Category: International Relations

What is international relations? Define the sub-disciplines under international relations?

In our everyday living, we are not aware but we are participating in International Relations. By Just simply watching from the television or listening to the news on a radio. When we buy or even try to boycott products from the supermarket. When we recycle our wine bottles, we are already participating in International Relations. These daily activities which are part of our daily routine involve the world’s circulation.

According to the Kathmandu School of Law, the term is also used to refer to a branch of Political Science that focuses on the study of these interactions. As an academic discipline, international relations encompasses a wide range of academic fields, ranging from history to environmental studies, and there are several areas of specific specialty, for academics who are interested in them. The concept of international relations on some level is probably quite old, given that humans have been establishing governments and communicating with each other for thousands of years. International Relations as a field of study covers the factors and processes that affect the interactions among states and non-state actors across national boundaries. International Relations is the study of conflict and cooperation by international actors, as furthered by the development and testing of hypotheses about international outcomes. International relations refers to the collective interactions of the international community, which includes individual nations and states, inter-governmental organizations such as the United Nations, non-governmental organizations like Doctors Without Borders, multinational corporations like Coca-Cola, and so forth.

Why do you think the study of international relations is important and relevant in the present time?

I think International Relations is relevant in the present time through globalization. Globalization is the process of increasing the connectivity and interdependence of the world’s nations in economic, political, and social aspects. Wherein we can notice that the experience of every day is becoming the same all around the world that makes the world smaller and more accessible. Through international relations, there is a creation of new social networks and the multiplication of existing connections that cut across traditional, political, economic, cultural, and geographic boundaries. These various connections occur at different levels. With the help of globalization, this can bring a lot of advantages to a particular country especially those who belong to third-world countries like the Philippines. It is easier to communicate throughout the boundaries, wherein you can talk to your loved ones even they are in a very far place. There is also the creation of jobs for the people because these multicultural companies put up factories or industries that need workers. Globalization and International relations create a political and an economic union, which facilitates the agreement between countries.

What is the difference between state-centric and structuralism in the context of international relations?

Structuralism is a broad concept in International Relations which prioritizes the plight of the poor, marginalized, and oppressed people in the world. The Fundamental Unit in structuralism is social class, not the state. We can notice that there is no perfect society. Advocates of structuralist approaches to politics and society argue that history is not made by individuals or by classes exhibiting agency but is a consequence of structural requirements. Individuals take up preexisting roles and mainly reproduce structures they neither choose nor question. Structuralist ideas are rooted in Marxist analysis and focus on how the dominant economic structures of society affect class interests and relations. Each of these perspectives is often applied to problems at several different levels of analysis that point to complex root causes.

The state is central to the study of international relations and will remain so into the foreseeable future. State policy is the most common object of analysis. States decide to go to war. They erect trade barriers. They choose whether and at what level to establish environmental standards. States enter international agreements, or not, and choose whether to abide by their provisions or not. International relations as a discipline is chiefly concerned with what states do on the world stage and, in turn, how their actions affect other states. This article first reviews the rationales behind state-centric theories of international relations. The second section examines criticisms and probes the limits of state-centric theories. The third section identifies three promising areas of research within state-centric theory: state structure, unit heterogeneity, and international hierarchy.

Explain in your own words the social-psychological level as one of the levels of analysis of international relations.

‘The study of the international behavior of individuals’ refers to research on behavior in an international context that is not directly linked to the spheres of political decision-making or state-to-state interaction-although, as we shall see, it may have considerable bearing on these. It is many casters to establish the relevance of social-psychological approaches insofar as they are concerned with studying the ‘international behavior’ of individuals-that is, how individuals relate themselves to their nation and other nations, to the international system as a whole, to foreign policy issues, and the broader questions of war and peace; and the actual interactions between individuals of different nationalities. Regardless of how relevant such research might be to problems of international polities, it represents a legitimate area of SOcial-psychological investigation, meaningful and justified in its own right. In other words, it can be said to have ‘Face relevance’ for anyone interested in exploring the direct and indirect interactions of individuals with national and international objects.

What are the conditions in the world that paved the way for the necessity of the study of international relations?

Social Media, for example, establish new global connections between people, while international groups of non-governmental organizations are networks that connect a more specific group from the different corners of the world. In the world, today, not only global connections multiplying, but they are also becoming more closely-knit and expanding their reach. For example, there has always been a strong financial market connecting London and New York, With the advent of electronic trading, however, and the volume of that trade increases exponentially since the traders can now trade more at higher speeds. The connection in the world is accelerating. Apart from this acceleration, however, as the world becomes more financially integrated, the intensified trading network between London and New York may expand and stretch to cover more and more cities or places.

According to Aneek Chatterjee, a world renowned author, a subject can be called an academic discipline if it has a systematic body of theory, appropriate methodology, and a distinct subject matter. The study of International Relations deals with the various theories of International Relations such as Realism and Liberalism which help to understand global happenings. It also concerns itself with the various paradigms and methodologies such as positivism and post-positivism, that help in studying social phenomena. Furthermore, International Relations has a distinct subject matter that has evolved with the ages without losing its value or meaning. All these factors concurrently prove the worth of International Relations as an academic discipline. But to understand its journey towards that position, we will have to take a jaunt through the past.

Although the study of International Relations is a relatively new field, they themselves have been practiced in one form or another for millennia. During the earlier ages, due to various factors with distance being the most important, International Relations were not global but were confined to a regional level. Earliest credible reports of such can be seen in the remains of the Ancient civilization of Sumer in 3500 B.C. Evidence has also been unearthed that other ancient civilizations such as the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Romans had their own methods of foreign relations.

With the Peace of Westphalia and the emergence of the nation state system, International Relations gained more significance. The new states were aware and protective of their independence and sovereignty but were also paradoxically knowledgeable of their dependence upon other nations. Successful foreign policies allowed those states to exist in that duality. The advent of the Industrial age and the tremendous advancement in the fields of communications along with birth of new and modern means of transport converted the field of International Relations from a regional or even a continental affair to a global one.

But the dawn of International Relations as a subject can truly be accredited to World War 1. As a consequence of the war, the world saw atrocities unheard of, in all of mankind’s history. It saw the death of millions, torture of non-combatants and the development and use of truly vile weapons. At its end, people of the world rose up with the desire for such an event to never occur again. This desire proved to be the driving force for the development of International Relations as a subject.

In the aftermath of World War 1, The Department of International Politics, the first of its kind in the world, was founded at the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth in 1919 with the inaugural holder of the Woodrow Wilson Chair of International Politics being Alfred Zimmern. Around that time, the first book related to the study of International Relations was also published by Grant, Greenwood and Urquhart. Book publication regarding the subject snowballed from there; with Walsh printing “The History and Nature of International Relations” in 1922 and Professor Buell writing his take on International Relations in the following year. In 1926, the release of an International Relations curriculum by Professor Moon also played its part in firmly establishing it as a genuine field of study. In addition, the role of the League of Nations as one of the first organizations based on and working for peaceful relations cannot be denied. Its mere existence as well as its various sponsoring programmes were undeniably beneficial for the growth of the academic field.

The occurrence of World War 2 again emphasized the need for equitable and fair relations between countries. It taught the world the need to understand the people of the world and to tailor their international as well as some aspects of their domestic policies in accordance. The proliferation of nuclear technology in that era also turned the study of International Relations from an academic curiosity to an important bulwark against an existential threat to humanity as a whole. The fact that the only thing stopping humanity from being extinguished was relatively peaceful relations between nations, created the need for International Relations specialists. The following creation of international bodies such as UNO and its affiliated institutions as well as others such as organizations such as IMF, WTO and HRC also played a critical role in the subject’s development.

The evolution of International Relations can be divided in different phases. The first of which was the pre-WW1 era where International Relations was taught if at all as a part of history rather than politics or as a stand-alone subject as was its right. After WW1, more emphasis was given to International Relations but only where it pertained to the present discounting the past all-together. This phase also saw the scholars shift towards creating a moralistic society through the development of legal institutions with great importance being granted to the League of Nations. This also was wrong as the focus here was not towards understanding foreign relations which resulted in WWII.

The third phase saw the progression of international politics and creation of a proper system as people had become disillusioned with governments and institutions. Different scientific studies were undertaken to find more about the nature of state and how they relate to other states as well as its own citizens. This period also saw the steady development of various theories pertaining to the study of International Relations, the chief among them Realism and Marxism. The fourth stage saw the introduction of new factors in the world of global politics such as a growing shift to end colonialism, creation of multi-national corporations and rise of nuclear technology. All these points led to further enhancement of international politics and relations. The fifth phase saw the changing of International Relations research paradigms from nations to organizations as well as the start of the Cold War and the mad race for influence that ensued between the US and USSR. The sixth phase in the study of International Relations concerns itself with the dismemberment of the USSR and all the factors that had a cause in it as well as the creation of a uni polar world with the US as the only major super power. The seventh phase deals with the post 9-11 world where International Relations and foreign policy as a whole completely changed.

Despite International Relations being a key factor of mankind’s interaction with each other since the dawn of our species, it has only been a field of study since the early twentieth century. In that time, it has evolved from its humble beginnings into a multi-faceted field with study and research opportunities aplenty, concerning itself not only with relations between various nations but also with multiple organizations. It helps govern not only foreign policy but socio-economic and culture-ideological policies also. In spite of its growth, the field is still young and has the potential to pass through several more developmental phases.

The Syrian conflict has been going on for almost a decade now and it has not become less complex. There are many actors involved, both national and international ones. All those actors have their own interests and hidden agendas that clash. These interests and hidden agenda can help to explain certain behavior of actors. This can be an important part of both academic and foreign policy debates. One of the major actors in Syria is the Russian Federation. Following a realist perspective, states are egocentric and will only act in their own self-interest. To see if that holds up in practice it would be interesting to look at Russia’s playbook on Syria and if it can explain their involvement in the crisis. For that reason, the international relations theory realism will be used in this paper to try to see if it can help providing an answer to the question: to what extent can the involvement of Russia in the war in Syria be explained. To provide a bit of background this paper will first discuss the Syria case in brief, this will be followed by a small introduction of the analytical lens, then the analysis of the paper and it will end with a conclusion.

Case

Demonstrations in Libya in 2011 marked the start of what would evolve into the Arab Spring. After Tunisia followed other countries as Egypt and Libya having successful uprisings against their governments (Aljazeera, 2018). In Syria protests started by residents of Daraa City in March 2011 following the detention and abuse of teenage boys by the regime for spraying graffiti (Lucas, 2016). These rallies however became about economic problems and the wrong doings of local regime officials. Even though security forces attempted to suppress the protests, they quickly spread and grew to other Syrian cities. The Assad regime reacted to this with more force. This was the moment some groups decided to take up arms against the regime, and the start of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). Starting in 2012 different groups began laying claim on different parts of Syria, the FSA parts of west Syria, in the northeast the basis for a Syrian Kurdistan was laid, and the Islamic State started to rise up. On August 20 2013 in a hope to break resistance of occupied areas the Assad regime filed rockets with sarin on seven sites (Lucas, 2016). The international community started taking sides around 2012, where almost all of them wanted the remove of Assad. The removal of the Assad regime became an important part of the peace talks starting in 2012, these talks had no success. From the start of the conflict in Syria has Russia been a supporter of the regime. Between 2012 and 2014 Russia used their veto power in the Security Council of the United Nations four times to stop resolutions about Syria (Kozhanov, ‘Why Is Syria so Important?’, 2016). However they started to become more involved in 2015 after the rebels gained lots of grounds in 2015, to the point the collapse of the Assad regime was a real threat. Together with Iran, Russia is the biggest supporter of the regime.

Introduction Analytical Lens

When looking at the world and global events the view is based on presuppositions and assumptions. Different theories have different assumptions about the political world, and thus view it differently. These differences can mean the world is differently interpreted. In the discipline of international relations are the perspectives of realism and liberalism the most dominant (Heywood, 2014). The former will be used in the analysis and thus needs further clarifying. Realism claims to see world affairs as ‘realistic’, it is a hard world (Heywood, 2014). It sees politics as a struggle for power, where power is both the technique to get the goals as it is always the most immediate goal itself. There are two big school of thoughts within realism, classical realism and neorealism. Classical realist focusses their explanation of politics in the terms of state egoism, where neorealist explain it in terms of international anarchy (Heywood, 2014). However, it is more a difference of emphasize than a difference in thoughts since they both share the same assumptions of the world. They both see people, and thus states, as selfish and competitive. You can only trust yourself and thus policy should always follow the national interest. According to realist there is also no higher power above the states, states are sovereign and the international world is anarchic. Neorealist state that this international anarchy tends to cause tension and conflict. This is because everyone can only help their selves, you also cannot be certain about someone’s motives and states are worried about relative gains, whether another state benefits more. For both classical as neorealist is the term balance of power of grave importance, since they see it as the solution of containing conflict. However, classical realism sees it as a product of sensible statecraft, while neorealism look at is as a consequence of the structural dynamics of the international system. In the analysis the assumptions of realism will be used with an addition of some of the neorealism emphasizes on international anarchy.

Analysis

Realism theory claims that states will only become involved if it serves their own self interests. Syria and Russia have a long-standing relationship that goes back to the Soviet times. During the Cold War Syria had a large number of Soviet advisers. This however had more to do with attachment to Russian technicians and arms than a shared ideological outlook (Allison, 2013). In the 21st century is Syria still an important buyer of Russian military equipment, in 2006 this was 4 billion USD and by 2010 this had increased to 20 billion USD (Kozhanov, 2013). While there is a significant amount of arms export to Syria, it cannot match in volume with the military export to China or India. In addition, economic ties in general are strong between Syria and Russia. Russian businesses increased their investments into the economy of Syria, by 2012 the trade almost reached 2 billion USD (Kozhanov, 2013). These investments could be a national interest for Russia, and something they could want to protect. On the other hand, them trying to protect their economic investments in Syria could hurt their other economic ties that are larger in size. Economic trade with Turkey and Israel is unlikely to rival with Syria’s (Mason, 2018). It would therefore not be in Russia’s self-interest to cause those ties any danger. For example, siding with Iran in Syria could bring serious damages to Russians close ties with Israel. Another point that is often brought up is the Russian naval and air base in Russia, it would be in their national interest to protect their military bases. However, most military experts state that the old naval base with less than 100 people personnel can hardly be called a base (Kozhanov, 2013).

Russia frames their involvement in Syria as counter terrorism and emphasize the fight against ISIS. In the past Russia has had some conflicts with Muslim militia within their own area, with the most well known the Chechen wars. There are still area’s within and near Russian borders that have tensions, and thus Russia is afraid of a spillover effect of the Syrian conflict to their own borders (Kozhanov, ‘Russian Military Involvement in the Syria Conflict’, 2016). The high number of Chechen fighters and other Russian speaking fighters going to Syria is of grave concern to Moscow. In addition, there was also a fatwa issued that blessed the Russian jihadists to gather battle experience in Syria to bring their fight back to the Northern Caucasus against Russia (Kozhanov, ‘Russian Military Involvement in the Syria Conflict’, 2016). This could make the Syrian crisis a matter of national security for Russia, and national security is always the top priority of a state. While this could explain Russia getting involved in Syria, it would not explain their targets of bombings in Syria. It has been estimated that 70 to 90 percent of Russian airstrikes were not aimed at Islamic State, but at regime fighting rebels (Souleimanov, 2016). This would not follow the lines of their counter terrorism fight.

Before 2015 Russia’s Syria policy was mostly overshadowed by the involvement in Ukraine (Kozhanov, ‘Why Is Syria so Important?’, 2016). It has been speculated that Russia hoped the Syria crisis would take some of the focus away from Ukraine and put it on Syria (Soleimanov & Dzutsati, 2018). This would help serve the Russian agenda that directly follows national interests. The Syrian civil war could also help Russia get out of the international isolation they were put in after the backlash about the annexation of Crimea (Souleimanov, 2016). With their involvement they would become a bridge between the regime and the opposition and, even more important, between the regime and other states. Through this Russia made sure the international world could not go around Russia and made sure it has to take into account Russia’s opinion. This would bring more power to Russia on the international stage, hoping to shift the balance of power more their way. Any gain in this is, especially over another state, is a win for Russia. Russia’s agenda in the peace talk is one of the most utter importance for them, since it contains one of their core principles. According to Russia no supranational institute should endorse the removal of a sitting government (Charap, 2013). States are sovereign and regime changes supported by foreign countries threat the stability of the international system. The normalcy of talking about regime changes by Western states feels as a threat to Russia and its autocratic neighboring allies (Charap, 2013). Russia can never be sure of the U.S.’s motives and that they are driven by humanitarian reasons. If regime change for non-democratic states will becomes a precedent in the international world, this could a direct threat to Russia. Thus, Russia has vetoed every resolution in the UNSC about Syria that included any possible regime change and has support the sitting government of Syria against the from outside influenced rebels. By doing so Russia has protected its interest in Syria, but mostly its interests in the international politics.

Conclusion

At the beginning of the Syrian war in 2011 Russia has supported the Assad regime from the sidelines. When pressure increased on the Syrian regime in 2015 Moscow started to rapidly expand their involvement. The reasons of involvement by Russia in Syria can be explained to an extend from a realist perspective. Realism claims that states will always act in their self-interest. However, their national interest as their naval base and economic ties could not explain their involvement. In addition, while their fear of spill-over effect of Muslim extremism into or near their own borders may be based on some truths, it can’t explain their actions of mostly targeting regime fighting rebels. The neorealist perspective of the international structure gives to an extend an explanation to the involvement of Russia. Russia is reacting to behavior in the international structure from other states. By getting involved in Syria they force other states to include Russia on the world stage and seek to stop any possible president on regime changing in global politics. However, as realism also claims, states do not always act rational and we can never assume any motives, especially when the conflict is still on going. In addition, the conflict of Syria is very complex and cannot be brought down to a few reasons, this includes any involvement of a state. It would be interesting for the future to look at the aftermath of the Russian involvement in Syria after peace is brought back into Syria. In the mean time we can only make assumptions.

Bibliography

1. Aljazeera News. (2018, March 14). Syria’s Civil War Explained from the Beginning. Aljazeera News. Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/05/syria-civil-war-explained-160505084119966.html
2. Allison, R. (2013). Russia and Syria: Explaining Alignment with a Regime in Crisis. International Affairs, 4, 795-823.
3. Charap, S. (2013). Russia, Syria and the Doctrine of Intervention. Survival, 55(1), 35-41.
4. Heywood, A. (2014). Theories of Global Politics. In A. Heywood, ‘Global Politics’ (pp. 54-65). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
5. Kozhanov, N. (2013). Russian Support for Assad’s Regime: Is There a Red Line? The International Spectator, 48(2), 25-31.
6. Kozhanov, N. (2016). Russian Military Involvement in the Syria Conflict. In N. Kozhanov, ‘Russia and the Syrian Conflict: Moscow’s Domestic, Regional, and Strategic InterestS’ (pp. 59-74). Berlin: Gerlach Press.
7. Kozhanov, N. (2016). Why is Syria so Important? In N. Kozhanov, ‘Russia and the Syrian Conflict: Moscow’s DOmestic, Regional and Strategic Interests’ (pp. 43-58). Berlin: Gerlach Press.
8. Lucas, S. (2016). A Beginner’s Guide to Syria’s Civil War. Political Insight, 12-15.
9. Mason, R. (2018). Russia In Syria: An Unequivocal Return to The Middle East? Middle East Policy, 25(4), 101-115.
10. Soleimanov, E. A., & Dzutsati, V. (2018). Russia’s Syria War: A Stratigic Trap? Middle East Policy, 25(2), 42-50.
11. Souleimanov, E. A. (2016). Mission Accomplished? Russia’s Withdrawal from Syria. Middle East Policy, 23(2), 108-118.

The protesters seized the placards with the phrase ‘No war to Iran’, and condemned US President Donald Trump’s order to assassinate Iranian Top Commander Qassem Soleimani, considered the 2nd highest leader in Iran.

The nuclear program of Iran is one of the most engaging issues in the Middle East today. The US and its allies accuse Iran of building nuclear weapons, but Iran’s stance is firm that the only reason why they are developing a nuclear program is to harness it to generate electricity to provide fuel for their medical reactors so that they will not splurge into using its valuable oil resources and instead prefers it to sell abroad. As President Ahmadinejad said, the argument over Iran’s nuclear program was a political issue rather than a legal matter and needs to be resolved politically. Most of the repatriated workers are skilled. To the extent that they displace workers at home who would otherwise be employed if they remained abroad, there could be an impact on domestic employment volume. A further impact at home is on the level of output and the net impact on the balance of payments (affected by the labor market disruption). It can be hypothesized that initially, the employment of displaced OFWs at home could lead to lower incomes generated at home compared to their contribution through remittances. OFWs working abroad work with higher capital-intensive support in production so that they have higher labor productivity than workers at home. That also explains why average wages at home are much lower, because the economy lacks sufficient capital investments. Hence, their net contribution to growth and to incomes would be lower, even if, in the end, they might contribute toward a higher GDP. Displacements of new labor thus repatriated could have an impact on the domestic labor market. Hence, the Philippine OFW story could be impacted severely. The disruption of employment opportunities in the Middle East would produce large ripples depending on their severity. There would be consequences on the volume of remittances flowing into the country, there will be additional costs on the government to help repatriate Filipinos stranded in the war in the Middle East, and the arrival of unemployed OFWs could cause a competition for jobs at home.

The US foreign-policy environment is now concentrating on giving a lot of publicity to the Middle East questions of independence and other possibilities. Most Americans believe they are bona fide pro-democratic players, but the suffering fact remains that many around the globe are still not purchasing what they say. Issues of credibility will continue to haunt even the well-intentioned efforts of the US to support genuine political change in the Arab region. ran used to be a powerful ally of the United States during the Cold War, and expressly provided support against the Soviet Union. The US government, in their desire to restore democracy in Iran went to the point of supporting the very unpopular regime of the Shah of Iran. It was during the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini that Americans got their first glimpse of radical Islam.

Iran’s nuclear program concerns not only the US, but the world as well. Sometimes there are predictions that they will go to war, but even the US-Iranian relationship is engulfed by tension. They did so in conjunction with the march of thousands of people to Iraq and Iran who mourned the death of their leader and colleagues. The Iranian government has promised a great deal of retaliation, which is why the assassination of Soleimani has only worsened. Iran’s right to a nuclear program on the basis that it is for peaceful purposes worries government around the world and the dilemma is that, it is difficult to distinguish between the ‘good atoms’ used for nuclear power and the ‘bad atoms’ used for nuclear weapons. To solve the issue, world leaders are pushing Iran to source their nuclear fuel from other countries instead of making the fuel by itself. And besides, if Iran really wanted nuclear weapons, it’s intended to provide for its own security and secure its own self-preservation. Iran being the third biggest oil producing nation, economies around the world are closely monitoring the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Uninterrupted oil supply and a steady price is a critical part not only for the US economy but also for other world economies. During this period of transformation of the Middle East, or some referred to as the ‘Arab Spring’, democratic protests in several countries threatened or even toppled long-term leaders, most of them associated with the US. Being a regional power, Iran has been observed to be opening its doors to these countries to extend their influence across Middle East. Overall, the US policy toward Iran is a key issue in the US foreign policy today. They should not complicate the issue and possible address the issues on the US-Iranian agenda, like human rights and terrorism at the same time with the nuclear issue. After Iran fired 22 missiles at Iraqi military bases attached to American troops, the Iranian foreign minister tweeted saying they had done ‘enough vengeance’ on the United States, and that they had no interest in fighting back. Iran answers Iran’s assassination of Iranian general Qasem Suleimani, who they acknowledge is a respected official who contributed greatly to the destruction of Isis in Syria, but is considered a US terrorist. But according to Special Envoy to the Middle East Roy Cimatu, there are signs he is not done yet.

The current issue involving the US and Iran especially its nuclear program is an issue that has to be addressed with extreme caution. The Philippines being an ally of the US should be keen about the growing issue and if given the chance to recommend any policies to the US, I recommend scaling back tensions and avoiding war. Iran’s having a nuclear program is a threat that was blown out of proportion. The issue here is not Iran’s having a nuclear weapon but the risk of dragging the United States again to wage a costly war in this highly volatile region. The collateral damage is catastrophic and outweighs the risk of Iran’s nuclear arms capabilities. On the other hand, even if Iran happens to acquire nuclear weapons, it is the last option they will resort to do because several countries in the past seventy years that have acquired nuclear weapons but none of them so far has used it since 1945. We should therefore persuade the US to change its position towards Iran and also all its allies to do the same. The use force or any military covert action will only escalate the tension and promotes war.

Based my opinion it’s not done yet. There could be something bigger that will happen. Not so, the situation is too unpredictable. It remains the only reason why our country is keeping economic transaction with Iran. The Philippines in 2006 purchased at an average of 110,000 barrels of oil a day from Iran and in 2008, Iran agreed to invest $125 million in the petrochemical market. According to an Iranian trade official, the value of non-oil exports from Iran to the Philippines stood at $83 million in 2009. In 2009, the bilateral trade between the two countries totaled $370 million with the potential for growth on both sides. The Philippine governments should support Iran’s right to use peaceful nuclear energy. The current problem on the rising of hydrocarbon prices is a green light for all countries to be able to access civilian nuclear energy. The Philippine stand is to supports Iran’s right to access peaceful nuclear technology under the safeguards of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The relationship between the United States and Russia has always been curious, they were never really allies, as the USA and Great Britain or France, but they were never enemies before the Cold War; what transpired throughout the history? First, we must understand what was happening during the Second World War, with their communist ideology, the Soviet Union had their concerns with the increasing power of the West or the capitalism. They felt threatened. And the opposing giant of America felt the same way too. They were concerned with the rising of the other political ideology, where it could take a great part of their power in a global scale. This tension grew larger after the nuclear bomb was dropped in Japan. This event may have stopped the war occurring at that time, but also alerted the USSR, who felt it was like a certain type of message; so, what did they do? They developed their own bomb years later. After the treaty created in Germany, they divided Berlin in four parts, USA, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. This created some disagreements on how it should be run, as the biggest powers had different ideologies, so naturally, ended with a clash.

The creation of the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) by the West in 1949, was to preserve the capitalism in the majority of the countries, as this organization tried to prevent any possible attacks from the future -whether it was Germany again or the Soviet Union. The counter response from the East, was the creation of the Warsaw Pact. After West Germany joined the NATO in 1955, the Soviet Union believed that they were capable of challenging the capitalism around the world and had the ‘red team’ win. In a certain point, they believed they were ahead in this hypothetically ‘race’ on some areas, as they were the first to put a satellite in the moon, a person in space. At this point, the world was divided in two parts: the capitalist and the communist. Where they pressured or persuade countries to take the plan, Marshall plan from the United States is an example, as they helped the European countries especially in the West to rebuild from the war. But in October in 1962, in Cuba, the Soviets were able to place nuclear weapons in the island, which alarmed USA, so it got to a huge deal eventually in making an agreement for this to come to an end, as neither of them wanted another war. This made a continually tension between them, until the economy of the URSS collapsed as it could not compete with the fast-growing Western industrialization and with the Glasnot and Perestroika with Mijail Gorbachov from 1985-1991, would eventually give the victory to the ‘good guys’, as they prefer to call themselves. There were some agreements after to not had this happened again, marking the end to the bipolar system… or so we thought.

This was supposed to end there, and in the actuality, we have a more stable relationship within the countries, but in recent times there is more chaos than ever before, we can see that neither Trump or Putin has come to a logical conclusion of this problems. Putin, who was elected Prime Minister in 1999, has changed Russia to an authoritarian regime since having 20 years in power. In the early 2000s, things seemed to be moving in the right direction as Western society expanded into Europe thanks to globalization. So, what went wrong?

There are many factors that could’ve had influenced to this recent breakup so soon after they had just reconciled. One of them is that the United States and the NATO were persuading Eastern Europe, according to Traill (2017), “Russian leaders and journalists continually remind TV audiences of US Secretary of State James Baker’s alleged ‘broken promise’ to Gorbachev in 1990 not to expand NATO ‘an inch’ eastwards”. If it’s accurate, this could bring a light into what has Putin feel since being in the KGB (Committee of State Security) which they taught to hate the Americans, however, that betrayal could be the first part of the situation right now. Other interesting theory is that maybe, the Soviet Union never actually died. To be clearer, I am not saying that the communism will rise up and defeat the capitalism, however, according to Jackson (2018), “the Soviet Union was not defeated by a political idea”. This says that the Soviet Union collapsed by the economical factor, not the political. Jackson points out that the authoritarian government has some similarities comparing to the old Russia government, some of them are: their military remains intact, their isolation from the West and Europe, which was the biggest characteristic from the old Soviet Union. The other factor is the cause of the current situation of the West, we are living in chaos, especially in recent times as Jackson says (2018), “we live in chaotic and highly volatile political times. And to judge from these baseless beliefs and gross misperceptions, we live in the age of idiots”. There has been more fragmentation or breaking of states in recent times, resulting in nasty politics and many trade wars across the globe (USA vs China). Nationalism has also gotten a rise in recent years, the case, as you may know it, Make America Great Again. This has given the West a bit of a weakness in recent years, were before they were known as being ‘invincible’.

In a recent problem with Crimea that involved Russia, was that, Crimea is a part of the Ukraine, the East to be more exact, and part of Crimea they felt identified as Russians. Crimea voted and they were a part of Russian, whether they were legal or not, the US applied sanctions to the Russian government, where they continue to do in order to avoid an unnecessary war. However, this hasn’t made Russia happy, they have a hatred there in Moscow for the Western man. Recently they have blamed the Russians from interfering in the presidential elections, where Donald Trump was elected president. However obviously Putin refused any allegations that they were in any way involved.

We can see that after all the history in the last 90 years, saying that they have a complicated relationship is selling it short, way short. Not only they have had different ideas, but they were a button away of what could had become the Third World War with the arms race. It is amazing that the both nations act like they are very different, but actually, they are similar in some aspects of economical, especially after Trump rose to power. The truth is that they have a very toxic relation, where someone does something, the opposing country goes the other way. They really get involved in situations where they do not belong, but in this world, and the current state of the world, whatever the outcome is will affect the whole world, leading to the possibility of a Second Cold War.

References

1. Jackson, B. (2018, December 7). U.S.-Russian Relations, 1989-2019: Self-Awareness and History. Retrieved October 26, 2019, from https://www.hudson.org/research/14726-u-s-russian-relations-1989-2019-self-awareness-and-history.
2. Traill, K. (2017, December 20). Why Russia and the West Can’t Get Along. Retrieved October 26, 2019, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-20/why-russia-and-the-west-cant-get-along/9254632.
3. Porter, K. (2019, July 26). U.S. and Russian Relations from 1922 Until Today. Retrieved October 26, 2019, from https://www.thoughtco.com/timeline-of-us-russian-relations-3310271.

Venezuela was once the wealthiest country in Latin America and one of the leading exporters of oil. Today, Venezuela has the highest inflation rate worldwide and is suffering from political dysphoria. To fully understand the present situation, one must begin with Hugo Chávez’s presidency. Chávez reduced economic inequality and funded many social programs by taking advantage of the surge of oil prices in 2014. He used the economic boom to spend billions in favor of the poor, the demographic keeping him in power. He rigged the economy to allow Venezuela to overly depend on oil, creating a fragile situation, if the oil prices ever fell, so would the state of Venezuela.

Nicolás Maduro was elected after Hugo Chávez’s death and the worst-case scenario came true: oil prices plummeted. Due to Chávez’s structuring, all the social programs became impossible to sustain, and the country accumulated a major deficit leading to hyperinflation. In addition to this economic spiral, crime and poverty increased. The Venezuelan people heavily blamed the order of the government for the condition of the country. Consequently, protests increased while Maduro’s popularity decreased. Although Maduro is not recognized as the legitimate president by over 50 countries and several international organizations, he remains Venezuela’s political power figure. This is due to his manipulation of centralizing power within groups that support him. Maduro was re-elected in May of 2018 in a controversial election in which his opposition was inhibited from running. He created the National Constituent Assembly, with the power to rewrite the Venezuelan constitution and the role of supreme power within the republic. This left Maduro with no opponents in power. These conditions have allowed for an authoritarian government to replace the once democratic government. The US does not recognize Maduro as president and has funded rival figures. Juan Guaidó declared himself acting president in January, he is supported by the US and other international leaders but has no realistic power. Maduro broke off relations with the US due to their recognition of Guaidó as president. In addition, Trump has threatened to increase the economic sanctions placed on Venezuela, which will only worsen their food and medicine shortages.

The question now is whether military intervention by the US to remove Maduro is justified. My stance on this topic is that it is not. I will use jus ad bello and natural law as the foundation to my arguments. I do believe that there is a just-cause; the wellbeing of the Venezuelan people. Currently, they are starving, sick, and poor. Protests are resulting in mass injuries and death. It can even be argued that the situation risks escalation into a civil war. The military cannot protect the people because they are massively loyal to Maduro due to his frequent pay rises. However, none of the other jus ad bellum requirements truly justify war.

For a reasonable chance of success, the US is undeniably powerful and if they went into the efforts of invading Venezuela to defeat Maduro, they would be successful. However, the problem is not so simply solved. While Maduro may be seen as the causative reason for the changes in government, this is an illusion. Maduro is the main public actor of power within Venezuela, leaving him in a position to be the sole target of political and economic blame. However, one cannot ignore the system he is creating. It does not need Maduro specifically, any actor that values control over freedom will suffice. Therefore, simply removing Maduro does not fix the current system which is set up to favor authoritarian rule instead of democratic rule. Maduro does not hold all of the power. He has strategically fragmented it in systems that support his hierarchal position.

According to the general concept of natural law, every individual deserves and is entitled to live their life with their best interest in mind. Natural law focuses on the morality aspect of law structure rather than the policy. It is the yearn for one’s best interest to influence the policy and this can only happen from the population directly affected, no matter if a foreign entity has a moralistic approach, they will never be able to overcome wanting to benefit themselves, which compromises the population they are trying to help. If America removed Maduro from power, they would be responsible for creating a new government. It would be impossible and illogical for America to not influence the new government in a way that obviously benefitted it. This would create tension and threaten legality and the success of any new government. This is also in clear conflict with the point that the ultimate goal must be to reestablish peace. That might be the initial and public motive, but America is powerful because it is smart in taking advantage of every opportunity possible. Rebuilding a weak but democratic country with massive oil reserves is a potential opportunity that cannot be overlooked.

Right authority is also questionable, while Trump is the head of state for America, the power of his decision-making should not determine other countries, especially to this severity. This also builds the foundation for the proportionality argument. The Venezuelan people need to be helped. One side of the argument is that there are more deaths occurring now than would occur with a military intervention. However, the idea that war would be better than the absence of it due to less potential deaths is not sufficient. It is an assumption that only considers violence. America is not in a position to assume that the causalities of a war would be fewer than the causalities of no intervention. In addition, if this come from outside of Venezuela and it goes wrong, there is a clear place of blame. In order for a government reformation to truly work, the idea must come from within Venezuela. A bottom-up approach supported by top-down actors is the most effective solution. A movement beginning within the people, the ones directly affected by the state of the economy, is more natural and would build more momentum than a foreign intervention. The intervention from an actor such as America, would deprive the people of the responsibility to carry out tasks, this in turn would decrease their feeling of significance and political efficacy.

In conclusion, America can best help the Venezuelan people through supporting the opposition and sending food and medicine aid to those suffering. A military intervention is not justified by the Just War Theory or by the natural law argument.

Why Tramp indicates Russia as a main direct in National Defense Strategy 2018 after obvious flirting with Putin during the first years of administration? And what role does Ukraine play in American foreign policy toward Russia? Why does US spend on defense of peripheral country?

In interview for ‘Lateline’ Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, Vali Nasr, called US a country that is diminishing its influence. This conclusion was based on Barack Obama’s speech about main keys in foreign policy (29 May, 2014). In that times President declared the withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan and not engaging in Syria or Ukraine since Americans wanted to be satisfied in domestic politics and not to spend on adventures abroad. “There is a giant sound of American foreign policy disappearing from the world stage”, – Vali Nasr pointed.

In comparison with Obama, Donald Trump showed noticeably more active and muscular policy with significant increase in the military budget. It became famous in media as ‘American fist’ or ‘Make America Powerful Again’. Willingness to use force was particularly true in Syria. Until recently Tramp used air strikes in this country, quadrupled the number of militant troops there, added 3,900 in Afghanistan, and increased the total number of acknowledged troops and civilian Defense Department personnel in the Middle East by 33%. In 2018 Tramp pointed China and Russia as the main directions of American foreign policy in National Defense Strategy (2018). The mention about Russia looked quite surprisingly after Tramp’s speeches about possibilities to be along with Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. Tramp has never explained exactly why having better relationship with Moscow would be a good thing for US but business contacts of his associates with shady Russian tycoons were well known. Why has President finally changed his mind?

There are a lot of toxic factors: Russian ground-based cruise missiles against American-Russian Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which eliminated both cruise and ballistic missiles from Europe, unclear politics of Kremlin in Iran direction and chemical attack in Syria (and Russian reaction after it). But the Strategy says in general that Russia is dangerous because it “want to shape a world consistent with its authoritarian model—gaining veto authority over other nations’ economic, diplomatic, and security decisions”. Although word ‘Ukraine’ was written only once in the text, it is definitely about escalation of this very country that looks scary for EU. But does peripheral Ukraine that the United States doesn’t have an obligation to defend worth American spending and strained relations with Russia?

The main reason is EU countries are really afraid that Russian aggression can be spread on their territories since Ukraine is a so-called bridge to Western Europe. And as a part of NATO the United States should protect it. At the same time such conditions are really annoying for American President. On Tramp’s opinion, Europeans spend so little on defense compared to the United States, and so few European nations prepared to meet NATO’s stated defense spending goal of at least 2%. Even Trump’s posts in Twitter were expressive: “The European Union, for many years, has taken advantage of us on Trade, and then they don’t live up to their Military commitment through NATO. Things must change fast!’”. So, why does America still keep allies with EU and should indicate nuclear Russia as a treat?

EU security depends on security of Ukraine and directly affects US welfare. As ‘Euromaidan Press’ pointed, develop Europe is a huge trade and possibilities for American business. The total trade in goods and services between the US and the EU in 2015 was 1,087 trillion euros. The EU is still a number one trading partner for the United States. The direct foreign investment from EU for US economy is 2.5 trillion euros (70% of all investments). If Russia interfere in politics of EU, Europeans will be completely concentrated only on problems of their continent and America lose this money. Moreover, any arguments between US and EU can help any destructive powers of the world like authoritarian regimes and terroristic organizations.

Refusal to support Ukraine can break regime of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. Ukraine got rid third largest nuclear arsenal in the world in exchange for assurances by the United States, Britain and Russia to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Russia has already violated this promise. And it has sent a bad signal to all the states that would like to guarantee their own security by joining the nuclear club. If other participants of Budapest memorandum refuse to support Kyiv, it will influence catastrophically the non-proliferation policy and image of US, in general. Any other capital of the world will be able to mention the Ukrainian example not to even start a nuclear-free dialogue. It is vitally for US to keep its image of only Great Power especially in the conditions of Cold War II.

As last elections showed American society is still consider Russia as an ‘Evil Empire’, a successor of Soviet Union. Indeed, Russia has tried to renew its influence in much of the former territory of the USSR in the form of the Eurasian Economic Union, that includes Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia. Plus, Russia has close relations with China. These two the biggest countries in Eurasia created their own Eurasian alliance SCO (the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) in 2001. The alliance includes Iran, India, Pakistan and Turkey as well. But US is beyond it. Such organization is a huge hit for American image of Great Power since Russia is the largest country in the world and China & India have almost third part of all world population. Michael Lind has already called such confrontation a sign of Cold War II. Russian ambitions, according to Tim Marshall’s essay ‘Russia and the Curse of Geography’ is expanding only through the Baltics and Ukraine, to the Black Sea since main task for Russia is to create strategic distance to keep the enemy as far away from the Russian heartland as possible. So, Ukraine is good chance for US to stop Russian imperial appetites and prove American exceptionalism.

But despite all aforementioned arguments Trump’s rhetoric about Ukraine was not clear for long time. It can be seen even after Russian attack against Ukrainian navy at Azov see in 2018. Although several world leaders have blamed Russian aggression and even Washington lawmakers from both sides of the aisle pressured U.S. President to take a tougher line on Moscow, Trump said only: “It is not good. Not happy about it at all”, adding, “we do not like what’s happening either way. And hopefully it will get straightened out”.

But the situation is changing now. Tramp has already started his preparation for president election (2020) and wanted to avoid critics about his dependence on Russia in previous election since that scandal had affected significantly on the first years of his administration. Now the President tries to get rid of reputation of pro-Russian politician criticizing Kremlin and making loud statements about Ukraine. Recently he said in interview for CBS: “I am that person who gave defensive and anti-tank weapons for Ukraine. Obama did not do it. Do you know that he sent to Ukraine? Pillows and blankets. He is the one who gave up the part of Ukraine!”.

And he is right. Barack Obama didn’t help Ukraine in military question at all. But Tramp met Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko in 2017 to discuss the expansion of military-technical cooperation. Then he signed document about provision of $ 650 million for militant goals of Ukraine. However, in the defense budget for 2018, only half of this amount of money ($ 350 million) was found for Ukrainians. At the end of 2017, President Administration of the United States approved the first commercial sale of lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine at a total cost of $ 41.5 million. It was Barrett M107A1 sniper complexes. Later, US Ambassador to Ukraine Mari Jovanovich said that Ukraine would also receive defensive lethal weapons for free. Congress authorized the government to provide Ukraine with air defense and coastal defense radars, naval mine and countermine capabilities, littoral-zone and coastal defense vessels as part of the 2018 defense policy bill since Ukraine lost two-thirds of its naval fleet, which mostly was based in Sevastopol when Russia annexed Crimea.

As Dimitri K. Simes pointed at ‘Poised for Success’: “While Obama’s sanctions succeeded in causing indignation among the Russian elites, Trump’s more far-reaching sanctions— zeroing in on key public companies and top Putin-friendly tycoons— are beginning to disturb Moscow and to curtail its earlier snide dismissal of U.S. and Western pressure. At a minimum, Trump’s willingness to impose new sanctions discourages Russia from risking escalation with the United States in Syria or Ukraine”.

State Department declared that US would stop anti-Russian sanctions only if Russia implemented three next demands: complete the withdrawal of the Russian militants from the Donbass, the implementation of the Minsk agreements and the return of the occupied Crimea to Ukraine.

As ‘European Truth’ reports Ukrainian publican position toward events in Syria played important role in the development Ukrainian-American relations during Tramps administration. Ukraine power supported missile strike of US as an answer to chemical attack in Syria immediately. The first telephone conversation between vice-president Mike Pence and Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko started after American gratitude for Ukrainian position.

Both Congressional Houses keep the reputation of the most committed institute in case of proper punishment for Russian aggression. The House of Representatives re-proposed the bill ‘Stand for Ukraine Act’ (Act to Support Stability and Democracy in Ukraine).

Although Donald Tramp has a lot of tasks inside country, he started quite active foreign policy and even more militant one, to compare with Barack Obama. Even name of Tramps foreign policy (‘American fist’) can prove it. In essay I paid attention to American-Russian relations since US President’s attitude to Russia was unclear until recently. It is important to mention that Ukraine crisis 2014 play a huge role in it. Not only eternal confrontation between these countries (since time of Cold War) depends on Ukraine but economic situation in US as well (because connect with European trade). Moreover, Tramp’s protection for Ukraine can help him to ruin his image of pro-Russian politician and increase the chances for next president elections 2020 since American society concerning about his attitude to Vladimir Putin.

Nevertheless, US policy toward Ukraine can be changed because of president elections in Ukraine that will be on 21.04.2019 since course of second candidate Vladimir Zelenskiy is still unknown.

References

1. “Poised for Success?” by Simes, Dimitri K. National Interest. Jul/Aug2018, Issue 156, p5-12. 8p.
2. “Welcome to Cold War II” by Lind, Michael. National Interest. May/Jun2018, Issue 155, p9-21. 13p.
3. “Vali Nasr interview: Vali Nasr, American Foreign Policy Advisor and Commentator, and Dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies Discusses US Foreign Policy” by Jones Tony. Lateline – Australian Broadcasting Corporation; Sydney Sydney: Australian Broadcasting Corporation. (May 29, 2014).
4. https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf
5. https://www.defensenews.com/congress/2018/11/26/us-lawmakers-urge-trump-to-arm-ukraine-break-silence-on-russian-blockade/
6. https://www.eurointegration.com.ua/articles/2017/04/26/7065042/
7. “The Rise of Russia’s Military” by Dave Majumdar, The National Interest, June 20, 2018.
8. http://euromaidanpress.com/2017/04/15/five-reasons-why-supporting-ukraine-is-in-the-usas-interests/
9. https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/features-russian-42441770
10. https://fakty.com.ua/ru/svit/20180120-rik-z-trampom-yak-rozcharuvalasya-rosiya-ta-shho-otrymala-ukrayina/

On November 4, 1979, a group of Iranian students seized the US embassy in Tehran, Iran and detained more than 60 people. This action constituted a diplomatic standoff between Iran and the United States. The detainees were held hostage for 444 days by the Muslim student followers who are believed to have followers of the Imam’s line that supported the Iranian revolution. The immediate cause of the crisis was an incomprehension and entanglement of vengeance that a section of the people of Iran had over the US decision to grant Shah Pahlavi asylum. Pahlavi was admitted in a US hospital after being overthrown and charged with crimes against humanity. Iran demanded his return from the US so that he could stand trial for the atrocities he was accused of. The US rejected Iran’s demands and granted Pahlavi asylum (Bowden, 2007). This paper discusses the effects of the Iranian hostage crisis.

Iran lost international support in its war against Iraq. The hostage taking had a negative impact on Iran in its war negotiations with Iraq. The negotiated war settlement between the two nations favored the United States because none of Iran’s demands were met. However, the crisis strengthened a section of Iranians who fully supported and initiated the hostage taking leading to intensification of Anti-Americanism. Some of the politicians such as Behzad Nabavi and Khoeniha strengthened their political positions and became more influential (Farber, 2009). On the other hand, the politicians who supported the Americans were removed from government. For instance: the Shah of Iran had great power before the crisis because his decisions were highly influenced by the United States. After the crisis he lost his power because Jimmy Carter, the US president, was no longer in office and had been succeeded by Ronald Reagan. Shah lost the support of the United States and his country prompting him to flee Iran and go to exile (Houghton & Patrick, 2001). His authority in Iran was brought to an end.

The Iranian hostage crisis broke the formal diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States. Consequently, Iran selected Algeria as its protective power in the US. On the other hand, the United States selected Switzerland and its protecting power in Iran. The new relations between the two nations were guided by the US Interests Section of the Swiss Embassy in Iran and the Iranian Interest Section of Pakistan (Houghton & Patrick, 2001). To this day, there are no communications and transaction between the United States and Iran.

The hostage crisis led to switching of the Iranian government from dictatorship to theocracy. When the Shah was in power, the country had an authoritative government with the Shah being the dictator. Prior to the rise of the Shah to power, Iran had a democratic government. The United States overthrew the country’s democratic government and enhanced the creation of a dictatorial government under the Shah. The Shah made changes that had a positive impact on Iran’s oil export in the United States. Since, Iran never planned or wanted an authoritarian government, it was destined to change. Consequently, after the hostage crises, the Shah lost his power leading to the end of dictatorship and the creation of a theocratic regime under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (Farber, 2009). The theocratic regime is still in place today.

In summary, the Hostage crises had a direct impact on the US and Iran political and economic landscape. The political landscape of modern Iran is directly linked to the events that ensued after its occurrence. The crises led to Iran’s loss of international support in its war against Iraq, breaking of US-Iran diplomatic relations and switching of the Iranian government from dictatorship to theocracy. The crisis had a lasting effect on Iran’s course of history.

The naval force of a nation-state is a very important fact. Naval forces or navies play a major role in the national security of a nation-state. National security is a very important part of nation-states to protect their citizens from threats from other nations. So, the main purpose of naval forces is the military defense of nation-states. The navy expands its military power onto the seas.

The main function of the navies of nation-states is to achieve sea control, and they are very necessary in wartime to protect the country from enemies. A large strong navy consists of aircraft carriers, submarines, frigates and gunboats. They provide various types of support. In addition, naval forces play an important role in the international relations of nation-states. Navies with strong ocean patrol ships and the higher categories of strong warships have an important position in the full international ocean and sea areas and in the partly international sea areas of the exclusive economic zone.

It is also important that navies have a stable presence on high seas outside foreign EEZs because land armies and air forces couldn’t get that stable presence in international areas like navies. It is a great opportunity for them. Therefore, naval forces are very important to international relations or diplomacy because of the stable presence of naval forces in international areas. In addition, foreign policy follows the international national interests of external national security against foreign threats through diplomacy. Navies support both foreign policy and diplomacy in various ways.

Navies use to influence and threaten the behavior of other nations during times of peace. For example, in the US Navy, there are some tactics used for diplomatic efforts. They are port calls, transits, freedom of navigation operations, combat capability demonstrations, force-level changes, and fleet architect changes.

• Port calls: The USS Carl Vinson sailed into Da Nang, Vietnam, and it was the first US carrier to visit Vietnam after they combated with communist forces a few decades ago.
• Transits: The USS Curtis Wilbur proceeded through the Taiwan Strait to support Taiwan.
• Force-level changes: NATO ships improved their presence in the Black Sea to respond to Russian operations.

Coercive diplomacy is the first use of naval forces in diplomacy. Coercive diplomacy plays a prominent role in navies in support of foreign policy. The mobility, flexibility, and combat potential of navies are very essential coercive instruments of foreign policy. Navies can support political objectives through coercive naval diplomacy. Coercive diplomacy means forcing enemies to do things to neutralize huge threats to themselves, e.g., the sea-borne terrorist infiltration from Pakistan into northwestern India is a huge threat and influence to the national security and non-traditional national maritime security of India.

Compellence diplomacy is the second important use of naval forces in diplomacy. Compellence diplomacy can force enemies to do things to neutralize huge threats, e.g., Indian compellence diplomacy is more important and it can use the Indian navy as a military instrument to force Pakistan to do things it wants.

Deterrence diplomacy is also an important form of coercive diplomacy. It uses to prevent an enemy from carrying out a threat or an influence. This kind of coercive diplomacy can be seen in the political situation between China and the United States over the Taiwan island. In this situation, China’s coast in the western Pacific shows deterrence diplomacy and the use of navies. In this situation, China wanted to invade Taiwan and considered Taiwan as a part of China, but the United States uses its military power to protect Taiwan. The United States and China conducted deterrence diplomacy over Taiwan. The US Navy can be used to support deterrence diplomacy. The US Navy Pacific Fleet operations in the Pacific are more important, and it can send one or more powerful aircraft carrier battle groups to support US deterrence diplomacy to prevent China from invading Taiwan. China’s powerful naval anti-ship missile weapon called ‘carrier-killer missile’ gives China the capability to conduct a strong deterrence diplomatic campaign against the United States to stop helping Taiwan.

Cooperative diplomacy is the fourth important use of naval forces in diplomacy. It is important for nation-states to maintain alliances with other nation-states. This kind of diplomacy is essential and important to the United States to maintain alliances with Japan and Australia. In the Pacific, the United States is allied with Japan and Australia. The navies of nation-states are very important to aid their cooperative diplomacy with allies. The United States can issue political and diplomatic statements, and the US President, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense can visit Japan and Australia, reaffirming the alliances in US cooperative diplomacy with Pacific allies. The US Navy supported US cooperative diplomacy with Japan and Australia. Through regular joint and cooperative naval activities between the US, Japan, and Australia, their navies can operate with each other together and can reinforce the bonds of these alliances. It is important for nation-states to join in international cooperation to counter cross-border maritime threats such as illegal fishing and maritime smuggling. These threats are problems for all nation-states. Cooperative diplomacy is essential in this situation. Navies and coast guards help to counter these cross-border maritime threats in nation-states by supporting cooperative diplomacy. Navies and coast guards’ support to counter these cross-border illegal maritime activities is the fifth use of naval force in diplomacy.

In conclusion, naval forces play a prominent role in diplomacy. Naval forces can help foreign policy and diplomacy in several ways. Naval forces are more important to a country to protect from threats coming from other nations. The main purpose of a naval force is to protect nation-states. Navies support diplomacy in different ways, such as coercive diplomacy, deterrence, and compellence diplomacy. So, naval forces or navies are a major part of diplomacy and foreign policy.