Is unilateral action a right of a superpower? (1 Viewer)

[Frogurt]

Do you hear the way they speak to me Gen? They get it from your side.

you wish to have respect then prove you are worthy of it. respect is a privelige not a right.

 

[withoutaface]

This actually reinforces my stance.

The initiation of force by an individual against another is an option, similarly the initiation of force by a state against another is an option.

The individual (like the state) weighs the pros and cons which are for the individual possibility of gain, possibility of punishment and are vaguely similar for the state.

The only difference is that in society the individual can be punished far more effectively than the state can be punished in the international system. And thus the state may appear to be more ammoral than the individual however merely has the latitude to do so that the individual does not.

There's nothing to punish the state for initiating force against me, does this give them that right?

 

[The Brucemaster]

i'm not actually seeing where i contradicted myself there Bruce? my initial post said that barriers won't be broken if an alliance of convenience is formed, ie: to parties form an alliance not because they want to but because of an increased threat from a third party. you then spoke of States going to Britain and Germany because of their increased power, the choice of someone going to Germany primarily due to a percieved threat from Britain and vice verca, the alliance was still formed out of fear rather than a desire to co-operate.

Ok it seems we are arguing the same thing, I was saying that with the increased threat of unilateral action that weaker states will be forced into alliances in order to prevent their destruction. The contradiction was that in one post you said that alliances will only be formed due to the threat from a third party:

alliances formed due to a increasing threat from a third party...

And the you said that they weren't formed due to a third party threat:

barriers will only break down if both sides are acting without co-option or coercion from a third overwhelming threat.

I may be misinterpreting this however.

Yes i agree that they are linked, however you do not need morals or ethics to exist and that is the distinction i make, the State can overide morals or ethics because it does not threaten the survival of the State. this is not to say that it i agree with it or that this is the way things should be, but rather that you do not need ethics or morals in order to be alive, these factors only influence the kind of life that you have.

I see theoretically how this works but consider this:

If a person takes action to save another person's life then that is considered to be morally righteous/good, whatever, basically its a morally guided action.

The same, in my opinion, applies to a State that, according to the theory presented by LG, has an obligation to protect the security of its people.

If the State is obliged to protect the lives of its citizens then that is a moral obligation that it has. It may take immoral action in order to ensure this protection but inherently the idea is one of morality because it is concerned with the protection of life.

 

[Frogurt]

Ok it seems we are arguing the same thing, I was saying that with the increased threat of unilateral action that weaker states will be forced into alliances in order to prevent their destruction. The contradiction was that in one post you said that alliances will only be formed due to the threat from a third party:

And the you said that they weren't formed due to a third party threat:



I may be misinterpreting this however.

Yeah i think you did misinterpret me, what i said in the second part was that Barriers(as in social, cultural etc) will only be broken if the alliance is formed without the co-option, as in both parties genuinely want to cooperate, as opposed to the looming threat.

I see theoretically how this works but consider this:

If a person takes action to save another person's life then that is considered to be morally righteous/good, whatever, basically its a morally guided action.

The same, in my opinion, applies to a State that, according to the theory presented by LG, has an obligation to protect the security of its people.

If the State is obliged to protect the lives of its citizens then that is a moral obligation that it has. It may take immoral action in order to ensure this protection but inherently the idea is one of morality because it is concerned with the protection of life.

whilst that is no doubt a valid stance, and to an extent i would agree, in the instances of States i argue that they must remain amoral or at the very least free from emotion. i argue that this is valid on the basis that an emotive stance can lead to a clouding of judgement and this is not good governance in my view.

 

[melb22]

you can be the most powerful and still remain non violent. India had the biggest economy from 1 AD(33% of global GDP) to around 1500 AD(25% of global gdp). No country has been the biggest for so long in the last 5000 years. Still in the last 5000 years, India has not attacked a single country. The only superpower to have done that.

 

[The Brucemaster]

Yeah i think you did misinterpret me, what i said in the second part was that Barriers(as in social, cultural etc) will only be broken if the alliance is formed without the co-option, as in both parties genuinely want to cooperate, as opposed to the looming threat.

Ahhh, ok. Gotcha now.

whilst that is no doubt a valid stance, and to an extent i would agree, in the instances of States i argue that they must remain amoral or at the very least free from emotion. i argue that this is valid on the basis that an emotive stance can lead to a clouding of judgement and this is not good governance in my view.

In theory this is all well and good but in practicality it is almost, if not entirely, impossible i would say. A State, which is really just an organisation of people, cannot be expected to remain free of emotion when their primary goal, according to the argument presented, is the protection of life.
Even if this were possible can you imagine what society would be like if we were governed by a State that, in its decision making, lacked emotion?
Society would become just some entity that the government had to manage, analagous to a stock portfolio.
If we're talking about human life then emotions are unavoidable and rightly so.

 

[spell check]

This brings me to my central point, unilateral action. I believe that unilateral action is indeed a right of the superpower, after all this is merely an extension of normal state actions. Any state which became a superpower would be fully prepared to act unilaterally, and indeed every superpower has. And a great number of regional powers have also done so.

It is ultimately a case of might makes right, as a state you have the complete right to do anything that fulfils your goals that is if acting unilaterally is imperative to survival it must be done, if it can yield benefits then it is an option.

There is no higher authority than the state and no bar upon a states actions beyond competing states, hence it is right to do anything which they can not stop you doing. It is not necessarily moral however morals do not feature in the purpose of a state, a state exists solely to defend and better its peoples and is bound to do everything in its power to do so.

My position as far as those who disagree with this stance is that they comprehensively fail to understand how the international system works and the premises under which states operate and exist. To have an international system such as they support, of the warm and fuzzy variety would require a completely different concept of the state. Given how the modern state has evolved and its intrinsic link to the violently competitive nature of man I believe this alternate ‘fuzzy’ state to be not only non-existent but can not exist. Following this a ‘fuzzy’ international system can not exist.

this ranks with the worst posts ever

you say that unilateral action is a right of a superpower, not just something that superpowers have historically done, an actual right?

unilateral action is essentially going to be the use of military force, military force aimed to strengthen the superpower at the expense of some enemy

then won't it also be the right of the enemy attacked by the superpower to use whatever means possible to attack back?

is that not what happened on September 11?

would you not agree that is a very poor way of running human society?

your understanding of the international system is anachronistic and completely incompatible with reality

look at the United States, they are militarily the most powerful hegemon ever to exist. yet they were attacked on 9/11 by a NON-STATE social movement with no advanced military. the US couldn't accomplish its aims in iraq, and new orleans after hurricane katrina made the US look like a third world nation.

do you really want to take the gamble of ignoring the entire history of humanity by claiming that the international system is static? eventually people will realise that realism does not accurately describe the world we live in, and they will realise that the only way to guarantee human survival and maximise happiness will be through international cooperation and law.

your neoliberalism argument also fails to accept reality that neoliberal globalisation (if it even exists, which is difficult to argue since the majority of states are very far from neoliberal) is fundamentally NOT eroding nationalism or the autonomy of states. it is merely giving more power to international corporations and capital, far from emancipating the whole of humanity, a large proportion of whom do not even have a telephone.

 

[spell check]

returning to the subject at hand, neo-liberalism appeals to and harnesses our basic instincts of competition, specifically greed and individualism.

Neo-liberalism is in this sense a bottom-up movement (and could thus be defined as a revolution) it is driven by the desires of the masses. It is the ideology of the free market which is perhaps the ultimate expression of human nature, it is our very nature to form and participate in such markets.

the basic instincts of people is not competition, humans are social animals, and hence it is ingrained in our biology to help each other out, respect each other and value cooperation. neoliberal capitalism proposes that we depoliticise our lives to the extent that power is distributed vastly unequally, with the power of the weak limited to the maximum extent possible. the role of government, with a truly democratic government, is to distribute power more equally, something more in tune with human nature. hence throughout history there has always been the weak fighting against the unbalanced power of the strong, such as autocracy, colonial powers, empires setc.

Basically the state is becoming progressively smaller internally in the name of economic efficiency a pattern that is being repeated externally and is seeing declining the importance of the state as the power of non-state actors increases.

actually the state is progressively growing massively internally, such as in Australia, in terms of its regulatory and administrative role. the state still has primary power through its legislative and executive functions, non-state actors such as corporations are always subordinate to these and rely on them to function. without the state, corporations would quickly be pillaged by the masses who recognise the injustice of such a distorted distribution of power.

 

[Frogurt]

you can be the most powerful and still remain non violent. India had the biggest economy from 1 AD(33% of global GDP) to around 1500 AD(25% of global gdp). No country has been the biggest for so long in the last 5000 years. Still in the last 5000 years, India has not attacked a single country. The only superpower to have done that.

It's a little hard for India to attack anyone between 1AD and 1500AD considering India didn't exist until 1950 (whilst independence was declared in 47 it wasn't acknowledged until 1950) prior to that they were a collective of small kingdoms, which incidentally did fight amongst themselves.

In theory this is all well and good but in practicality it is almost, if not entirely, impossible i would say. A State, which is really just an organisation of people, cannot be expected to remain free of emotion when their primary goal, according to the argument presented, is the protection of life.
Even if this were possible can you imagine what society would be like if we were governed by a State that, in its decision making, lacked emotion?
Society would become just some entity that the government had to manage, analagous to a stock portfolio.
If we're talking about human life then emotions are unavoidable and rightly so.

whilst it is unavoidable that some emotion will inevitably remain, the arguement that i was putting forward is that emotively based responses should be minimised and if possible suppressed as much as possible, which i believe is ultimately the best course of action. i acknowledge that morals are an important guidance and even emotions are important, we should not however allow emotions to dictate a choice/response we ultimately know to be the wrong choice.

 

[loquasagacious]

Hail of Loq

There's nothing to punish the state for initiating force against me, does this give them that right?

It gives the state the option. Though other issues cloud this in that there is something to punish the state, recourse to the law and popular opinion. Also it is an inappropriate comparison because states do not owe an allegiance to other states however they do to their own people.

you can be the most powerful and still remain non violent. India had the biggest economy from 1 AD(33% of global GDP) to around 1500 AD(25% of global gdp). No country has been the biggest for so long in the last 5000 years. Still in the last 5000 years, India has not attacked a single country. The only superpower to have done that.

This sounds great but is an invalid point for several reasons;

India was not united in any meaningful way prior to British colonising in the 18th/19th century. It was rather divided among multiple essentially fuedal states. Also at some point I believe they were invaded and colonised by the mongols or somesuch.

Economics is not the sole measure of world power, though it is undeniably important, military strength and technological advancement are also crucial to status as a superpower.

Sorry to double cover, forgurt - this replies been in the works all day.

this ranks with the worst posts ever

I see you've never perused NS...

you say that unilateral action is a right of a superpower, not just something that superpowers have historically done, an actual right?

In simplistic terms, yes.

unilateral action is essentially going to be the use of military force, military force aimed to strengthen the superpower at the expense of some enemy

Your point? This is what we have states for, strengthening us at the expense of rivals.

then won't it also be the right of the enemy attacked by the superpower to use whatever means possible to attack back?

Yes.

is that not what happened on September 11?

Well this depends on whether you think that america/the west has been attacking islam/the middle-east...

Also if you search you will find in the past I have defended terrorism as a legitimate tactic - though have countenanced it as usually counterproductive and inappropriate.

And on the search note you will find that I believe in a link between the situation of muslims/etc and instances of terrorism. This is part of the cost-benefit weigh-up a state must make in deciding on a course of action.

Also from your extension of logic, the state can use any means possible to counter-attack terrorists. At this point though we can get into a freedoms v security debate, where personally I err on the freedoms side.

would you not agree that is a very poor way of running human society?

In some limited way I agree, however I also hold that this is the only way that human society has ever been run and is indeed ingrained in our very genetic makeup.

your understanding of the international system is anachronistic and completely incompatible with reality

Old yes, incompatible no.

look at the United States, they are militarily the most powerful hegemon ever to exist. yet they were attacked on 9/11 by a NON-STATE social movement with no advanced military. the US couldn't accomplish its aims in iraq, and new orleans after hurricane katrina made the US look like a third world nation.

This has little bearing, yes there are non-state actors however they are not dominant and comparitive to states not powerful.

Also Hurricane Katrina hardly disproves realism, to claim so is to suppose that natural disasters are some new force opposing realism. Or to contend that because the US didnt deal with it well, no-states can and therefore should be replaced. To which my reply is two-fold, its not easy to rapidly respond to a natural disaster and what do you propose replacing the state with.

do you really want to take the gamble of ignoring the entire history of humanity by claiming that the international system is static? eventually people will realise that realism does not accurately describe the world we live in, and they will realise that the only way to guarantee human survival and maximise happiness will be through international cooperation and law.

First you claim that the system is changing and then you state that eventually we will be better people and change our ways - you can't have it both ways.

In reply to your static argument, human history proves the international systems static nature. Actors have come and gone and idealistic internationalist movements failed and failed. The basic rules and norms of behaviour have not changed.

As far as your later argument I suggest that you have a look at history yourself, we have thousands of years of human history suggesting that we are a violent, warlike, competitive people whose states operate under realism. What makes you think things will suddenly change? I have presented my position for change, what is yours?

your neoliberalism argument also fails to accept reality that neoliberal globalisation (if it even exists, which is difficult to argue since the majority of states are very far from neoliberal) is fundamentally NOT eroding nationalism or the autonomy of states. it is merely giving more power to international corporations and capital, far from emancipating the whole of humanity, a large proportion of whom do not even have a telephone.

Neo-liberalism undeniably exists in theory and is increasingly prevalent in economic practice.

Again you try and have it two ways, your position being that; states maintain their power and also that 'international corporations' (probably jewish...) gain power. Power is a relative measure when non-state actors like multinationals gain in power states dimminish in power.

Got any proof that neoliberalism doesnt erode state power and nationalism?

Oh and as far as the cheap shot about having a telephone, I would suggest you look at the numbers mobile phone usage in the developing world is skyrocketing.

the basic instincts of people is not competition, humans are social animals, and hence it is ingrained in our biology to help each other out, respect each other and value cooperation.

How do you explain the constant competition we engage in then? As individuals we strive to 'keep up with the joanses(sp)'. As states we wage war and compete for territory. As cultures we ritualise competition to create sport. As children we don't play 'help people' games we play brutal competitive ones.

Nature is based in ruthless competition, we are a direct product of nature (unless you don't believe in evolution...) and as such competition is as deeply ingrained in our psyches as survival and breeding. Competition not mateship secured food, shelter and partners for our ancestors millions of years ago and these instincts remain.

neoliberal capitalism proposes that we depoliticise our lives to the extent that power is distributed vastly unequally, with the power of the weak limited to the maximum extent possible.

This is incoherant pseudo-intellectual ramble punctuated by 'watchwords' like neoliberal, etc. Please rephrase.

the role of government, with a truly democratic government, is to distribute power more equally, something more in tune with human nature. hence throughout history there has always been the weak fighting against the unbalanced power of the strong, such as autocracy, colonial powers, empires setc.

One I would (or rather do, have and are) argue that the role of government is not to engage in power, wealth or other redistribution in society but rather to defend society from outsiders.

I have already disproven your human nature argument, though my rebuttal merits some extension to consider the true motives for the weak agitating against the strong.

They are doing so not out of some desire for socialism but rather for a desire for more power in themselves so as better compete. And interestingly enough this can be seen as an offensive neo-realist microcosm. The weak collaborate against the strong because this is the best possible way to challenge the strong and gain power against the strong.

Also what of peaceful empires such as the romans (in france, spain and greece)? etc

 

[spell check]

haha i cant be fucked going through that now; basically you are saying that people will always kill each other and we shouldn't try to stop it because 'that's the way it is. its hard to see how you can get passionate about it.

just one massive problem, you say that there is no authority that binds states, so how can a state have a 'right' to unilateral action. who exactly is giving the state this right and who is enforcing it?

why exactly are you defending this system?? considering people within states seem happy to be bound by laws, why shouldn't their foreign policies be bound as well, seems fairly logical. i really don't see any point to your arguments other than to observe reality and proclaim that it can never be changed as if it is some incredible insight.

oh and i think humans are closer to monkeys than they are to sharks in terms of cooperation vs competition. enjoying competitive sport is different to having a total lack of empathy or sympathy for other people. sport tends to stop when someone actually gets hurt.

Got any proof that neoliberalism doesnt erode state power and nationalism?

cronulla riots? the entire population of the USA? although neither australia nor the USA are neoliberal - both economies are still highly protected compared to the theoretical 'neoliberal' economy

Competition not mateship secured food, shelter and partners for our ancestors millions of years ago and these instincts remain

no. you are just making shit up now to suit your arguments

i do claim that the world is changing. and that governments still operate in anachronistic ways. look at 9/11 to use an overused example. the US ignored much of the intelligence coming from the NSC pre 9/11 about al qaeda because they couldn't comprehend a non-state threat to their security. this was all documented in inquiries after 9/11.

you say that superpowers can act unilaterally, look what happened when the US tried to? and the katrina example is very important because it showed how inept the supposed 'superpower' was, it couldn't even look out for its own people and conduct a war at the same time. the phenomenal amounts it spends on advanced weapons obviously don't count for much, despite what realism says.

One I would (or rather do, have and are) argue that the role of government is not to engage in power, wealth or other redistribution in society but rather to defend society from outsiders.

so why did howard win the last election based entirely on 'the economy' while he had vastly increased the risk of australia being attacked by terrorists - outsiders - by participating in the war in iraq?

 

[The Brucemaster]

From what i gather here we have two main arguments on the neo-liberal side:

1) The State exists to protect the interests of the people and this is its primary/over-riding purpose.

This has a number of implications:

1) The State is thus servile to the needs of the people. There is a direct implication from this idea that the State is upholding a democratic ideal i.e. the State's actions are governed, even if indirectly, by the people.
Having said this the decision to pursue unilateral action surely rests with the people whose interests the State is concerned with?

2) This seems to only consider the interests of the people in terms of international threat. It does not consider the fact that domestic problems are often far more detrimental than the threat posed by say terrorism.

The other main argument that has been presented is that of competition: that State's are inherently competitive with one another due to basic human instinct. Thus the State must do everything it can in order to remain competitive internationally.

I see a major flaw in this as it indicates a rather cynical view of the world, in that no one can be trusted. Im not saying that cynicism is necessarily wrong but in this instance it is a problem as everyone is perceived as a potential threat and thus tensions arise where they dont necessarily have to exist.

What also came out of this argument was the idea of the strong dominating over the weak and that the strong had a right to action because they were simply pursuing their survival/national interest or whatever.
Basically what I see coming out of this is the notion of International Darwinism where its every State for themselves and only those with military power survive because they are deemed to be "the fittest".

 

[Comrade nathan]

What a dilema this young neo liberal is in. He talks so much about the removal of interference of state on "the individual" and the triumph of the market in the global sense. When he comes to the realisation of the contradiction of imperialism and national liberation, he see the need for a state to enforce the markets "success" on the poor people of the world.

It is not really a policy or decision of the neo-liberal, just a realisation of you have be prepared to crush a few skulls for the markets success.

 

[loquasagacious]

you say that there is no authority that binds states, so how can a state have a 'right' to unilateral action. who exactly is giving the state this right and who is enforcing it?

A state has a right to unilateral action because there is no authority - because no one can stop them from ating unilaterally.

why exactly are you defending this system?? considering people within states seem happy to be bound by laws, why shouldn't their foreign policies be bound as well, seems fairly logical. i really don't see any point to your arguments other than to observe reality and proclaim that it can never be changed as if it is some incredible insight.

I am not so much defending this system as accepting it as inevitable and unchangeable. Much like one does not so much defend the existence of gravity as accept it and operate under its constraints.

Foreign policies can't be bound by law because the international system is on of anarchy not of law and order like civil society is. Within a state there exists an authoritative body within the international system there does not.

As far as a point to my arguments, perhaps to debunk the idealism espoused by those such as yourself. The reason to do so being that it is misguided and counter-productive.

oh and i think humans are closer to monkeys than they are to sharks in terms of cooperation vs competition.

Monkeys (or primates various) are violently competitive, fighting for food and dominance. Also chimpanzees are among the few animals to rape each other - clear violence when it is possible.

enjoying competitive sport is different to having a total lack of empathy or sympathy for other people. sport tends to stop when someone actually gets hurt.

Sports stop shy of people being hurt because they are governed by authoritative bodies with the power to punish participants - the international system is not. And also you may remember that bloodsports were popular in the past.

cronulla riots? the entire population of the USA? although neither australia nor the USA are neoliberal - both economies are still highly protected compared to the theoretical 'neoliberal' economy

You rebut your own argument here, they arn't neo-liberal. Again I remind you of the abscene of a european war in the last ~60 years and the presence of neo-liberal integration (within europe). And also obviously enough there will be transitional frictions as nationalisms knee-jerk against their immenant demise.

no. you are just making shit up now to suit your arguments

Brilliant rebuttal you are clearly displaying the intellect of a "final year student of IR".

i do claim that the world is changing. and that governments still operate in anachronistic ways.

Then how exactly is the world changing and what is it changing too?

look at 9/11 to use an overused example. the US ignored much of the intelligence coming from the NSC pre 9/11 about al qaeda because they couldn't comprehend a non-state threat to their security. this was all documented in inquiries after 9/11.

How about you specifically reference these inquiries? I would suggest this is a hollow point as back in the days of Clinton the US was actively pursuing bin Laden and some other terrorist I can't even remember. Furthermore the state has had to deal with non-state threats since its inception. Some other pertinent examples would be the actions of rebels and guerilla resistances and also communist terrorists in europe such as the Red Brigade in the 60s/70s.

you say that superpowers can act unilaterally, look what happened when the US tried to?

I affirm their right to take unilateral action - this is not always the best option and may not always work as desired. You are setting up Iraq as a straw man to divert from whether or not unilateral action is justifiable.

the katrina example is very important because it showed how inept the supposed 'superpower' was, it couldn't even look out for its own people and conduct a war at the same time. the phenomenal amounts it spends on advanced weapons obviously don't count for much, despite what realism says.

The katrina example is entirely non-relevant, it has no bearing on our debate. You can't avoid war on the offchance of a natural disaster.

Also the ammounts spent on weapons count where its meant to - they deter attackers and enable attacking. No one has ever said that Main Battle Tanks are particularly useful in a hurricane however they are undeniably useful on the battlefield.

From what i gather here we have two main arguments on the neo-liberal side:

You're confusing neo-liberalism and realism.

1) The State is thus servile to the needs of the people. There is a direct implication from this idea that the State is upholding a democratic ideal i.e. the State's actions are governed, even if indirectly, by the people.
Having said this the decision to pursue unilateral action surely rests with the people whose interests the State is concerned with?

Yes this is true. It is also true that in general terms the populace has supported unilateral action.

2) This seems to only consider the interests of the people in terms of international threat. It does not consider the fact that domestic problems are often far more detrimental than the threat posed by say terrorism.

Could this be because we are debating the behaviour of the state within the international system and not domestically???

I see a major flaw in this as it indicates a rather cynical view of the world, in that no one can be trusted. Im not saying that cynicism is necessarily wrong but in this instance it is a problem as everyone is perceived as a potential threat and thus tensions arise where they dont necessarily have to exist.

So cynicism is both warranted and misplaced?

I would direct you to game theory, states generally act without (or with limited) co-operation hence they will pursue a dominant strategy which is inherantly cynical. In short, why exactly should we trust anyone? I think you are confusing pragmatism with cynicism.

What I see coming out of this is the notion of International Darwinism where its every State for themselves and only those with military power survive because they are deemed to be "the fittest".

What is your point? Do you think this is good, bad, indifferent? Is this unchangable or changeable?

And I would point out that only those with power survive, this is not just military however but rather a 'whole power' eg power could be derived from alliances/treaties, economics, culture, geography, influence/patronage, etc as well as pure military might.

What a dilema this young neo liberal is in. He talks so much about the removal of interference of state on "the individual" and the triumph of the market in the global sense. When he comes to the realisation of the contradiction of imperialism and national liberation, he see the need for a state to enforce the markets "success" on the poor people of the world.

Not sure to whom you are addressing this comment. If it is to me then you are grossly miscontruing my position.

Firstly I believe that the free market will triumph globally.
I believe that national liberation and imperialism are two sides of the same coin - nationalism.
I believe that neo-liberalism is fundamentally opposed to nationalism.

Therefore I see the free market as ultimately ending imperialism/etc.

As far as enforcing the market on people, I believe that they primarily jump at the market themselves. Remember that for every country 'forced open' there are ten, twenty, etc more who have opened themselves up to foreign investment. They do this because this is a clear way to improve their situation. Much like textile workers in Taiwan have chosen to improve their situation by working manufacturing textiles.

 

[banco55]

[SIZE=-1]"The strong do what they will, the weak endure what they must." [/SIZE]
-Thucydides

 

[The Brucemaster]

Yes this is true. It is also true that in general terms the populace has supported unilateral action.

Whilst this appears true i would say that certainly in terms of the Iraq War this was done so under false pretences. Im not sure of the statistics but im quite sure that soon after the "liberation" of Iraq the approval rate for the war declined to well below 50%. This not only happened in Australia but the US aswell.
Another example of this is the Vietnam War where large scale protests were held in opposition and yet the war continued.

Could this be because we are debating the behaviour of the state within the international system and not domestically???

My point is that this idea of the primary aim of the State is narrow-minded and fails to consider the often, if not always, larger problems present domestically.

So cynicism is both warranted and misplaced?

No, cynicism is not inherently bad i just feel that in this instance it is a poor approach to the situation.

I would direct you to game theory, states generally act without (or with limited) co-operation hence they will pursue a dominant strategy which is inherantly cynical. In short, why exactly should we trust anyone? I think you are confusing pragmatism with cynicism.

Well, I guess trusting others is just a personal view I have. I prefer to trust someone unless they prove unworthy of it then to mistrust everyone and let that govern my attitude.
Basically, I would rather go in to something with an open mind then having a preconceived notion that will influence my behaviour.

What is your point? Do you think this is good, bad, indifferent? Is this unchangable or changeable?

I have no point i was merely illustrating the over-riding argument.

And I would point out that only those with power survive

But if that is true then all the supposedly weak States will at some point be eradicated, hence leaving only the powerful States to survive.
However, if what you say about cynical foreign policy and the instinct for competition is true then what will eventuate is a continual struggle for dominance until only one State remains.
I hardly see, in light of this, that this theory can be beneficial to us in a significant way.

 

[loquasagacious]

i would say that certainly in terms of the Iraq War this was done so under false pretences. Im not sure of the statistics but im quite sure that soon after the "liberation" of Iraq the approval rate for the war declined to well below 50%. This not only happened in Australia but the US aswell.
Another example of this is the Vietnam War where large scale protests were held in opposition and yet the war continued.

Support for war always drops after the initial jingoism as people realise that it won't all be over by christmas....

I would note that the level of opposition is only important if it can bring down the government - either democratically or otherwise.

My point is that this idea of the primary aim of the State is narrow-minded and fails to consider the often, if not always, larger problems present domestically.

How can survival and integrity of the state possibly be a secondary priority to anything else?

Well, I guess trusting others is just a personal view I have. I prefer to trust someone unless they prove unworthy of it then to mistrust everyone and let that govern my attitude.
Basically, I would rather go in to something with an open mind then having a preconceived notion that will influence my behaviour.

Prepare to lead a life of being screwed.

I present some elementary game theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma enjoy. In a situation of non-cooperation the rational thing is to betray the other/strike first/etc.

But if that is true then all the supposedly weak States will at some point be eradicated, hence leaving only the powerful States to survive.
However, if what you say about cynical foreign policy and the instinct for competition is true then what will eventuate is a continual struggle for dominance until only one State remains.
I hardly see, in light of this, that this theory can be beneficial to us in a significant way.

Again and again I say that this is not so much a theory for how things should be, but a guide to how they are.

Also realism dictates that as one state rises to dominance this will push smaller states into alliances against it which thus re-equalises the situation.

And also what exactly would be wrong with only one remaining state? (disregarding concerns we would not be that state).

 

[HotShot]

Is unilateral action a right of a superpower?

I wouldnt call it a 'right'. but the issue is if they do who can stop them? in this case simply- they may not have the right and they have the power to take unilateral action, who then will enforce the law?

as i see it, the superpower can do whatever they want, because they have no opposition or there opposition is too weak to provide any resistance.

BUT-regarding america, its different. they maybe a superpower, but in real terms, at th emoment china and india are really starting to dominant. with the united states being tied now with iran, iraq and afghanistan and a host of internal problems- they are really in a big strife. their growth in technology,military etc, will be slowed down, allowing the indians and chinesse to progress rapidly.

EU- is way way behind they are no opposition to either india, china or america. sheer numbers of asia is huge advantage - low labour costs absolutely, encourage productivity and growth. so as i see it, unilateral action of america from here on, will no longer be as easy as before. withoout of course a 'right'.

 

[Comrade nathan]

Firstly I believe that the free market will triumph globally.

Then what need will there be for unilateral action? People should by dying to become neo-liberal, economies should be collapsing, countries should be turning neo-liberal in no time. However this is not the case, so therefore the need for capitalist to talk about policies of unilateral action. Which basically means from time to time imperialism needs the use of might and force.

Also what is wrong with your belief, is that this is not the case. With the fall of the USSR, it was claimed that the market has won over Communism. This never happened, there is no doubt a contradiction between imperialism (capitalism in the modern era) and the people in 3rd words. Your belief seems to ignore the constant conflicts against capitalism by people who want to create socialism. This is most apparant in places like South America, India and the to be triumph of a socialist state in Nepal.

There will be a forever long conflict between the people of the world and the free market.

I believe that national liberation and imperialism are two sides of the same coin - nationalism.

Im glad you said believe, because it goes against all objective truth.

If your belief is true, then the anti-aparthiad movement in South Africa was imperialist, the liberation of the people of Zimbabwe against aparthiad was imperialist, the liberation of Vietnamese people from French colonailism was imperialism.

This is completly foolish, as imperialism is a stage of capitalist monopolies, the merging of bank and industrial capital and the expansion of markets accross borders.

No national liberation has yet to succed so far in capitalism that they could become imperialist. National liberation is the liberation of nations from oppression of another nation. Nationalism is something different, or at least the common idea of nationalism.

Remember that for every country 'forced open' there are ten, twenty, etc more who have opened themselves up to foreign investment.

This is not true. There is a huge history of invasion, counter revolution (contras), assassinations, founded coup, founded corrupt governments, blockades, propoganda wars etc by the proponents of free market, against independant nations.

For instance it may seem that Mozambique opened up willing to free market economies. Since there was no invasion, and prolonged civil war and stagnating economy seemed an internal problem. However this country was under seige by the free market economies abroad and the aparthiad governments surrounding it. It didn't have the ability, or political leadership to conitinue the national liberation so it choose to resign to free market demands and open up.

This is the nature of capitalism in the modern era. This is why there is contradiction in your words. You first claim the peacefull nature and triumph of capitalism, yet you talk about unilateral action against weaker nations. This is just a realisation (though not completly conscious realisation) of the nature of imperialism and it's opposite national liberation.

 

[loquasagacious]

Then what need will there be for unilateral action? People should by dying to become neo-liberal, economies should be collapsing, countries should be turning neo-liberal in no time. However this is not the case, so therefore the need for capitalist to talk about policies of unilateral action. Which basically means from time to time imperialism needs the use of might and force.

Again you are confusing neo-liberalism and realism, again I state: neo-liberalism and realism are contradictory and opposing ideas!

You seem to be compounding mercantlist and neo-liberal capitalists into the same capitalist category when they are quite disimilar. Some capitalists talk of unilateral action as a means of expanding their monopolies (mercantlists) others because that is simply the way of the world (me).

With the fall of the USSR, it was claimed that the market has won over Communism. This never happened, there is no doubt a contradiction between imperialism (capitalism in the modern era) and the people in 3rd words. Your belief seems to ignore the constant conflicts against capitalism by people who want to create socialism. This is most apparant in places like South America, India and the to be triumph of a socialist state in Nepal.

I study Russian politics, Russia lost the cold war, the west didn't win it. However the communist system had become unsustainable, the system of price controls unworkable and industry suffered rapidly declining productivity. The only time at which communism seemed to work was under Brezhnev at which point the USSR became almost a rentier state able to 'afford communism' because of the world oil crisis. However ultimately Communism failed, this leaves capitalism as the winner.

Yes people constantly try and create socialism around the world and they constantly fail. Why else would China, India and Vietnam all be making the transition to free-market economies? Why else other than the abject superiority of capitalism?

There will be a forever long conflict between the people of the world and the free market.

And capitalism will win.

Im glad you said believe, because it goes against all objective truth.

Allow me to restate in absolute terms: Nationalism is the source of both imperialism and struggles for national liberation, they are two sides of the same coin. And perhaps poetically speaking the edge of the coin is war.

If your belief is true, then the anti-aparthiad movement in South Africa was imperialist, the liberation of the people of Zimbabwe against aparthiad was imperialist, the liberation of Vietnamese people from French colonailism was imperialism.

Can anyone else say, straw man?

Nationalism is the primary driver of imperialist ambitions and is also the primary driver of 'stuggles for national liberation'. It is a nationalistic belief in the superiority of your nation that drives you to subjugate others and a nationalistic belief (often a negative not a positive one) that drives you to throw off the oppression of an outsider. This is established fact, please disprove in a slightly more rigorous manner than quoting Lenin.

This is completly foolish, as imperialism is a stage of capitalist monopolies, the merging of bank and industrial capital and the expansion of markets accross borders.

Has somebody been reading their Lenin? Because I think that they've got it all confused. Capitalist monopolies are mercantlist and yes imperialist however they are ultimately not in the national interest and so are disbanded (see the East India Company). It is their business to expand national borders to expand markets (and Lenin's hypothesis this is because of market saturation at home is wrong as it is driven by competition between companies.). Trading across borders is the business of neo-liberalism.

Nationalism is something different, or at least the common idea of nationalism.

Then what pray tell is nationalism to a communist like yourself?

This is not true. There is a huge history of invasion, counter revolution (contras), assassinations, founded coup, founded corrupt governments, blockades, propoganda wars etc by the proponents of free market, against independant nations.

There is a huge history of Sino-Soviet and Russo-American conflict by proxy in the third world. It is a gross mistake to construe this as being about the free market, this is/was a conflict for influence/dominance on the world stage between the superpowers of the time.

For instance it may seem that Mozambique opened up willing to free market economies. Since there was no invasion, and prolonged civil war and stagnating economy seemed an internal problem. However this country was under seige by the free market economies abroad and the aparthiad governments surrounding it. It didn't have the ability, or political leadership to conitinue the national liberation so it choose to resign to free market demands and open up.

Try a slightly more objective explannation and I might even read this properly.

Also I suppose that Asia was 'under seige' by racist/sexist/anti-queer/capitalist neighbours and so opened up?

This is the nature of capitalism in the modern era. This is why there is contradiction in your words. You first claim the peacefull nature and triumph of capitalism, yet you talk about unilateral action against weaker nations. This is just a realisation (though not completly conscious realisation) of the nature of imperialism and it's opposite national liberation.

I claim to seperate things:

The ascendency of the realist paradigm of interpreting International Relations and the justifiable place unilateral action (and indeed imperialism) plays in this.

The coming death of the current International system as bought about by the acclerating process of neo-liberal globalisation.

I base my first position upon realism as the logical extension of nationalism, competitiveness and the very nature of the state.

And I think I have been tearing my hair out trying to beat it through your (collective) skulls that neo-liberalism is seperate, distinct, different and opposed to realism. How many more times must I do this?????