International Politics
Q1. Constructing International Politics by Wendt
According to Wendt, social structures are built on three elements; a shared knowledge, the material resources, and practices (Wendt, 1995). Concerning the aspect of shared knowledge, Wendt points out that partial definition of social structures involves common understanding, knowledge or expectations. These aspects constitute actions in a given situation which in turn influence how they relate, whether conflictive or corporative. To draw his point, Wendt further uses the case of the security dilemma, which is a social structure based on intersubjective understandings whereby states become so distrustful to the extent that they assume worst-case scenarios regarding the intentions of their counterparts (Wendt, 1995). As such, these states tend to define their individual interests in manners that aim at benefiting themselves.
On the other hand, a security community, as pointed out by Wendt, is a separate social structure built on shared knowledge whereby states show trust amongst themselves, and as a result, they resolve the existing disputes without the use of war. Therefore, it is this ideological dependence that makes social structures constructivism aided by the intersubjective quality of their ideas. Hence, sociality, unlike the materiality (in regards to unreasonable physical abilities), is all about the shared knowledge. Again, social structures entail material resources such as tanks and gold, which only gain meaning for the actions undertaken by humans through structured knowledge and systems to which they are attached (Wendt, 1995). Finally, social structures only manifest in process and practices. The Cold War, for instance, can be described as an element of a shared knowledge which governed great power relationships for an extended period but eventually ended when its basis of occurrence was over.
Q2 Prince of Marshes by Stewart
Some of the scenarios that significantly stand out in Rory’s “Prince of Marshes” include his steps by volunteering to serve in the Coalition government of Iraq, his duties as the Deputy Governor, his support and subsequent change of mind regarding the war in Iraq, and the failed attempts by the Coalition government in their push for democracy in Iraq (Stewart, 2007). Stewart volunteered to offer his services to the Coalition government because he had offered Foreign Service in other countries like Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Indonesia. He had been exposed to lots of ‘foreign interventions’ and direct post-conflict resolutions, where in most cases, the local citizens get pleased with the removal of previous regimes. His core responsibilities involved the formation of a humane and effective government, capable of representing the public, delivering services and maintaining peace and security (Stewart, 2007).
These deliverables could only be achieved through collaborations with stakeholders such as religious leaders, union leaders and businesspeople in an attempt to offer answers to the raised grievances, deter riots by opponents, and win trust. He initially supported the war by borrowing in his previous experiences in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Bosnia, and East Timor, where interventions led to actual benefits to the general public. He believed that Iraqis needed rights, and they did not like Saddam’s brutal regime (Stewart, 2007). However, he changed his mind following the loss of many Iraqi lives and lots of money spent on restoring the situation that never changed. Some of the reasons that made the Coalition fail in its attempts at building democracy include the mess created by the interventions, poor tactical decisions, and planning. Fundamentally, the nature of the Iraqi society and the political culture in the coalitions of Iraq made it difficult for them to succeed. Both civilian and military coalition bodies became ineffective at post-conflict resolutions (Stewart, 2007).
In Stiglitz, the economic case refuting market liberalization points out to the fact that capital liberalization has no association with higher investment levels and rapid economic growth, but rather leads to increased levels of economic risk and volatility (Stiglitz, 2002). Liberalization enables the free flow of capital into the states leading to higher exchange rates especially under non-rigid exchange terms, which eventually makes it difficult for exports to compete against imports in such states. There exists a systematic correlation between instability and capital state liberalization. The immediate period after liberalization is normally marked by risk since states tend to respond enthusiastically to opportunities in an exaggerated manner owing to the new openings of the previously locked opportunities.
However, the arguments favoring liberalization of states point out that; firstly, capital is likely to flow from developed states, in which there are low margins of capital returns, into developing states, where there is relatively scarce capital and hence high margins of capital returns. In addition to that, liberalization would facilitate stability by enabling states to benefit from the varied sources of capital (Stiglitz, 2002). These aspects combined allows for stable investment and consumption in liberalized states.
References
Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing international politics. International security, 20(1), 71-81.
Stewart, R. (2007). The prince of the marshes: and other occupational hazards of a year in Iraq. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2002). Capital Market Liberalization and Exchange Rate Regimes: Risk Without Reward. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 579(1), 219-248.
