Category: International Relations

Humanitarian intervention is best understood as the process of engaging in military intervention by one state into another state with the purpose of minimizing suffering in the recipient country. Although this intervention is based on a very noble cause, a number of challenges have arisen in terms of such situations. Powerful nations have often taken up this humanitarian intervention role because they possess the authority and resources to implement it and it has even been considered a right. However, such claims have been met by equally strong oppositions that will be addressed subsequently.

Powerful nations impose their ideas on suffering nations

Prior to making a claim that a powerful nation-state has a right to humanitarian intervention response to humanitarian crises, the intervening country must be prepared to face the fact that it is doing so based on its own ideas, and these may not necessarily be universal. One of the earliest writers on this subject-John Stuart Mill asserted that whether a country opts to go to war based on certain ideologies or for its selfish territorial reasons is irrelevant; both actions necessitate aggression and imposition of ones will upon that of other people.

This results in nothing more than criminal action on the part of the intervening country. It is presumptuous to assume that powerful nations rules on morality in international relations are the same ones that can be applied to other countries that must deal with the same problem. Therefore, when powerful nations opt to interfere in the matters of another nation, they are basically trying to show that their moral law or their will takes precedence over that of another nation. (Walzer, 2009)

The western concept of democracy may not be the only interpretation of good governance as poor nations still possess their own cultures and institutions that give them their own identities. It is possible that there could be certain political institutions that may not necessarily be the best but are workable for nations that undergo humanitarian crises. In fact, countries that have been subjected to such interventions often argue that western countries often dismiss their institutions as having little consequence or value and this is reminiscent of an imperialist school of thought. (Reiff, 2002)

Humanitarian intervention to assist governments holds no water

Some powerful states assert that sometimes it may be necessary for them to intervene in the issues of another warring nation so as to assist the governing authority to restore order once it has been ascertained that the latter country is trying to fight off an opposing force within its borders. However, this justification may be questioned on the basis of the capability of such a nation. If a government cannot be able to deal with an uprising on its own, then there is little justification for it to exist.

It would do more harm than good for its institutions if another country decided to take part in wrangles between such entities. Usually, when certain powerful nations intervene in the affairs of another country, they are in essence absolving the poor country of its responsibility to protect its citizens. That responsibility cannot simply be transferred from one government to another; it is a sole reserve of the respective government that has been oppressing its people. (Abiew, 1999)

Sometimes some governments or nations may be confronted with crises that are perpetual in nature. In other words, humanitarian interventions to restore peace in such nations often end up being futile as the nations may continue to remain in a state of conflict. A case in point is the nation of Somalia that has not had a legitimate government for years on end. Some powerful nations have attempted to assist this country but their interventions have not yielded any tangible results as the country is still considered one of the most dangerous to live in today.

The failure of powerful nations to cause change here illustrates how ineffective such actions really are as it is the prerogative of the concerned nations to make their countries secure. In fact, it can be argued that human interventions in such situations are never highlighted by western media owing to the sensationalist emotions that humanitarian crises evoke in western nations. To this end, many western nations often employ the term during high octane crises. Those issues that suddenly crop up are the ones that prompt powerful nations to utilize this right to intervene yet those very nations often go silent when it comes to chronic wars. These double standards, therefore, illustrate the questionable nature of such actions in the future. (Seybolt, 2002)

True liberty is fought for

A number of proponents of intervention by powerful states assert that humanitarian intervention is necessary to contribute towards the liberation of suffering people. In fact, this has been a very important determinant of such actions even as far back as the eighteenth century. However, the problem with such an approach is that most of the concerned parties may not be ready for the intricacies of liberty. In other words, for a nation to fully appreciate the notion of liberty, then it must be willing to brave and oppose all manner of barriers to get it. This is a form of orientation that renders them fit to possess institutions that represent liberty and freedom.

When an external party such as a powerful nation comes and imposes freedom and liberty in an oppressed nation, then chances are that the natives may never consider such values as truly their own. They may not possess the desire or will to fight for it especially when domestic conditions dictate otherwise. To this end, such values may then be short-lived because the oppressed persons do not have such a strong determination to maintain their freedom. In fact, the only thing that can truly guarantee that a nation remains free is letting them contest amongst themselves and emerge victorious in these respective struggles. (Hugo, 2001)

It abuses the sovereignty of nations

Many intervening nations have asserted that force is often justified because if no actions are taken in the face of suffering, then this would surmount to the lack of conscience on the part of the able or powerful nation. These proponents of humanitarian intervention further hold that military methods do possess the ability to create peace if they are handled in the proper manner. However, the problem with such a premise is that it only considers the view of the intervening nations. It has been forgotten that the warring country is indeed sovereign. It does have a right to carry out its affairs without interference from other parties.

In fact, the claim of having a right to intervene has generated a lot of controversies owing to the fact that powerful nations are transforming what would be regarded as an act of good faith into a right. Furthermore, because of the employment of military methodologies, it is likely that the concerned parties may be affected quite negatively. This violation of another countrys sovereignty is not a matter that can be taken lightly.

It is also possible that powerful nations can abuse this right to intervene by failing to refer to a supranational authority. An example here would be the UN. Powerful nations often claim that emergency situations may necessitate such actions and therefore justify the process of interfering in another countrys affairs. However, sometimes these emergencies have been premature and have led to dramatic losses. For instance movement of refugees has sometimes been regarded as an emergency as was the case with Yugoslavia. However, this is a controversial decision and may not necessarily be strong enough to necessitate the violation of anothers countrys right to maintain its sovereignty. (Bordat, 2009)

It has often been stated by proponents of humanitarian intervention that one of the underlying principles in this kind of claim is the value of self-governance. They believe that all nations should possess the right to govern themselves democratically. However, using armed approaches to instate those values goes against the foundational framework of self-governance and abuses the sovereignty of nations. In fact, even the United Nations Charter has specifications on this matter. It is specified that the UN cannot interfere in the home affairs of another nation. Claim to have a right to intervene therefore contradicts such an important aspect of international law.

With regard to the sovereignty debate, most powerful nations supporting humanitarian intervention often assert that the international arena is already characterized by many actions that restrict its sovereignty. When advancing these arguments, they sometimes cite the United Nations Charter which declares that no state aggression can be permitted unless it is done for self defense. To this end, the Charter severely restricts sovereignty decisions by states.

Furthermore, such proponents cite the concept of the International criminal court as well as several international tribunals designed to try crimes committed by state actors. To this end, precedence is given to international law rather than holders of state authority.

Therefore, by allowing powerful nations to intervene in the affairs of another nation, the aggressors would not be doing anything new. This would be an expansion of what had been carried out in previous attempts. However, there is a serious problem with such an argument because it is used to justify one negative with the existence of another. Powerful nations should not presume that their actions can be right just because they have been accepted in the past. Instead, more effective solutions should be considered. (Hilpold, 2002)

Political motives often interfere

Besides creating a legal problem in matters surrounding sovereignty, there is always the chance that certain nations may not possess noble intentions. In the nineteenth century and in centuries before, military involvement in other countrys whereabouts was often carried out for selfish political interests. Usually, this was done in order to expand geographical interests of a nation by acquisition of certain territories or it was done as a strategic decision with more or less the same effect. In the centuries that followed, military intervention took on different dimensions that still have strong linkages with the political agenda of the concerned nations.

It has often been argued that certain powerful nations may be interested in taking control of the resources in poor warring nations and they may use humanitarian intervention as nothing more than a scapegoat to pursue this vendetta. A case in point was the US led invasion of Iraq in 2002. At the time of the military intervention, it was argued that this was done in order to restore democracy in Iraq by eliminating a dictator  Saddam Hussein as well as to fight terrorism.

However, analysts also assert that there was a hidden mission which the serving US president at that time did not disclose to the public- which is to secure the strategic interests of oil in this country. It may be difficult to prove this assertion totally, but it is also difficult to completely dismiss it since Iraq is an oil producing nation and the United States was a net importer of fuel. Use of humanitarian interventions by powerful nations is therefore highly susceptible to abuse and may result in negative consequences. (OBrien, 2004)

Asymmetrical approach to international relations

Powerful states often possess the upper hand in issues of humanitarian crises. In fact it is very unlikely for a poorer nation to be seen engaging in a humanitarian effort in a certain rich nation. For instance, the United States has often directed its actions in various countries in South America, France intervened in Sierra Leone and many others powerful states have been aggressors. To this end, these countries always possess an upper hand that makes them appear superior over others.

Poorer nations have therefore aired out their discontentment at such an approach in international relations. They articulated these concerned during the g-77 summit that had brought together various poor nations of the world. It was asserted that this was an unfair approach as no cases could be found of poor countries trying to engage in humanitarian intervention in the rich ones. (Wheeler, 2002)

In fact, some have asserted that this approach reflects values inherent in colonialism. During the nineteenth century, rich nations interfered with the sovereignty of poor communities and imposed their will in those nations under the premise that they were going to civilise native populations. They engaged in a series of violations of human rights amongst those poor nations under the justification that they were powerful and therefore possessed the right to dictate what would happen to the poorer or the colonised nations. Although there are numerous distinctions between colonisation and humanitarian intervention, one cannot blame poor nations for noting these similarities with colonialism since both interactions are centred on asymmetrical approaches to power in the global arena.

In the year 1999, the serving secretary general Kofi Annan asserted that the United Nations and other nations needed to act especially after the international arena had failed in prevention of hundreds of thousands of death in the Rwandese genocide. It was this secretary general who stated that state boundaries should not be considered as walls that protected war criminals thus declaring that there must be actions to be taken.

Although this individual was not advocating for humanitarian intervention by powerful states, he was asserting that sovereignty needed to be considered in a different light. His utterances solicited a lot of emotive responses from groups from the global south especially those ones that are considered as poor since most of them stated that dilution of sovereignty was likely to follow if such principles were to be implemented to the letter. (Annan, 1999)

International organisations failed and single nations may fail too

Many proponents of the right of powerful nations to intervene argue that international peace keeping bodies like the United Nations or NATO have failed in their major mandates. These proponents further claim that the existence of wars in nations such as Somalia, Rwanda or Bosnia over the past decade have illustrated how ineffective these international organisations are. Consequently, a new school of thought or a new approach is necessary and this is the right to intervene in humanitarian crisis.

The major problem that powerful nations must address when invoking this right is that they are utilising similar methods to those that had been employed by international organisations. Consequently, outcomes that were recorded during those times when international organisations existed are the same ones that may come about when powerful nations decide to intervene on their own.

It has often been accepted by many parties that the concept of intervening in another nations issues is nothing new. In fact, the United Nations lays this out in the Declaration of human rights (1948) claiming that sovereign states should respect certain human rights which everyone is entitled to. International law is also characterised by the need to protect civilians by possessing the collective responsibility to tackle genocide, war crimes and many other crimes against humanity. When powerful nations claim a right to intervene based on human rights issues. They are in essence borrowing their terminologies and values from international law and this implies that the pathways employed in international law are also likely to be the same ones used by these respective institutions. (UNICEF, 2001)

Humanitarian intervention by powerful states also places a lot of precedence on non peaceful means for resolving conflicts. Instead of focusing on prevention as is the case with certain entities, this approach fails to acknowledge the power that cooperation with other nation states actually brings and what nations can achieve in those respective locations. As the term itself states, humanitarian intervention is driven by the need to intervene and not by the need to prevent conflict or war.

Force tends to create even worse circumstances than had earlier been intended and this need to be considered only as an option of last result to those parties who may want to use it. In other words, by exercising this right to intervene, powerful nations are sidestepping some of the other successful methods that have been used in conflict resolution such as inter-communal dialogues, reconciliation, police deployment and humanitarian relief.

There should also be efforts to strengthen the capacity of states with regard to their political institutions and loss in terms of enacting reform in laws. These would serve as less harmful methods of resolving conflict rather than engagement in harmful conflict by powerful nations. It can be argued that the UN and other international bodies had failed because they also failed to recognise the value of peaceful means. If powerful states acknowledged the fact that it can indeed be possible for them to act without having to conform to some kind of coercive force then armed intervention needs to be considered only as a last result.

Some proponents of humanitarian intervention by powerful nations assert that this is something that is already ongoing and that certain countries only intervene militarily when all else has failed. However, interpretations of last resort have often been controversial and have yielded minimal results in instating peace. As long as coercion is the driving factor in humanitarian intervention, then it is bound to replicate the same failures that were recorded by international bodies that used the same approach. (Heir, 2010)

Conclusion

The right to intervene by powerful nations in dealing with humanitarian crises may result in certain problems that must be confronted. First, it may lead to violation of the sovereignty of nations and asymmetrical approaches to international relations. It could promote political interests of the aggressing nation and may also impose the will of the powerful nations upon the nation in crisis. Furthermore, there is the possibility that liberty will be short-lived since it has to been fought for by the affected parties. It is also likely to justify the process of absconding ones duties as a government of warring nation to protect ones people. Lastly, this may result in failure since its borrowed from humanitarian responses by international bodies.

References

Hugo, S. (2001). Rights based humanitarianism. Humanitarian Aid and Politics seminar Paper. London commonwealth.

UNICEF (2001). UNICEF global guidelines for programming of human rights. 29 October, Nairobi report.

Reiff, D. (2002). Humanitarianism in crisis. London: Schuster and Simon.

OBrien, P. (2004). Justice, peace and aid in Afghanistan. Kabul: Kumarian press.

Hilpold,P. (2002). Humanitarian intervention  legal reappraisal. European international law journal 12(4), 437.

Abiew, F. (1999). Evolution of humanitarian intervention doctrine & practice. Kluwer law international report.

Heir, A. (2010). Humanitarian intervention. Melbourne: Palgrave.

Annan, K. (1999). Concepts of sovereignty. The economist.

Wheeler, N. (2002). International society and humanitarian intervention. Oxford: OUP.

Bordat, J. (2009). Controversy on humanitarian interventions. Social Inquiry journal 2(1), 59.

Seybolt, T. (2002). Successes and failures of Humanitarian intervention. Oxford OUP.

Walzer, M. (2009). Arguments on humanitarian intervention. Web.

Analysis

Summary

In his article An ally for all the years to come: why Australia is not a conflicted U.S. ally, Bisley (2013) argues that the partnership between the United States and Australia, which has existed for an impressive amount of time, provides for economic and political safety of the latter and, therefore, should be viewed as an entirely reasonable choice for Australia to make (p. 404). Bisley starts by stating that Australia has always been an integral part of the U.S. defense policy, yet the state seems to have been attempting to gain more independence since the beginning of the 21^st century (p. 405).

Brief Notes

The U.S. alliance, which Australia is a member of, entails both significant benefits and major disadvantages for the country. As far as the advantages are concerned, the alliance has always been providing the basis for the safety of the Australian population and the security of the state. In other words, the alliance supported Australia by shielding it from the political and economic issues, which it would have had to face independently otherwise (p. 405). The access to the military hardware and training, which the U.S. provided Australia, can also be interpreted as a major advantage. Finally, the alliance contributed to the promotion of technological development of Australia (p. 406).

However, the alliance also spurred a range of issues in Australia, including the fact that the United States was not enthusiastic about including Australia into the alliance, hence the exploitative basis for the relationships between U.S. and Australia. Moreover, the fact that the alliance disrupted the regional relations of Australia deserves to be mentioned.

Nevertheless, the alliance based on the cost-benefit approach received strong support in both governments. While it creates obstacles for the political relationships between Australia and other countries, it provides the former with political and economic safety. Therefore, the alliance is not to be disregarded by Australia in the process of making a strategic decision concerning further partnership with China and other foreign states.

Problems and Questions

Nick Bisley argues that the alliance, which the United States and Australia have formed, provides very strong support for Australia in terms of economy and political affairs, yet it is also quite binding when it comes to defining Australias relationships with other states. Seeing that Australia is planning to build stronger relations with China, the significance of the alliance becomes rather questionable.

Bisleys article provides an insightful overview of the relations between the United States and Australia, allowing the readers to evaluate these relations from two key perspectives, i.e., the political and the economic ones. While admittedly having a better focus on the political implications of the alliance (Gilpin, 2011), Bisley still manages to get across the significance of the economic ties between the two states. The authors line of reasoning is very convincing, and the significance of the alliance for Australia can hardly be doubted when viewed from the perspective that the author suggests (Camilleri, 2007).

It is quite remarkable that Bisley does not shy away from mentioning some of the negative aspects of the alliance as well. Apart from stressing the positive effects, such as the political security and economic growth (Dunleavy, 2014), the author also mentions that the alliance blocks Australias political independence and, thus, impairs its communication on an international level (Langmore, 2005). Thus, the discussion that Bisley invites becomes objective, and the results provided sound very credible.

One could argue, though, that the author overlooks some of the significant aspects of the problem, including the sociocultural ones (Katzenstein, 2012). The fact that the cultures of Australia and the United States share a range of elements deserves to be brought up as a major factor in locating the role of the alliance and the support of the USA in the lives of Australians. Through a partnership with China that may provide alluring expectations, the possible culture clash, as opposed to the mutual understanding between the USA and Australia, clearly makes the idea of defying the alliance rather undesirable for Australia.

Reference List

Bisley, N. (2013). An ally for all the years to come: Why Australia is not a conflicted US ally. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67(4), 403418. Web.

Camilleri, J. A. (2007). Asia-Pacific geopolitics: Hegemony vs. human security. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Web.

Dunleavy, P. (2014). Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice: Economic approaches in political science. New York, NY: Routledge. Web.

Gilpin, R. (2011). Global political economy: Understanding the international economic order. Princeton, UK: Princeton University Press. Web.

Katzenstein, P. J. (2012). Anglo-America and its discontents: Civilizational identities beyond West and East. New York, NY: Routledge. Web.

Langmore, J. V. (2005). Dealing with America: The UN, the US and Australia. New South Wales, AU: UNSW Press. Web.

Introduction

This paper examines the USA foreign policy especially towards Iraq after the 9/11 attack on Pentagon and World Trade Center in 2001. The attack was launched by suspected al-Qaeda network suicide bombers who hijacked the American Airlines Flight 77 and later plunged it into the infamous American Pentagon and the WTC. However, it is of great interest to examine the interconnection between the attacks on Pentagon and the American war in Iraq which was supported by the British government, then headed by Prime Minister Tony Blair. This paper also seeks to analyze the relationship that has existed between U.S and Iraq from 1980s to their fall out which culminated into Saddam Husseins execution. There are several questions that have been raised in concern about the complexity of the events linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks and his link with Al-Qaeda networks. A conclusion is made to summarize the whole issue on the U.S policy tactics to end the regime established by Saddam Hussein.

Relationship between the U.S and Iraq since 1980s

The relationship between the U.S and Iraq in the 80s was not as sour as it is now. The intense war between Iran and Iraq which took place in the period running from 1980 to 1988 was to benefit the U.S. The U.S openly took sides with Iraq and was ready to render its support until Iraq would win. Militant students had occupied the U.S embassy in Tehran; this also raised some concern in the U.S government. The long period war was also sparked by high tension between the Iranian Islamic republic and the secular Iraqi nationalists. Iraq launched an attack against Iran in September 1980 believing the political infighting within Iran would guarantee then fast victory (Battle, 2003, Para 1-3).

Iraq had gone into the Iranian territory but within some months they were driven back and placed on the defensive. The U.S realized that it was only Iraqs victory that would be beneficial as opposed to Irans victory which would not serve its interest. This situation forced the U.S to relent on its neutrality in the Iran-Iraq war so it began to support Iraq. This was the beginning of a good relationship between the U.S and Iraq.

High ranking officials in both Iraq and the U.S exchanged visits as they consolidated their relationship. In fact, long before the U.S started supporting Iraq against Iran it had put Iraq in the list of the states which supported terrorism internationally. The U.S removed from her the list to strengthen the ties. But this could be suspicious because if the U.S belief that Iraq was involved in terrorism was true then Iraq should have realized that U.S just wanted to please them for some selfish objectives. The U.S started funding Iraq through loan program and the White House issued an instruction to the Export-Import Bank to finance Iraq in the war.

A formal relationship between Iraq and the U.S.A was formally restored in the year 1984; however, in the formal restoration the U.S.A was already supporting Iraq in terms of military and intelligence. That was contrary to the policies of the U.S as regards its neutrality to such matters of war.

As the war became extensive Iraq started to use chemical weapons against Iran and the U.S had intelligent information confirming Irans complain on it (Battle, 2003, para9). In this case the U.S was caught up in the whole issue; on one hand it supported Iraq against Iran and on the other hand it did not support the use of chemical weapons. It was entirely against its policy when it came to use of weapon during war.

In 1983, the U.S sent an envoy to Iraq and met Saddam Hussein. The details of the discussions during that visit were on issues of mutual interest based on region, common enemies- Syria and Iran, and the alternative transport route for Iraqs oil. It is possible that the reason U.S supported Iraq in the war was because it was concerned with the low flow of oil to world market. Iran had stopped the flow of oil and the U.S intervention would ensure the American markets did not have reduced supply of oil.

In 1984, military equipment was secretly taken to Iraq to help in the war. At the same time the U.S was against the use of chemical weapons by Iraq, subsequently making it to prevent shipment of phosphorous fluoride to Iraq; phosphorous fluoride is a precursor to chemical weapon. Exporting it to Iraq when the war was still on would mean that Iraq would quickly use them to manufacture more chemical weapons to add to their existing ones. The U.S informed the government of Iraq of its intention to protest against use of chemical weapons in war against Iran and on 5^th of March the same year it issued a public condemnation though it never mentioned Iraq as the target of the condemnation (Battle, 2003, para 5-8).

After the Iran-Iraq war the relationship between the U.S and Iraq took a new dimension. The Iraqs use of chemical weapon was viewed as embarrassing in terms of public relations. In that war the U.S was mainly concerned with keeping oil to flow, an objective they used Iraq to win. After Bushs administration, came in Bill Clinton. During his first tenure in office, Clinton faced a number of challenges from Iraqs Saddam Hussein.

Saddam Husseins government had tried to assassinate the Clinton predecessor, George Bush when he visited Kuwait in June 1993. The U.S responded by bombing an intelligence center situated in Baghdad. It became clear that the U.S had completely changed and no longer was a friend to Iraq (Freedman, 1999, para4).

The U.S started suspecting that Iraq under leadership of Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons. It wanted to invade Iraq so as to put an end to manufacture of dangerous weapons but there were a number of constraints which barred the likely invasion. There were already differing opinions about invading Iraq and also President Clinton had a saga with Monica Lewinsky which was a threat to him personally and his administration. Clinton chose to use diplomacy through the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. As a result there was an agreement that United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) was to inspect weapon activities in Iraq without interference from Husseins government. In 1998, Hussein stopped Iraqs cooperation with UNSCOM and the inspectors left. This act and change of mind by Hussein facilitated Clinton to mobilize military forces for possible attack against Iraq.

Continuous interference with the activities of the UNSCOM inspectors by Husseins government forced Clinton to approve military attack against Iraq. The air strikes which lasted about seventy hours were meant to destabilize Saddams power to make and deliver weapon of mass destruction. This would also not give him time to hide the weapons from the UN inspectors. The U.S policy had shifted sharply towards ensuring Iraq never made such weapons of mass destruction and also to ensure Saddams ultimate down fall.

In 1998, Iran pursued ties with the U.S, in fact the U.S would be interested since it believed with the cooperation of Iran Saddam Hussein could be toppled and his regime brought to an end. Hussein had become so dangerous that the U.S never felt comfortable with him any more. It was determined to change its policies to focus on total destruction of Husseins regime.

Reasons behind the 9/11 Pentagon and WTC attack

There have been theories about what could have led to the Pentagon attack. Some of these theories have circulated through videos and books; these have challenged the official account of the attack. One of the theories claims that it is not true that the Pentagon was hit by Boeing 757 (Hoffman, 2006, para1). It sites the absence of debris of aircraft, insufficient aircraft debris for a jetliner, the absence of aircraft wreckage that would have survived a jetliner crash like wings and tails and the absence of seats, luggage and bodies of dead people in the photo showing the crash site was a proof that the crash was not by Jetliner Flight 77 (Hoffman, 2006, para7). However, some theories maintain that the plane was actually Jetliner Flight 77.

The official information on the account argues that four Arabs hijacked four jetliners and steered three of them to crash into the pentagon and the twin towers. From the list of terrorists drawn soon it became evident that Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind of the hijackings and the subsequent crash.

The official account of the attack came sooner than anticipated raising some doubt on the real cause. It is argued that the flights flew to the target points from airports far away or made it some hundreds of miles away before turning to fly direct into the targets yet there are international airports from which it only takes three minutes to arrive at World Trade Center. The hijackers instead chose to use routes that would take approximately eight times the normal standard time to reach WTC.

Due to this long time and route taken by the flights it is argued that it would be possible for the planes to be incepted in the air by the air defense operating normally. This raises suspicion about the possibility of a pre-meditated plan by some U.S officials to stage the strike in order to achieve some high end objectives.

Unused tones of aluminothermic explosive were discovered in the rabbles of WTC raising sensitive concerns about their being in the scene. It is argued that aluminothermic explosives can be chemically enhanced to create such destruction as there was in WTC and Pentagon. The argument is that the highly explosive substance might have been used to deliberately bring the twin Towers and the Pentagon down. Prior to this discovery request for a thorough examination of the site to find if there could be evidence of explosives was turned down in the pretext that there could not be explosives used. The government maintained its position that the event was due to planes having been crashed in the buildings.

Before the actual crash it is reported that several events that might link to the day took place. These events raise questions in some quarters. The Pentagon officials cancelled their flight plan on 10^th of the same month, the then mayor of San Francisco was warned not to travel on 10^th the same month, Odigo employees had emailed warnings about the attack two hour earlier than the first crash; this time was enough for necessary actions to be taken since it only took the hijackers approximately forty minutes to reach the target site and the attorney general never flew during the summer of the year 2001. These events have been used to dispute an act of foreign planned terrorism.

The many arguments about the attack of 9/11 in 2001 leave a lot to be questioned. It seems to be a very complicated issue that seeks to make the U.S government culpable and answerable. Some individuals believe the government has been hiding the truth about the incident in which many civilian citizens lost their lives.

Possible link between the 2001 9/11attack and the U.S war in Iraq

It is reported that during a prime time conference the then president Bush mentioned about the September ninth attack and Iraqs Saddam Hussein to the effect of linking the attack to the knowledge and participation of Hussein. He talked about the attack severally but more than that about Hussein (Freedman, 1999, para1). It clearly appeared that President Bush had nursed an interest of invading Iraq and he wanted a way of getting public approval. Seemingly he wanted to create an impression that Hussein played a role in the attacks (Mearsheimer and Walt, 2006, p3-12).

The government succeeded in creating the impression that Hussein was actually culpable in the attacks. Reportedly sources close to the U.S intelligence service revealed that Hussein had not even remote link to the attack. Bin Ladens encouragement for more attacks on U.S created a perception of his possible involvement in the attacks; however, terror experts reported that sharing a common enemy with Osama was not enough reason to make Hussein and Osama to be allies against the United States. Each hated the U.S in his own capacity and on different issue. In fact reports say Osama never liked Saddam Husseins repressive rule in Iraq. But this never exonerated Hussein from links to terrorism (Freedman, 1999, para3).

It clearly emerges that the Bushs administration had created a perception in the public mind that Saddam Hussein was culpable in the 9/11 attack which left thousands of people dead. The administration later made a solid allegation that Saddam was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. It finally found perceived good grounds to invade Iraq.

The U.S. Policy toward Iraq from 9/11/2001 to the U.S.-Iraq War

Immediately after the infamous 9/11 attack on pentagon in 2001, the American security agency started coming up with plan to attack Iraq (Roberts, 2002, para1). The link between Iraq and the attack lacked any proper evidence that would warrant U.S invasion of Iraq. The then defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, was noted to have instructed his top aids with the plans of striking against Iraq immediately the attack was done (Roberts, 2002, para1). The immediacy with which plans to invade Iraq was ordered raises suspicion on the motives of U.S and its government.

After the 9/11 attack on U.S grounds, Bush linked Saddam Hussein to it, however, he later changed and accused Iraq of harboring weapons of mass destruction. George Bush said;

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11^th, 2001&The terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology&.They imagined, in the words of terrorist, that September the 11^th would be the beginning of the end of America&They have failed&The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of Al-Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding. (May 1, 2003  George W. Bush, MBA)

The American policy in the Middle East changed especially concerning Iraq. It wanted inspectors to access Iraq and inspect the possibility of finding weapons of mass destruction, however the U.S was not genuine with this demand because whether the weapons would be found or not it would still strike Iraq. Bushs administration also argued that it was concerned with the plight of innocent Iraqis, so the policy change was also anchored on liberating them from Saddams dictatorship (Anon. 2010, para1-9).

The perceived growth of movements associated with radical Islamists placed Iraq strategically at the mercy of the American policy makers. The presence of these radical movements drove the U.S to re-examine its policy toward Iraq given that the U.S already had a negative perception of the Muslim world. Generally, the U.S policy towards the Middle East has been shifting depending with its interests. Taking for instance, the case for Iran-Iraq war, the U.S had broken its neutrality policy and tilted it to favor Iraq against Iran, later the policy was altered to contain Iraq on some issues the U.S perceived as contentious (Zunes, 2001, para3-10).

A member of the British Joint Intelligence Committee had testified in the hearing about why Britain joined the U.S in the war that Bush administration started discussing about change of regime in Iraq several months before the 9/11 attack. This discussion also came two years before war against terror was officially announced in public (Byrne, 2009, para1). The Bush administration was concerned about the failed sanctions against Iraq including lifting the sanctions if Saddam Hussein allowed the UN inspectors to go back and continue with weapon inspections and imposed no fly zones in some regions.

The U.S government transferred the responsibility of handling Iraq policy to the Pentagon from the State Department. This happened immediately after the 9/11 attacks. Then, Pentagon was headed by a staunch supporter of Iraq war. Probably the transfer of the policy responsibility was to ensure proper execution of every plan against Iran. It is reported that Condoleezza Rice, then U.S National Security Advisor, suggested that Saddam Hussein might have been connected to the attacks. The implication of Hussein in the attacks might have been a common agreement amongst the powerful government officials. It was very clear that the Bush administration was capitalizing on two things to invade Iraq. First, it made the public to perceive Hussein as a sponsor of the attacks, and then claimed that he manufactured weapons of mass destruction (Byrne, 2009, para14).

The U.S had changed its policy toward Iraq in a way to suggest to the world as a whole and American people in specific that Saddam Hussein was dangerous to all nations. It created a picture that the U.S invasion of Iraq would bring to end terrorism and make the world a safe place. The argument of Bush administration was that the policy toward Iraq was beneficial to all nations of the world especially those that neighbored Iraq.

The U.S embarked into series of discussions with the British government then under leadership of Tony Blair. The British, though without provable fact, decided to form an alliance with the U.S to launch an attack that would bring regime change in Iraq (Drury, 2009, para2-5). The British officials are still finding out the truth about it involvement in the war.

Conclusion

The U.S invasion of Iraq had long been planned even before George W. Bush took power. When he got to presidency he was quick to initiate discussions about the toppling of Saddam Husseins regime in Iraq. The events leading to 2001 9/11 attack and the subsequent planning of Iraqs invasion left a lot to be desired as regards the interconnect between the two major events.

It is a possibility that the 9/11 attack was deliberately masterminded to create an opportunity to link Saddam Hussein with global terrorism. This was to pave way for sharp U.S policy change towards Iraq. The U.S brought the British troops on board and also wanted to get the support of the UN; the UN was not supportive of the war in Iraq, however, America and its ally went to war in defiance of UNs advice using insecurity to their citizens as an excuse. U.S was quoted to have said that UN cannot prevent it from defending itself and the life of its people.

It still remains a mystery the connection between the attack on U.S pentagon and the World Trade Center and Iraq and then the claim that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction. After Saddam had been toppled and finally executed there has not been any evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq (Freedman, 1999, para6-11).

The U.S policy in the Middle East has never been stable. It keeps on changing according to situation demand or as their interest in the Middle East dictates. For instance, it had placed the name of Iraq in the list of nations funding and supporting international terrorism. It later removed the name when it realized that it total support to Iraq against Iran would be beneficial. Later after fallout with Iraq, the U.S pursued a relationship with Iran in which the U.S was considering means of bringing an end to Saddams regime in Iraq.

The U.S policy on Iraq was largely selfish and meant to destroy rather than build Iraq. The policy itself which sought to link Iraq to the U.S 9/11 attack has failed to convince the world and both American and British citizens on its legality and relevance. It is actually emerging that there was not need to go to war with Iraq when the real cause was not yet established. The whole issues can be narrowed down to mean that the 9/11 attacks of 2001 were used to allow policy change that would ensure Americans and the whole world support the War on Terror (Byman, 2008, para4).

Works Cited

Anon. Did 2001 justify the Bush Administrations decision to attack Iraq? ProCon.org. Web.

Battle, Joyce. National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82. The George Washington University, 2003. Web.

Byman, Daniel. An Autopsy of the Iraq Debacle. Policy Failure or Bridge Too Far? Informa plc, 2008. Web.

Byrne, John. US discussed Iraq regime change a month after Bush took office, senior British officials. Disqus, 2009. Web.

Drury, Ian. Blair and a deal signed in blood: PM and Bush had secret plan to topple Saddam. Associated Newspapers Ltd, 2009. Web.

Freedman, Robert. Jerusalem center for public affairs. Jerusalem letter, 1999. Web.

Hoffman, Jim. The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows. 911Research.WTC7.net, 2006. Web.

Mearsheimer, John and Walt, Stephen. The Israel Lobby. LRB Ltd. 2006. Web.

Roberts, Joel. Plans for Iraq Attack Began On 9/11. CBS Interactive Inc., 2002. Web.

Zunes, Stephen. U.S. Policy toward Political Islam. Foreign Policy in Focus, 2001. Web.

Introduction

The peace treaty signed at Camp David by the Egyptian and Israel leaders aimed at restoring peace between the two nations. In the run-up to the signing of the treaty in 1979, key players like the US and the UN offered different reasons for the need to have the two nations live peacefully and enjoy cordial international relations. In responding to the key reasons for the Egypt-Israeli peace agreement that came out of the negotiations at Camp David, the report researches on the varied vital factors that pushed the Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat, and the then Israeli premier Menachem Begin to renew their diplomatic relations. Besides, the treatise looks at the key individuals who took part in the formulation of the agreement. Some of the prominent people are Gamal Abdel Nasser, Jimmy Carter, the United Nations, Henry Kissinger, and the then Israeli premier Menachem Begin. The research paper will approach the topic by discussing and analyzing the roles of Sadat in the entire process like his approach to alter Nassers economic policies.

In answering the question, the paper will also research on the role of the UN in influencing Egypts political and economic alignment with the West and the Arab Nations. Besides, the report explores the events and issues that led to the treaty. Similarly, the paper analyses the roles of major players such as in the formulation and realization this treaty. The topic is important for international relations courses as it gives scholars and learners alike the historical approaches vital in formulating long-lasting peace, as well as the possible repercussions of such situations. In the conclusion, the report summarizes the entire aspects of the paper, and opting for the popular reasons and benefits for signing the treaty. Even though analysts from the Arab Nations held that it was a setback as well as a mistake on Egypts side, the conclusion will view the broad prospects of the treaty, such as the long-lasting peace between the two nations. The agreement had numerous positive impacts on the socio-economic and political aspects of the two nations.

Egypts Limited Advantage

The ouster of Egypt from the League of Arab Nations created ripples within the political class. With Israel consolidating an iron-fist rule in the newly captured peninsula and other areas, Egypts chances of military truce with Israel remained bleak. Combination of these factors and Egypts insufficient support from the Arab nations further confined Egypts prospects. Developing a new strategy for cohesive existence between the two nations remained the only viable option. With Israel enjoying military superiority over Egypt, Anwar Sadat harbored limited options. Negotiation and peaceful resolution offered the least expensive route to peace with Israel. It is for this reason that Anwar Sadat took the opportunity when the US and her allied forces instigated peaceful talks between the two countries.

The 1973 War between Egypt and Israel

After the 1967 battle of the Sinai Peninsula, Egypts army looked weak and less superior. When Anwar Sadat visited Israel in an official tour, the league of Arab Nation expelled Egypt from the organization. Considering Anwar Sadats visit as a betrayal to the Palestine and Arabs, Egypt received several sanctions. The oil rich Arab nation stopped funding her military while the United Soviet Socialist Republic remained focused on countering US military structures.¹ Egypt literally lost all her allies. With all these difficulties, Egypt organized a surprise military invasion into Israel in 1973. Even though this invasion found Israel unawares, the retaliatory force organized to counter Egypt was fantastic. Israel won the battle further weakening the Egyptian forces. Egypt seemed out of ideas for a peaceful resolution and co-existence with Israel. Despite most Egyptians and Arabs growing with the conviction that Israel, deserve expulsion from the Middle East, the reality of Israels durability and military superiority donned on Anwar Sadat.² Military options without the support of Arab Nations would mean another war lost. It is for this reason that Anwar Sadat developed soft spot for the US intervention.

UN Resolution 242 and 338

After the 1967 battle of Sinai Peninsula, the UN Security Councils obligation, to protect individual territories and develop a long lasting peace to the Middle East crisis increased. In the 1967 battle Israel took control of Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, and the West Bank from Jordan. Similarly, Syrias close ties with Egypt during this time cost her Golan Heights that became an Israels area of jurisdiction after the war. With Israels attitude of war and conquering of the Arab nations areas of jurisdiction, the world powerful Security Council needed a head start for non-violence route to peaceful resolution. This resolution came up with several recommendations that aimed at developing amicable solutions to the Israel-Egypt crisis. These recommendations came amid serious threats from the Arab world. Egypt and her allies openly declared total war and destruction of Israel. Even though the 242 resolutions recognized sovereignty and vilified absolute aggression into internationally recognized boundaries, they considered Israels capture of the three areas as a form of self-defense against Egypts invasion.³

Yom Kippur war compromised Egypt and Syrias commitment towards the UN Resolution 242 of 1967 that required peaceful negotiation of boundary differences among warring states as Gold denotes.⁴ The 1967 resolution developed a conditional statement of warring parties to avoid and halt military hostilities. Egypt and Syria failed to comply. With inadequate implementation of the Resolution 242, Israel in a reaction to Arab attacks, engaged her military details. With the international community divided on what steps to take against the Arab Nations, Israels military capability continued to dwindle even though it had the ability to eliminate the leading neighbors. Compelled by the fatalities in the war, America Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger led a delegation to the USSR to compel the Arab Nations and Israel to reach a compromise. Even though this resolution and peace talks created cohesive relationship between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, Lebanon remained relatively adamant. With Egypts president showing the will to develop a ceasefire between his country and Egypt, a prerequisite for peaceful negotiation arose.⁵

International Community Pressure

Understanding the drivers of the peace pact between Egypt and Israel requires the in depth analysis of the role of international community. During this period, the USs close ties with Israel based on Israels insurgency against the Arab world continued to rise. These ties however, compromised the USs relationship with her Arab oil suppliers. US complete support of the Israels war against the Arabs presented a situation that would compromise Egypts economic ties with the Arab oil producers. In order to protect her interests, the US organized peace talks with the Arab nations to reach a compromise. These talks held in Geneva to develop round table settlement of the boundary wars in the Middle East presented an opportunity for the warring countries to table their grievances. Telhami, in his analysis of the scenario presented in these talks argues that the talks presented the Arab nations with a great advantage to develop an amiable solution to the conflict.⁶ This, Telhami claims, remained possible given the number of Arab nations involved in the talks. It is for this reason that Israel pulled out of the Geneva talks to initiate bilateral talks with individual countries. The role of international community remains evident in developing an amicable ground for Israels bargain in the talks. The bilateral talk came during a period of relaxed boundary stance from both Israel and Egypt.

Henry Alfred Kissingers Role in Camp David Accords

As the secretary of state for the Carter administration, Henry Kissinger played an integral in the negotiation and signing of the Camp David Accords. The peace pact signing began with Kissingers shuttle diplomacy that acted as an intermediary and peace broker between Egypt and Israel. Driven by the desire to dissociate Egyptian policy from the crisis, Kissinger aimed at developing a sustainable political relationship between Egypt and Israel. For the Syrian case, Kissinger remained relatively in support of Israels hostile stance on the Syrian activities on her land. Kissinger, with his relatively neutral stance on the Egypt-Israel crisis provided a starting for the negotiating parties. The shuttle diplomacy took place in a series of small confidence building sessions within the warring parties before the eventual invitation to the Camp David negotiation table. In this confidence building Kissinger reaffirmed the support of Israel insurgency against the Egyptian raid but maintained that the Sinai Peninsula existed in Egypts territory thus Israel had the obligation of returning the peninsula to Egyptian authority. Even though the shuttle diplomacy offered little helped to the crisis, it provided a starting point for President Carter led negotiations in 1978.

Sadats Personal Initiative

After the Second World War, Britain handed India independence but failed to hand over the Suez Canal to the Egyptian authorities. With Egypts government failure to marshal the force and develop a comprehensive governance structures created animosity between the ruling class, the landowners, and the populations. The resultant situation further created instability with King Faruq rule. All these factors followed by the loss of the Israel-Arab war between 1947 and 1949, further exposed Egypt into a state of continuous crisis. It was during this time that, Gamal Abdel Nasser and thirteen other junior officers, often known as the Fourteen Free Officers set up a coup de tat that seemed to revamped the older regime into a stable economy. In order to execute this act, Nasser with this group of reformist and relatively moderate Muslims developed a series of equality measures within the land ownership structures to reduce the disparities stemmed in place by the previous regimes⁷.

Nasser and the thirteen counterparts hailed from the local villages composed of alienated and politically marginalized peasant proprietors, minor government employees, and petty merchants. Even though some of the supported of this course hailed from the relatively able middle class, the fourteen free officers staged and equalization goal that aimed at wealth distribution, equal representation, and improvement of the democratic space⁸. To the Muslims extremists, he represented a show of support and diversion to the western culture, thus an insult to the Muslim doctrines. Free officers based their military coup on six points aimed at destruction of the British rule in the country, elimination of the political leaders in Egypt who showed support for the British rule, and pushing out the culture of feudalism.

Similarly, the group aimed at establishment of a social justice system devoid of influence from the political class, devolution of resources from centralized control, creation of a strong cohesive army with patriotic outlook, and improvement of democratic and civil rights of the marginalized Egyptian populations. From all these undertaking, Nasser as the head of the group that later formed the Revolutionary Command Council showed a series of moderation and readiness for compromising blood shade for the sake of peace and development. Despites this group lacking an original political or military ideology, its basic goal aimed and creating equality, improving the lives of the marginalized communities, and creating a society with uttermost respect to human rights and democratic space. This background on the rise of Nasser shows an innate driver for creation of peace and development in Egypt thus stands high chances of playing a great role in Nassers engagement in the talks with Israel over their conflicts⁹.

According to Bickerton and Klausner, several factors compelled Anwar Sadat to develop a moderate stand with Israels durability and occupation of the Middle East.¹⁰ After his army failed to capture and regain Sinai Peninsula in two military invasions, it became clear to Sadat that a military option remained bleak and impossible. This coupled with pan-Arabic interests from allied states created difficulty for Anwar Sadat led Egypt to reach a compromise with Israel. With a failed Geneva framework, it remained evident to Sadat the Israel threat needed a peaceful bilateral negotiation. Similarly, Anwar Sadat felt Egypts religious and historical de facto control of the Arab world remained under threat thus the US presented the a better ally for economic and political stability. Even though the US-Egypt relationship remained relatively unofficial, the USSR showed clear indication of disengagement in the Egypt and Israel crisis.¹¹ This presented a working field for both parties who looked uncomfortable with dealing with the Soviets hence diversion towards the US.

Nasser, brought up from a relatively humble background developed an attitude bias to socialism in the management and development of the Egyptian economy. With the help from the thirteen other Free Officers unit, Nasser established a system that created a state of equality and equity in distribution of national and state resources. The Charter and the National Constitution approved in 1962, created an Egypt with a rejuvenated population aiming at achieving freedom, socialism, and unity. Through the Arab Socialist Union, Nasser and his allies ensured strong bondage between Egypt and the Arab states¹². Therefore, when the league of Arab Nations expelled Egypt from the union due to Nassers relatively moderate attitude towards the US, the Camp David accords provided Nasser with the opportunity to reaffirm his commitment to securing Egypt at all cost. Developing a working relationship with Israel, an enemy of the League of Arab Nations, helped Nasser take back the Sinai Peninsula Israel conquered in 1967.

The Camp David Negotiations

Even though the talks took place at a relatively luxurious setting in Maryland, several authors of the proceedings of this historical activity, like Geddes argue that the process took place in a concentrated, secluded, and domineering set up.¹³ According to Hinton, the talks that began with one-on-one talks between the mediator and individual warring parties came into series of standstills given the inadequate trust and individual mistakes.¹⁴ Tension arose when Jimmy Carter, the mediator, leaked to Israel the talking points presented by the Egypts government.¹⁵ Egypt felt betrayed and disrespected further derailing the talks. However, with consistent persuasion from the mediator and revelation to Egypt, the factors that Israel looked forward to compromising, the talks managed to get back to its feet.

Hans Morgenthaus Five Prerequisites of Compromise appeared during this talks especially from Israels side for example the will to give Sinai Peninsula to Egypt.¹⁶ This move falls in the principle of giving up the shadow of worthless rights for issues of greater benefits. Israels conquest of Sinai offered the country insufficient benefits apart from the show of military prowess. However, for Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula represented an historical and cultural asset that needed saving. From Hans perspective, Israels willingness to compromise her occupation aimed at neutralizing Egypt, thus earning a relatively better advantage. Similarly, the concessions to hand over Sinai Peninsula to Egypt help Israel divert international attention from her war with Palestine.¹⁷

Conclusion

In retrospect, the Camp Davids agreement had many players; it had numerous consequences on the relation between Egypt and the US, as well as Egypt and the Arab Nations. Players like Henry Kissinger, Anwar Sadat, Jimmy Carter, and Menachem Begin played key roles in ensuring political stability between Israel and Egypt. Notably, the Nobel Peace Prize committee strengthened their appreciation of the peaceful treaty when they awarded Begin and Anwar Sadat a joint peace price. Despite all these positive advances, the Arab world remained adamant in appreciating Israels occupation of the Middle East. Even though Islamic extremists viewed the agreement as a betrayal to the doctrines of the Arabian culture, and went on to assassinate Sadat, the Camp David accord offered a relatively effective solution to the war between Israel and Egypt.

Bibliography

Bickerton, IJ & CL Klausner, A History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 5th edn, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2007.

Blum, H, The Eve of Destruction: The Untold Story of the Yom Kippur War, HarperCollins, New York, 2003.

Connell, J & V Loeb, Kings Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, W.W. Norton, New York, 2011.

Clevend WL & M Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East, Westview Press, Central Avenue, Boulder, 2009.

Eisenberg, LZ & N Caplan, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace Patterns, Problems, Possibilities, Indiana UP, Bloomington, Ind., 1998.

Geddes, L, A Documentary History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Praeger, Bloomington, Ind., 1991.

Gold, D, Israels Right to Secure Boundaries: Four Decade since UN Security Council Resolution 242: The Proceedings of a Conference Held in Jerusalem, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem, 2009.

Hinton, CA, Camp David Accords, Eagle Eds., Bowie, Md., 2004.

Kurtzer, D & S Lasensky, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East, United States Institute of Peace, Washington, D.C., 2008.

Laqueur, W, The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict, 6^th edn, Penguin, New York, 2001.

Mahler, GS & ARW Mahler, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: An Introduction and Documentary Reader, Routledge, London, 2010.

Morris, B, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999, Knopf, New York, 1999.

Quandt, WB, Camp David: Peacemaking and Politics, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1986.

Smith, CD, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 8^th edn, Bedford/St. Martins, Boston, MA, 2013.

Telhami, S, The Camp David Accords a Case of International Bargaining, Columbia UP, New York, 2001.

Wagner, HL, Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin: Negotiating Peace in the Middle East, Chelsea House, New York, 2007.

Footnotes

1. H Blum, The Eve of Destruction: The Untold Story of the Yom Kippur War, HarperCollins, New York, 2003, p. 49.

2. J Connell & V Loeb, Kings Counsel: A Memoir of War, Espionage, and Diplomacy in the Middle East, W.W. Norton, New York, 2011, p. 127.

3. CD Smith, , Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 8^th edn, Bedford/St. Martins, Boston, MA, 2013, p. 89.

4. D Gold, Israels Right to Secure Boundaries: Four Decade since UN Security Council Resolution 242: The Proceedings of a Conference Held in Jerusalem, June 4, 2007, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Jerusalem, 2009, p. 22.

5. B Morris, Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999, Knopf, New York, 1999, p. 72.

6. S Telhami, The Camp David Accords a Case of International Bargaining, Columbia UP, New York, 2001, p. 10.

77. WL Clevend & M Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East, Westview Press, Central Avenue, Boulder, 2009, p. 303.

88. WL Clevend & M Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East, Westview Press, Central Avenue, Boulder, 2009, p. 308.

99. WL Clevend & M Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East, Westview Press, Central Avenue, Boulder, 2009, p. 314.

10. IJ Bickerton & CL Klausner, A History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 5th edn, Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2007, p. 77.

11. W Laqueur, The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict, 6^th edn, Penguin, New York, 2001, p. 54.

1212. WL Clevend & M Bunton, A History of the Modern Middle East, Westview Press, Central Avenue, Boulder, 2009, p. 320.

13. L Geddes, A Documentary History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, Praeger, Bloomington, Ind., 1991, p. 31.

14. CA Hinton, Camp David Accords, Eagle Eds., Bowie, Md., 2004, p. 69.

15. D Kurtzer & S Lasensky, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace: American Leadership in the Middle East, United States Institute of Peace, Washington, D.C., 2008, p. 70.

16. LZ Eisenberg & N Caplan, Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace Patterns, Problems, Possibilities, Indiana UP, Bloomington, Ind., 1998, p. 63.

17. WB Quandt, Camp David: Peacemaking and Politics, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C., 1986, p. 21.

I would like to articulate my interest in improving my knowledge and professional skills at the School of Diplomacy and International Relations of Seton Hall University as a Master’s degree student.

As a priority in my desired field, Diplomacy and International Relations have always influenced my choice of study. Diplomacy and International Relations is a major factor in the development of any community and it has considerable importance for keeping peace in society. Society needs diligent leaders to protect its interests, ensure the welfare of the society, and secure internal tranquillity within society at the same time with neighboring countries. This is a reason why, as my aspiration to be one of those successful leaders, my academic background is based on mostly two major disciplines, History and Political sciences which are some of the core subjects in diplomacy. The study of conflicts, international relations, and diplomacy could substantially be seen as understanding the way individual actors relate to each other. It, therefore, holds the potential to polarise but also to include confident cooperation, which summarises my ideas, thoughts, and hopes as to why I wish to pursue this interest.

Since I have been introduced to World politics and Diplomacy through my brother who is currently Turkmenistan Ambassador in Belgium. Conversations with him increased my interest in International Relations and world Policy. I realized that I was lucky enough to meet him. The consultation we had between have encouraged me to know more about world policy and has aroused my desire to become a world prominent Diplomat.

My passion is to gain an understanding of new political and international approaches and analyses which will give me the proper and expanded knowledge. The aforementioned reasons drive my will to study international relations and Diplomacy. As an enthusiastic and extremely motivated student, I would love to experience and look toward the challenges that such a prestigious course that Seton Hall University would offer me.

During my M.A. degree in India, I gained a plethora of ideas and knowledge about the affairs of Politics and International Relations. I have attended several international conferences and workshops where Global issues of International Relations and Politics were looked into, during my B. A degree as well as an M.A degree.

I always ponder why the continent I came from (Asia) and other parts of the world are plaque with civil and tribal wars, political crises, and slow economic growth. Most of the peace talks usually the time turn out to be futile thus paving the way for more disputes and political problems in our society. After a careful analysis of the entire situation, I realize that the world needs more leaders with strong technical and analytical skills to sort out these problems. As a result, I am motivated to pursue a master’s degree in Diplomacy and International Relations to enhance my skills in diplomacy. This is going to lead me to my future career ambition of being a diplomat.

After mindful and long research of many universities in terms of their programs and course structures, I have decided to apply to the School of Diplomacy and International Relations of Seton Hall University because of its well-defined Master of Arts in diplomacy. If the opportunity is given to pursue my further studies at your honored University, it will facilitate me to build up new perspectives and new tactics in the ground of dealing with any raised critical matters in this field that is encountered in my challenging journey to Diplomacy.

I am extremely enthusiastic and avid about my decision to pursue a Master’s degree in diplomacy at Seton Hall University. In conclusion, I am confident to promise to be one of the outstanding and elegant students and to make a difference. That is why I am kindly asking for a chance to fulfill and accomplish my goals at your university.

At the beginning of the 20th century, the field of international relations developed primarily in the West and, in particular, in the United States, as that country rose in power and influence. While the study of international relations in the recently created Soviet Union and later in Communist China was suppressed by the officially enforced Marxist ideology, the field expanded in the West as a result of a variety of factors: an increasing desire for a less-dangerous and more effective methods of controlling relations between cultures, communities, governments, and economies; an increase in research and publishing. and serve human betterment; and the popularization of political affairs, including foreign affairs.

The conventional view that international and military concerns should be the exclusive domain of rulers and other insiders has led to the assumption that such concerns constitute an important concern and obligation for all people. This growing popularization of international relations strengthened the notion that education, in general, should provide training in foreign affairs and that information should be advanced in the interests of greater public influence and oversight of foreign and military policy.

This new perspective was articulated by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson (1913–21) in his program for relations between the Great Powers following a settlement of World War I.

The pre-World War I International Relations Scholarship was undertaken mainly in two loosely structured fields of learning: diplomatic history and international law. Involving meticulous archives and other primary-source research, diplomatic history underscored the uniqueness of international events and the methods of diplomacy that have actually taken place. International law — especially the law of war — has a long history in international relations and has been seen as a source of basic normative principles of international behavior. The rise of international relations was intended to expand the reach of international law beyond the conventional focal point.

The Importance of International Relations

International relations are particularly significant elements of leadership in a global community. As our world grows smaller and smaller through technologies, rapid air travel, and a dynamic international economy, the importance of peaceful and cooperative ties between nations is becoming increasingly relevant.

Peace

Historically, the establishment of treaties and agreements between nations was one of the oldest expressions of foreign relations. Maintaining these treaties meant that common citizens could carry out their regular tasks of making a living and raising their families rather than dedicating themselves to armed confrontation with neighbours. Today, this role in international relations remains just as important. While there are still countries out there that have a long way to go before peace negotiations can be signed, some, such as North Korea and South Korea, are making peace gestures that have left the world stunned, but optimistic.

Economy

Positive international relations often encourage successful trade policies between nations, both in terms of importing natural resources and finished goods not available in one country and in terms of gaining access to the wider market offered by exports to foreign countries. International affairs describe the conditions and limits of cross-border trade in terms of tariffs, transport routes, trade controls, goods that can and can not be traded, etc. International relations also show the rest of the world the influence of countries in some sectors that other countries really need to rely on. For example, Korea and Japan export most automobiles, while China exports many different types of electronics, and Colombia exports coffee.

Immigration

Besides transporting goods across foreign borders, people very often move between countries, searching for opportunities to change their lives. Such travel can be temporary or permanent, but in any case, it must be monitored in order to ensure the rule of law — criminals must be held out of the country while legitimate company, visitor, and immigrant travel are upheld. International affairs play a crucial role in shaping border protection policies.

Global Concerns

Nations also face global challenges that are greater than any single nation or continent, such as environmental crises, pandemics, and terrorism. Sound international relations are needed to ensure that nations collaborate effectively to address these challenges, enabling nations to exchange relevant information quickly and pool resources.

Culture

International relations are not just about controlling and influencing the movement of goods and information, but also about promoting the development of human culture in a general way. Diversity of world cultures can be encouraged and exchanged by informed foreign relations strategies, enabling initiatives such as student exchanges and cultural exhibits to improve our awareness of the diversity of human speech in the world. Often, big events like the Olympics or the World Cup make it possible for people from all over the world to come together and understand our similarities and differences.

Advantages of International relation

1. Earning valuable foreign currency: a nation is in a position to gain valuable foreign currency by exporting its goods to other countries.
2. Division of labor: foreign affairs contribute to a specialization in the production of products. Therefore, the quality of the goods for which it has the highest benefit.
3. Optimum use of available resources: foreign relations minimize waste Global resources, please. It allows each country to make the most of its natural resources. Of country produces those products for which it has the most advantage.
4. Increasing people’s standard of living: the selling of surplus production from one nation to another contributes to a rise in the income and savings of the people of the former country. This increases the standard of living of the citizens of the exporting country.
5. Benefits to consumers: Customers also benefit from foreign affairs. They have access to a range of products of higher quality at fair prices. Consumers in importing countries are also gained as they have a strong range of goods.
6. Encouragement to industrialization: the sharing of technical know-how enables underdeveloped and developing countries to create new industries with the support of foreign aid. International affairs thus lead to the growth of the industry.
7. International peace and harmony: international relations eradicate conflict between different countries and foster international peace and harmony. It generates dependency on one another and increases mutual trust and good faith.
8. Cultural development: foreign relations promote the exchange of culture and ideas between countries with greater diversity. A better way of life, clothes, food, etc. may be adapted from other countries.
9. Economies of large-scale production: international relations contribute to large-scale production due to high demand. All countries of the world will benefit from the advantages of large-scale production
10. Stability in prices of products: international relations are ironing out large variations in the prices of products. This leads to a stabilization of the prices of goods in the world.
11. Widening the market for products: international relations are widening the demand for products all over the world. As the size of the operation rises, the profits of the company increase.
12. Advantageous in emergencies: international relations allow us to face an emergency. In the case of natural disasters, products can be imported in order to satisfy the requirements.
13. Creating employment opportunities: international relations improve employment opportunities in an export-oriented economy. It increases the standard of living of countries engaged in foreign business.
14. Increase in Government revenue: The Government imposes foreign trade duties on this trade. The Government is thus in a position to make a great deal of money from foreign affairs.

Disadvantages of International Relations

1. Adverse effects on the economy: one country, through foreign affairs, influences the economy of another country. In addition, large-scale exports discourage the industrial growth of importing countries. As a result, the economy of the importing country is suffering.
2. Competition with developed countries: developing nations are not in a position to compete with developed countries. It hinders the growth and development of developing countries unless foreign ties are regulated.
3. Rivalry among nations: fierce competition and willingness to export more resources can lead to rivalry between nations. As a result, world stability can be hindered.
4. Colonization: The importing country is often reduced to a colony due to economic and political dependency and industrial backwardness.
5. Exploitation: international relations contribute to the exploitation of developed countries by developing countries. Prosper and powerful countries control the economy of poor nations.
6. Legal problems: Various laws and customs formalities have been practiced by various nations, and have a clear earring on their export and import trade.
7. Publicity of undesirable fashions: Cultural traditions and history are not the same in all countries. There are several things that may not be adapted to our climate, history, tradition, etc. This indecency is also found to have occurred in the name of cultural exchange.
8. Language problems: Different languages in different nations create obstacles to the establishment of trade ties between different countries.
9. Complicated technical procedure: International relations are extremely specialized and have a complicated process. It includes different uses of essential records. It needed professional services to deal with complicated procedures at various levels.
10. Shortage of goods in the exporting country: Often merchants tend to sell their products to other countries instead of to their own countries in order to make more money. This results in a shortage of commodities in the home country.
11. Adverse effects on the home industry: International relations create a threat to the viability of infant and developing industries. Future industries in the home country could collapse due to foreign competition and unregulated imports.

In this paper, I’ll argue about whereas international relations started in 1648 or they did not. My personal belief is that from a legal or formal approach, it is conceived as a starting point that later on, I’ll proceed to reason my arguments. But social interactions among states, for example regards to trade, they started way before. During decades scholars had been discussing whereas the Peace of Westphalia is the beginning of international relation or it is just an Eurocentric narrative for history and they had begun earlier. There are different approaches to this issue but all of them must be considered since they show different manners to look at the history.

Thus, it is true and important to take into consideration that having Westphalia as a starting point for international relations, is equal as narrowing the scope of research and not providing broader information, at least in my opinion. As historians and students we cannot accept only the Westphalian narrative as starting point for international system nor societies as English scholars—i.e., Hedley Bull, Martin Wight—defend in their work. We need to question history furtherer for example, made an approach to the Sumerian or even to the hunter-gathers and their interactions.[footnoteRef:1] Before arguing the different approximations of whereas international relations begun in 1648 or not, it is appropriate to think about what happened during that period of time. [1: Barry Buzan and Richard Little, ‘International Systems in World History’, In ‘Introduction’ pp. 1-13, Oxford University Press. 2000.]

The Peace of Westphalia, bought an end to the Thirty Years War and the major European leaderships sought to establish an alikeness of system and arrangement in an otherwise anarchical and disorderly world.[footnoteRef:2] Its purpose was to reduce the sovereignty of transitional forces—in that time were the empire and religion— of spiritual authority and instead compartmentalise territory and individuals into a sovereign states. In my opinion, I think that it is of great importance to emphasise that this only implied European states. That helped to construct the Westphalian narrative and helped the Western nations with the denying the ‘non-civilised’ nations because they were not part of the statehood. It is quite based on the differentiation between the Western as a exceptionalism territory and nations versus the non-Western nations lack of this exceptionalism until they enter into contact with the West, it was in some way a ‘standards’ of civilisations. But being important for a war-torn and a formality of interaction does not mean that it is the departure point of international relations. [2: Anders Henriksen, International Law, Chapter 1 in ‘foundations and structure of IL’ sub. 1.2.2. Oxford University Press, Second Edition, 2019.]

First of all, and for considering each approach, there must be an approximation to historians who argue that IR begun with the Peace of Westphalia. Some scholars, as mentioned before, the ones from English School in the 1960s firmly believe in the Eurocentrism Westphalian narrative, and in the constructivists international relations scholarships too. They apply the birth of religious tolerance and the international political structure to the European territory[footnoteRef:3]. Thus, accredited an Eurocentric account of international history and conformation, that distorts the general understanding of International Relations since it only focus on Western territory.[footnoteRef:4] Granted mention to Bull, a British Scholar, the Peace of Westphalia “marked the emergence of an international society as distinct from a mere international system, the acceptance by states of rules and institutions binding on them in their relations with one another, and of a common interest in maintaining them”[footnoteRef:5]. This school have been particularly criticised for their Eurocentrism. [3: Patterson, Thomas C. (1997) ‘Inventing Western Civilisation’, New York: Monthly Review Press] [4: Kayaoglu, Turkan (2010), ‘Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory’. International Studies Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.193-217.] [5: Bull, Hedley. (1992). The importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations. In Hugo Grotius and International Relations, edited by H. Bull, B. Kingsbury, and A. Roberts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 75-76.]

As I said in the first paragraph, I do partly believe in the Peace of Westphalia as the touchstone for International Relations for several reasons. Firstly, for the fact of its relationship with international law and the installation of a society of states. Thus, it is because Westphalia was looked as a written reason of international law due to the conception that it established a sort of status quo and this lead to a society feeling of commonness among them.[footnoteRef:6] Also as a source of procedure and law in the state system achieved thanks to the shared cultural framework or understanding that stars the Peace of Westphalia.[footnoteRef:7] From that period of time, law experienced a shift from the jus naturale—used during the time of the Catholic Roman Empire and the Catholic Church—and perceived to be greater than jus gentium to the later. Since the 17th century, the concept of jus gentium take a primary role in law and was from where international law as we know it today derived. In the post-1945 era, the English School in the 1960s promoted the use of the Westphalian narrative as the conception of the foundation of a European institutionalised common principles and institutions that supply a form of international society. These scholars have made a use of the Westphalian treaty to understand international relations.[footnoteRef:8] For my personal believe it is the point in history when international relations changed into a field of study and a categorisation in history with capital letters ‘International Relations’ instead of international relations. [6: Von Treitschke, Heinrich ([1916] 1963). ‘Politics’, edited by Hans Kohn, translated by Blanche Dugdale and Torben de Bille. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.] [7: Morgenthau, Hans (1948) ‘Politics among Nations’ New York: Alfred A. Knopf.] [8: Clark Ian (2005), ‘Legitimacy in International Society’, Oxford: Oxford University Press.]

Although I think in a similar way in some aspects, it is of my personal believe also that this approach and conception of the international society is made from a biased Eurocentric point of view and as a consequence, made them ignore what was happening outside this Western society.

In the other hand, I also think that it is important to emphasise in the pre-national system and the three waves of international relations, that gave us a more broader scenario for the knowledge of the international relations and it is not that biased from the Eurocentric narrative,. Also there is a geographical expansion, that means that it is not only a study on the European territory, it is also along the time and around the globe. On the contrary of what I explained on the first argumentation, there are other professors and historians who want to make broader our sense of international systems, and they argue that international relations did not begun in 1648, that there were previous interactions among nation-states. In my personal believe, this approach it is also right but from a more social interaction point instead of the more legal point that I argued before.

If the International Relations begun in 1648 or not, will remain a topic to be the centre of discussion for many scholars. But I personally think that it does not start in that year specifically, there was previous interactions that can be also interpreted as international relations. But it is true that helps scholars to set a beginning to start their researches or to teach others, it is more likely to be a departure point instead of the truth. Also the Westphalian Peace, as I said before, it was important for the emergence and establishment of the International Law and the establishment of a field of study. Dating the start in 1648, in my opinion, is more a research tool rather than the truly start, but further studies in previous times and in places that not only contain the West must be made in order to be really international also to render the opportunity to students and other scholars to organise its knowledge.

Bibliography:

1. Bull, Hedley. (1992). The importance of Grotius in the Study of International Relations. In Hugo Grotius and International Relations, edited by H. Bull, B. Kingsbury, and A. Roberts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 75-76.
2. Buzan, Barry and Little, Richard, ‘International Systems in World History’, In ‘Introduction’ pp. 1-13, Oxford University Press. 2000.
3. Clark, Ian (2005), ‘Legitimacy in International Society’, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Henriksen, Anders. International Law, Chapter 1 in ‘foundations and structure of IL’ sub. 1.2.2. Oxford University Press, Second Edition, 2019.
5. Kayaoglu, Turkan (2010), ‘Westphalian Eurocentrism in International Relations Theory’. International Studies Review, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.193-217.
6. Patterson, Thomas C. (1997) ‘Inventing Western Civilisation’, New York: Monthly Review Press.
7. Schmidt, Sebastian (2011) ‘To Order the Minds of Scholars: The Discourse of the Peace of Westphalia in International Relations literature’. International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3 (September 2011), pp. 601-623.
8. Von Treitschke, Heinrich ([1916] 1963). ‘Politics’, edited by Hans Kohn, translated by Blanche Dugdale and Torben de Bille. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
9. Hershey, Amos S. (1912) ‘History of International Law Since the Peace of Westphalia’. The American Journal of International Law 6(1), pp 30-69.
10. Morgenthau, Hans (1948) ‘Politics among Nations’ New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Interconnecting political science and international relations is the key to global connection. Studying for a degree in international relations would help me unlock the key skills in order to help better global relationships. I have always been fascinated by what occurs in society day to day and the diplomatic problems that different countries face. Helping solve problems such as nationalism and militarism in Turkey leading to inequalities facing the Kurdish population has been an intriguing prospect to me. This has encouraged me to look into politics and how as a young adult I can involve myself in these decisions that happen around us and strive to make this wonderful world we live in a better place.

Without even acknowledging it politics has an impact on our lives every day in ways we wouldn’t even believe. Therefore, this attracts me to the subject as I would like to be involved in the discussions that may affect our generation and those after ours. Since I was young, I have been following the news as much as possible and it really surprises me how much public affairs occur among us whether it is In the UK or elsewhere and I believe that studying International Relations can help me look into it more in-depth for my higher education and boost my knowledge in the topic.

Furthermore, being a teenager with a black African background and seeing the state of the countries In Africa and the poverty they’re living in through social media, the news, newspapers, and personal visits motivate me to want to make a change and try to have an influence on their living conditions for the better. I believe that by studying international relations I can gain the skills necessary to make a difference in the upcoming future for my country and resolve unnecessary conflicts that occur around us.

During my free time, I enjoy reading when not occupied with school work. A book that furthered my interest in international relations and the topic of politics, in general, is a book called ‘The Twenty Years Crisis, 1919-1939’. This book has enhanced my interest in international relations as the issues spoken about in the book still have relevance to what happens during this day in time and how issues can be resolved and dealt with fairly without any difficult disputes.

In the sixth form, I am currently studying for a Btec Business Level 3 Extended Diploma, and having studied this for the last year or so, I have learned a lot about the business industry and as well as that I have learned about how things work within the global business industry, and what kind of disputes occur with businesses. As well as that, I have taken part as a member of the chaplaincy team and as part of the team, I helped organize events such as a school football tournament and charity walks. In addition, taking part in this helped me gain speaking and organizational skills around others.

Additionally, I want to study for a degree in International Relations as it is not restricted to one job type. Having interests in other subjects such as law, this degree can lead me to various different routes in life such as Politics, Law, Psychology, diplomat, intelligence specialist, etc. These are jobs I am attracted to as I really enjoy debating and discussing with others, so if I would be able to debate about situations evolving around the world; I can have an impact on the lives of many people in the world we live in.

I selected the article, “Singing Our World Into Existence: International Relations Theory and September 11,” written by Steve Smith. This article was sourced from the International Studies Quarterly and was published by Wiley on behalf of the International Studies Association in 2004. This paper is structured as follows: in the first section I will address Smith’s main arguments and introduce the scholars he engages with throughout the text. In the second section, I will reveal the major problems the author associates with international relations theory. The discipline holds prevailing assumptions which have endured since the era following World War Two. In addition, it fails to include multiple forms of violence which the author contends are what led to the events of 9/11. The author further holds that the discipline was founded on the interests and policy concerns of the Western powers, which established a narrow agenda for the international realm. In the third section I provide the solutions that Smith suggests will improve the traditionally defined theory of international relations. Finally, in the fourth section I describe how Smith uses the artwork from Magritte and Velazquez as a way to show how interpretation and representation are factors to consider in the construction of knowledge within the practice of international relations.

Smith argues it is critical for the international relations discipline to evaluate the ways in which we have framed theories about world politics and we must scrutinize the underlying logic behind the construction of these theories. The author engages with a variety of scholars throughout the text which reinforce his main arguments. Smith shows that Weber argued for the nature of science as a vocation by highlighting the distinction between the academic and the political. Weber sets the stage for a coherent argument regarding the separation of facts and values in academic work. This argument serves as a stepping stone for the succeeding sections of the article because Smith connects Weber’s work to the complexities of the theories and approaches that have dominated the discipline. Following this, Smith itemizes the competing perspectives of international relations through the research of Robert Keohane, Peter Katzenshetin, and Stephen Krasner on the rationalist and constructivist theories. Smith introduces the issues of epistemology through the workings of Wendt, Ronald Jepperson and Katzenstein which I found important for evaluating the way in which international relations was initially constructed. The engagement with these scholars is significant for understanding the disciplines path dependancy, constituting asymmetrical outcomes at the international level.

Smith reveals several issues pertaining to the existing international relations discipline. These problems stem from the ten core assumptions of the international relations theory which Smith further unpacks to explain the controversy surrounding these particular claims. The author problematizes the discipline through the critiques of its assumptions and practices, arguing they created the space for the events to occur on September 11, 2001. The overarching problem of the theory is the notion that the state is the primary unit of analysis because it has excluded alternative forms of violence, including the acts of 9/11. Additionally, the discipline is fragmented and limited in its scope because of its one supporting vision of the world established by the Western Powers. Traditionally, these superpowers defined the concepts of balance of power and war and adopted policy concerns that were of significance to only those nations. This established narrative has dominated the discourse of international relations theory today, sustaining these partisan views.

Despite there being a number of complexities with the existing theory of international relations, Smith accounts for some possible solutions that would refine the framework of the theory. The author seeks for the theory to incorporate intellectual pluralism which would refrain from assuming the subject’s rationality, interests, and identities. Smith suggests that the discipline should evolve from one single vision of the world to concentrating on a multitude of issues in the new millennium of world politics. This kind of concentration requires diversity. Integrating positivist views of international relations will effectively open up its ability to solve various issues globally. We must reflect on who devised these rules to uncover the truth about the world and how knowledge has been historically constructed.

The United Nations Human Development organization does not function in accordance with the international relations theory. However, in response to the catastrophic events of 9/11, the 2002 Human Development report focused primarily on violence in international relations. The report established the concept of human security which opened up the capacity for including multiple forms of violence. Owing to the essence of the international relations theory, this report was ineffective considering these alternate forms of violence are not recognized within the discipline. This is relevant to Smith’s argument which he emphasizes the importance of questioning the subjectivity of international relations and its underlying set of assumptions. It is these efforts that can reconstruct the theory and its path dependent way of thinking.

This article challenged my understanding of international relations because in the context of Smith’s analysis of the discipline, it was evident that the practice of international relations was a by-product of Western views and interests. Furthermore, I recognized how the world has become consumed with stylized ways of talking about international relations which have blinded us to the constant asymmetrical outcomes. The interconnection of Foucault’s ‘Order of Things’, and the paintings of Magritte and Velazquez was significant because each figure effectively challenged the way reality is understood and represented. The author logically connected Magritte’s artwork to the social world, compelling me to rethink the relationship between the individual and the world they live in. Foucaults ‘Order of Things,’ was helpful for explaining how the Las Meninas painting by Velazquez questioned the nature of representation. This challenges my understanding of international relations because it illustrates how the world lacks the definitive ground on which to pronounce a singular interpretation, as international relations has historically sought to do. Therefore we are caught up in a circle of misunderstanding and we must demarcate the variability of truth that encircle the world.

Introduction:

The above mentioned statement is true to a large extent and will be justified by discussing race and how it plays a role in being a central organizing feature of world politics. Another focal point in this essay will be International Relations, explaining what it is and discussing why race is essential to understanding the world.

What is the International Relations?

The International Relations is quite a complex concept to grasp. In short, (The Columbia Electronic Encyclopaedia,2013) Explains international relations as the “study of relations among states and other political and economic units in the international system.” Along with this explanation it can be understood that international relations as a whole, is the relationship between countries at a global level.

Globally, should automatically mean that everyone should be included, however the article, Why Race Matters in International Relations notes the “big 3” paradigm’s which will be later explained, has more of an appeal and favours the Western worldview a lot more than other world view’s which in turn means that not everyone is in fact included. The article notes that there is also a gap between the amount of non-white students to white students. There is also no field of studies within International Studies that is specifically allocated for race, which also adds to why the International Relations can be viewed as not dealing with race accordingly.

The “Big 3”:

According to Zvogbo and Loken, the “big 3” as they stated in they stated in the article is the paradigms which the International Relations follow. Namely, realism, liberalism and constructivism and the importance of understanding what these paradigms are vital as is easier to link the International Relations and Race together.

Realism:

Realism, according to the “set of related theories of international relations that emphasizes the role of the state, national interest, and military power in world politics.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica,2017). Another important term within realism is balance of power, “whereby states act so as to prevent any one state dominating” (Smith, Owens, Baylis:2014,P.4)

Liberalism:

Liberalism, was an ideology that originated in the West and follows key ideas such as individualism, freedom and equality which was the main idea behind liberalism. Classical liberalism follows the central theme of individualism and has a rather negative approach to individualism and has a negative outlook on government intervention.

It is said that the atomist view which is the “belief that society is made up of a collection of largely self-sufficient individuals who owe little or nothing to one another.” (Heywood, 2013, p.33) On the other hand Modern liberalism has a more positive approach to government intervention.

As mentioned above both realism and liberalism are paradigms of the International Relations which might not sound completely negative, however according to the article by Zvogbo and Loken are built on Eurocentrism, which focuses on the cultural background and history of Europeans, which was predominantly ‘white’ as well as the Western world view over the rest of the world’s which in turn gives the feeling of superiority. Another example or rather statement which Zvogbo and Loken make use of is “developed against underdeveloped, modern against primitive, civilized against uncivilized” which automatically servers as a red flag as it is a gap where racism could occur as they mean that there is a clear divide.

Constructivism:

The third and final paradigm of the ‘big 3’ which the article mentions is constructivism. Constructivism, “concerns itself with the centrality of ideas and human consciousness and stresses a holistic and idealist view of structures.” (Smith, Owens,Baylis;2014.P.408) According to Zvogbo and Loken, constructivism completely overlooks racism.

Defining Race:

Race is and will always be a sensitive but relevant topic of discussion. Although we live in a democratic society, racism is still a common occurrence around the world whether it takes place in the world of sport, place of work or politics. Race is defined as “the idea that the human species is divided into distinct groups on the basis of inherited physical and behavioral differences.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica,2020).

Along with race comes ethnic groups which unlike race does not completely revolve around particular physical features, but more around people who share the same language or culture.

Race as well as ethnicity separate people and place them into boxes based on the colour of their skin, the language that they speak, physical features and how they act. This is also stated in the article by Zvogbo and Loken which puts emphasis on how race plays a role or rather is a feature in world politics.

Race within the International relations:

As previously mentioned and explained, the paradigm’s that the International Relations stand for could be viewed as questionable. The reason being, that there should be a common ground or equality with in the international relations, and although times have changed, racism is still prominent.

Along with race and ethnicity comes a certain level of understanding amongst people. For example, when the Civil Rights Movement took place in America, African Americans shared the same experiences and wanted to achieve the same goal which was why they could work together and accomplish what they wanted to. The same can be said about Apartheid in South Africa, non-whites standing together, having gone through shared experiences and being able to reach their goal in becoming a democratic country. What both of the above mentioned examples have in common was desperately wanting and needing basic human rights and equality within a strong predominantly ‘white’ government.

With that being said, the International Relations although is globally inclusive, still follows predominantly ‘white’ paradigm’s which is why it could be argued that race plays a rather large role and is a central organizing feature as the European worldview is still prominent within the International Relations. This does not mean that the paradigm’s which they have built the International Relations needs to drastically change or be removed. If there were paradigm’s that are more inclusive, it could have been said that race is not an organizing central feature in politics, which is what the article means.

Conclusion:

In closing, the statement is justified and it can be concluded that race is a central organizing feature of world politics. Although in today’s life it might not seem like race is essential to understanding the world as it is part of our history.