected. This was contrary to the interests and the will of the west, which would always emphasize on consultation and cooperation at the global level.
The west would always argue that problems at the global level need global decisions. Iraq under Sadam Hussein could not think of any possibility of working with the west to end global problems such as terrorism, global economic crisis brought about by fluctuating oil prices and the issues related to the environment. Therefore, the NATO, after being endorsed by the UN, had to intervene to save the humanity.
In case actions are to be taken in the international system, states should consult extensively in order to arrive at a win-win satiation. However, the Iraqi administration under Sadam Hussein wanted a play a zero-sum game where the west and the rest of the world would lose terrible.
This was something that angered the west and the rest of the world. According to liberalists, the policy makers should always be prescriptive meaning that they have to reflect on the outcomes of the policies. The Sadam regime supported terrorism even though the outcomes of the policy were detrimental to the people of Iraq and the rest of the world.
Iraq never appreciate the role of the international regimes such as the international law since impunity was encouraged at all quarters. The west appreciated the fact that world security could be achieved through cooperation. Therefore, activities such as nuclear disarmament and arms proliferation had to be curtailed at all costs, something that Iraq opposed always. There was no option but to facilitate military overhaul in Iraq.
This would be best performed by the NATO alliance. Iraqi leaders believed principles in the state were based on powers but not the norms but not the norms. In this case, actions could be based on unilateralism whereby the state decides to act without consulting anybody, not even the public, which should have the ultimate powers.
Some of the policy makers are always inspired by the realism, which is a very strong theory in the study of foreign relations. According to these policy makers and observers, the involvement of the NATO and the UN in the affairs of Iraq could be interpreted differently.
To this scholars, the unity of analysis in the international system is the state whereby the state is usually guided by its national interests. The international system in this case exists according to the Hobbestain state of nature. In other words, the international system dictates what should be done.
The NATO and the UN took advantage of the current nature of the system to invade Iraq and impose policies. For instance, the developed nations took advantage of the confusion in Iraq to change the military ideology. This would only benefit them since the military would be sympathetic and appreciative to the activities of the west in the world.
Consequently, the US and the west benefited a lot since Iraq had to pay in form of oil. Indeed, the US benefited so much since a lot of oil was transported from Iraq to the US. In case states intervene in a foreign state, the interest is usually to obtain something.
This is true to some extent because the US has never bothered to marshal the NATO forces to intervene in Somalia, even after the claims that the Alshabbab insurgent group is associated with the world’s most feared terrorism group, the Al-Qaeda. The US intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the availability of the natural resources. This means that the US was only interested in natural resources but not bringing back sanity.
Concerning the existence of NATO and the UN, they only exist as long as the powerful states would permit. The international organizations do not serve the interests of the poor states. For instance, the US invaded Iraq even after the UN had advised against the invasion.
This means that the US was only concerned about its national interests, which was security. After the 9/11 attack, the US resolved to come up with long terms policies that would ensure that its citizens coexist in peace worldwide. Due to this, the hotspots in the world were focused, which led to the sponsoring of military training in the Middle East. Therefore, the NATO and the UN involvement in Iraq were not in the interest of the people of Iraq but for the interest of the American people.
Currently, the peace witnessed in Iraq is conducive for American investors since they can operate without the fear of losing their stocks. It is very rare for the US to fund projects that do not benefit its population. For instance, the US cannot help in disarming an enemy, which does not pose any security threat to its citizens.
For a long time, the US has focused on destabilizing the Middle East because if given chance, the Middle East states can pose a serious challenge to the existence of the US and other developed nations from the west, mainly because of oil. The US allowed the formation of NATO-Iraqi alliance only to strengthen its presence and power in the Middle East, but not to better the living standards of the Iraqis.
This shows that military alliance between the NATO and Iraq was out of fear and suspicion that characterizes the international system. In the international system, life is brutal, short-lived and nasty whereby states engage in a zero-sum game always. States value their sovereignty so much to an extent of neglecting ethics (Koehn and Rosenau 107).
UN Failures
On the flipside, the body has had a number of failures in its quest to uphold world peace and security. The UN was unable to bring order into Somalia through UNOSOM (United Nations Mission to Somalia), consequently leading to its withdrawal in 1995.
This was also the case in1994 during the Rwandan genocide whereby the United Nations Mission Rwanda (UNAMIR) was unable to stop the genocide due to lack of men and weapons. In Bosnia Herzegovina, the UNPROFORC (United Nations Protection Force) was unable to stop the massacre of Serbians.
Perhaps one of the most notable incidents on the inability of the UN to promote peace and security in the world was the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the coalition of the willing led by the USA. This went against a UN resolution 1441 of 8 November 2002. The resolution called for new inspections to ascertain whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The US on its part ignored this resolution and instead invaded Iraq on 19 March 2003.
Peace and security remains a major challenge to global governance. In many instances, the UN has been indecisive or unable to act to promote peace and security. This has led to a situation where matters on peace and security are championed by a handful of nations under the guise of collective security. In most cases, these countries will be pursuing their own interests.
This has consequently led to issues such as terrorism arising. Terrorism has come about because of radicalism by Islamic fundamentalist who feel that the US led war on terror targets Islam as a whole. This in effect has led to violence and the loss of many lives as Islamist fundamentalists under the auspices of the global terror network Al Qaeda and other terror groups wage war on the US on various fronts.
The September 11 bombing of the World Trade Center in the US was a hallmark of terrorist operations. This in turn led to the US invading Afghanistan with the aim of smoking out Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the bombings. This war on terror has also been played out in the Middle East pitting Israel, an American ally, against various Palestinian groups such as Hamas (Porter 185).
In general, the UN and NATO have not been able to function independently since they only serve the interests of the powerful states. The UN for instance has been accused on several occasions for siding with the superpower.
Works Cited
Gerd, Nonneman. EU-GCC Relations: Dynamics, Patterns & Perspectives, London: Routledge, 2005. Print.
Held, David. “Reframing Global Gorvernance:Apocalypse Soon or Reform!” New Political Economy 11. 2 (2006): 158-176. Print.
Koehn, Peter and James Rosenau. “Transanational Competence in an Emergent Epoch.” International Studies Perpectives 3.2 (2002): 105-127. Print.
Porter, Tony. “Why International Institutions Matter in the Global Credit Crisis”. Global Governance 15.2 (2009): 185-203. Print.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.