Question One
The role of the United States in the solutions of the planet’s problems has been great. The policies adopted by different administrations have been different. Though this is the reality on the ground, the administrations have continually changed their approaches. There are three categories that have been used by the United States as far as international relations are concerned. All these have had the aim to advance social justice, reduce conflicts and meet global needs. Though security has been the main concern, there are other concerns as well. The three categories are as follows.
One, Maintainer kind of worldview; National interests must be conserved by the state. For instance, when there was war in Yugoslavia, NATO had to I intervene because it was in the interest of the state to squash any instability that threatened the region. Yugoslavia is very close to western European states. Citizens must, therefore, support their states when they have their interests at heart. Since the intervention of NATO was imminent, the governments of the major powers that were working together for the restoration of Yugoslavia and Kosovo (France, UK, Russia, US and Germany) jointly said that they would not ‘tolerate any ethnic cleansing’. The core assumption of a ‘Maintainer’ worldview is that the citizens will support any decision the authority makes no matter what their views are.
The problem with this approach to international relations is that the international relations give room for unregulated decision making by the state. When this happens, nationalism is compromised. Another problem is that this worldview is because it gives room for a lot of competition. States compete unregulated. This is likely to result to unnecessary wars. Finally, international relations are limited with this category of worldview.
Two, Reformer kind of worldview; this kind of worldview denotes that there are some opinions that matter and are taken into context when state decisions are made. These opinions belong to NGOs, media and the opinions of the affected such as refugees. There are institutions whose views must be sought when state decisions as to whether to intervene in a war or not are made. Examples of such institutions are EU, UN, OSCE and NATO. This worldview exists in a democratic society. Thus, before the major powers decided to take action on Yugoslavia and Kosovo, they had to consult and get the relevant views from the relevant quarters.
The problem with this approach to international relations is that it gives inters-based international relations. Every actor, whether internal or external, has his or her own vested interests. In addition, this worldview lacks coordination. Decision making by the actors lacks coordinated efforts which can give rise to nationalism based decisions. Finally, this category of worldview lacks collaboration. The opinions that must be integrated to make a final apt decision are not properly coordinated.
Three, Transformer kind of worldview; this worldview denotes that human rights come before everything. If there is any conflict, before a decision is made whether to intervene through a war or not, human rights must be considered. Ethnic nationalism and particularism are as universal as human rights, but human rights take center stage. Both external and internal actors must, therefore, consider human rights first before any state decision is made. This worldview makes individuals feel that they have participated in state decision making regarding international relations. Both international and national organizations in the country give individuals this opportunity. Therefore, before the U.S. decided to intervene in the Yugoslavia affair, they had to consider human rights.
Since the first two approaches never worked, the U.S. has changed their policy regarding international relations. The last approach is the one that has been adopted by the country. Morgenthau, Mearsheimer, Falk and Tickner, can approve this approach. This is because Mearsheimer says ‘in my own view, for whatever little is worth, is that many of the descriptive similarities at the policy level are superficial’. Morgenthau says ‘human nature is the starting point of all decision making’. Tickner says ‘states must lean on their own capabilities and the opinions of their citizenry to ensure security are maintained’.
Question Two
Yes, the conversation between Hobbes and his friends is an international issue. This is because they talk about governance, empires, fideism, and the nature of man. They also talk about military strategy and war. All these subjects relate to the happenings on the world stage.
There are a number of issues that cause the violence in the Grotius Debate. They mention ethnic cleansing, disagreements over resources and the competition for authority. Issues of reason and enlightenment are supposed to be rational debate tools but the speakers speak about ethnic conflicts and the war visions of community (1919-1939).
We should be concerned because war is a global failure. The United States has failed to stop these conflicts. When war occurs, there are unfortunate events such as rape cases which break the social fabric of the society. When lives are lost, this must be of concern to us. The society is affected as a whole. The debate between Thomas Hobbes, Thucydides, Grotius and Kant bring into concern the effects of conflict in the society. This is why this issue must be of concern to us.
The best way for us to prevent this kind of violence is through international intervention. War is not a must, neither is sending military. But international talks to resolve the conflict are the best way. Whatever the reason for the war can easily be established and resolved. This will result to prevention of loss of lives and property.
Yes, this suggests a change in the traditional international relations agenda. The traditional way, employed by the United States as well as other powers is military intervention. However, this does not require that. This requires disuse of the military and less spill of blood. This is in fact the best way.
Bibliography
Baylis, John, and Steve Smith. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Falk, Richard A. La globalización depredadora: una crítica. Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno de España, 2002.
Golich, Vicki L., and Steve Lamy. "Achieving Human Security after IntraState Conflict: The Lessons of Kosovo." Journal of Contemporary European Studies (2004): doi:10.1080/14782800600892275.
Stiehm, J. "Book Review: Cynthia Enloe, Maneuvers: The International Politics of Militarizing Women's Lives." Millennium-journal of International Studies (2000): doi:10.1177/03058298000290020408.
.
