Sovereignty and The Self-Help System

            When looking into the forces driving behind the leading of great states, the role of sovereignty cannot be overlooked. Although government and politics have changed a lot over the last few hundred years, many aspects have not. Although the idea of sovereignty with absolute rule and power isn’t as popular or smart as it used to be, some concepts are still prevalent today. Now, however, states must be even more cautious when it comes to matters with sovereignty. For example, foreign intervention to help an ally or defeat an enemy has many other consequences between military strength and power. When deciding upon international affairs today, just as importantly are economic effects.

The concept and power of sovereignty in our world is almost unparalleled by any other force when it comes to states and leaders’ decision-making. After reading Morgenthau’s piece about how states operate with sovereignty and under self-help system, I can’t help but think about the same rules and practices that follow the same methods in our society. Eventually, I came to the conclusion of the possibility that sovereignty occurs naturally in humans, and that each one of us is wired to the self-help system of living.

            The first comparison that came to mind was the quintessential school playground where the older kids or bullies operate as great states, and the smaller younger kids act as less powerful states. In this system, Morgenthau makes it clear that, “it pays to be selfish in a self-help world.” Therefore, states, or in the real life example of the playground, each child looks after their own self-interest. As great states, the bullies do as they please to the weaker, defenseless kids. However, when it comes to conflict between bullies, it is clear that they fear each other for they do not know the capabilities of one another. Because they all hold power over others, they observe each other with suspicion. As Morgenthau states, “They anticipate danger. There is little room for trust among states.” Just like in the playground, the only way for smaller states to defeat larger ones is through clever strategies. This could involve gaining power slowly with small vectoring, or possibly by joining forces with another smaller power.

This way of thinking has led me to a new idea as well. Does the idea of sovereignty and the self-help system occur naturally? In other words, do these ideas fall under the natural law category of mankind? Overall, we’d have to consider a lot of factors. Although it is true that many people act to help others, but much more often than not, people act in pursuit of their own self-interest. But, does this dictate every social and political situation worldwide? I personally believe that sovereignty reigns in many different aspects of society, on both large and small scales, not just in politics. In addition to the playground example, the same model applies in high school and. the workplace. However, it is also key to examine whether or not the small-scale scenarios in which the self help system exists actually contributes to how government is operated. If this is true, the possibility of the self-help system and personal sovereignty could actually be a part of natural law.

           

Realism and the Israeli Palestinian Conflict

The Gaza Strip conflict between Israel and Palestine has been at the forefront of international relations debates for the past few decades. Though a complicated and hard to describe issue, it is relatively clear that both sides are using realism as their bases for interaction with their enemies. Clearly, this realist ideology, and the actions it causes have done nothing to resolve the conflict, and a change in thinking may be needed. Realism can be defined as a very self-empowering theory, in which a state’s primary goal is to be more powerful than other states, usually militarily. Basically, the state is the most important entity, and the main focus should be on maintaining and strengthening the state, usually to the detriment of other states. That being said, both sides should start to look at different methods of interaction, because there is still only bloodshed and animosity between them.

           

            The conflict has taken an extremely realist approach on both sides, especially recently as there seems to be even more armed conflict that may boil over into international war. Realism places an intense focus on self-preservation and even improvement, often at the expense of other states or peoples. Both Israel and Palestine demonstrate these kinds of ideals, especially in a military sense. Specifically, in the past few years Israel has completely revamped its defense system and now has one of the most technologically advanced and trained militaries in the entire world. This is because they are worried about their own security and feel they must do whatever it takes to protect them and improve their current situation. The safety of citizens and the protection of the state are the ultimate goal, and Israel has improved its defensive and offensive capabilities in order to achieve these goals.

            On the other side, the Palestinian people fighting for their own land and rights also take up realist tactics. Even though there is no actual Palestinian state, leaders and citizens, especially Hamas, are constantly focusing on better equipping themselves to forcibly win back the land that used to belong to them. By using other humans as shields, constantly bombing cities and even committing ground invasions on the other side, both Israel and Palestine are using violent, state sponsored realist ideologies in order to better themselves, often at the detriment of their enemies.

            This realist ideology has not been effective, however, at curbing violence and war that has led to bloodshed and death for both sides. The emphasis on military might and violent conflict has led to thousands of misplaced people, death and further animosity between the two sides. In my opinion, both sides should switch to a more liberalist view of the situation and focus on mutual interdependent to hopefully find a good solution for each of them. Though this is a lot easier said than done, I believe in the end this viewpoint would be the best in making sure that both sides get what they want, and don’t lose people through war while getting it. Liberalism has a heavy emphasis on rationality and interdependence in order to strengthen both sides, and in turn, the rest of world that is involved. Liberalism is one of the best methods for this situation, as it would lead not only to a drop off in military presence and violence, but it would also lead to interdependence between both states, and a betterment of the situation for both parties.

            Right now, both the Israeli state and the Palestinian freedom fighters are thinking within the realist scope of thinking and this has led to unheralded violence and death. Though not a reasonable assertion right now based on the history and the current situation of the conflict, both sides should undertake more liberalist principles. Liberalism would be a better result for both sides as there would be less violent war and more assisting of each other.           

Why Terrorists are Realists

Realism holds the idea that power and security are the main objectives of any country before they pursue anything else beneficial for their state. I would like to argue that terrorist can be seen as realists since they pursue a type of power and a sense of security surrounding their political and ideological identity.

Terrorists can be defined as a person or group of people that uses acts of violence against a certain group of people to address a political issue. For example, the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 would be considered an act of terror since the Iranians addressed the issue of too much Western influence on their land.

Terrorists can be seen as structural realists since they rely on both the offensive, as well as the defensive, aspect. Terrorists are generally from the Middle East, a land that has been under the rule of many empires and nations for a few centuries. Hence, their objective would be to hold onto their land, or play the offensive during political conflicts. Furthermore, they find it their duty to protect their land from Western influence. Hence, they use suicide bombings to send a striking message to states that they want to be left alone.

Under the tenets of realism, terrorist first secure power. Most of their power comes from the military. However, this is not a traditional military; it is made up of people who are absorbed in their ideologies and are willing to die to defend their beliefs and their land. The 9/11 incident reveals to Americans and the West that the terrorists wanted less Western influence on their borders. They sent a signal to the world that they wanted to handle their own issues without any states’ interference. Furthermore, terrorists use economic and cultural power to fuel a need to serve their country. Since they are fighting an ideological war, they instill into the young men their ideology and culture to make them have a desire to die for their nation.

Terrorists also seek security. As stated before, the Middle East has been under the rule of many rulers, which made their culture almost disappear at one point in history. Furthermore, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to an increase dominance of the West in their land. The late twentieth century has been full of wars set in the Middle East as well. Hence, one can see that the terrorists hold a fear that they might lose their land and their culture. Therefore, they use terrorist attacks to excite the world and send a message that they want less Western influence in their borders and they want to be handle their issues on their own.

The fear and the need to preserve what they own drives terrorists to bring fear to the world with acts of aggression against a state or group of people. They believe that their beliefs are timeless—the search for an Islamic land where the caliphate will rule over everyone. This belief drives them to perform shocking acts, such as suicide bombings, to attract attention and tell the West not to interfere in their affairs.

Hence, terrorists are realists because their main goal is to obtain power while securing their land from losing it yet again.

Realism and Today's Foreign Policy

Turn on the news and the first thing you’ll hear about is the topic of the US air strikes in Syria. I have been following this story closely for a while now, and our class readings and discussions have allowed me to relate our material to this important current event. President Obama just recently gave the order to proceed with the air strikes after months without a concrete plan. President Obama’s foreign policy has been under great scrutiny, and I believe it is for good reason. The safety and well being of our citizens should be the number one priority of the President, and the President’s foreign policy has not been a reflection of this. The decision to allow airstrikes mirrors a more realist approach to foreign policy, and I believe this is what needed to be done. The President should focus on putting security first, making our citizens feel safe, and taking the proper steps in the attack of our foreign combatants.

The current situation is one of great complexity, but errors in decision-making have made it this way. For example, the removal of troops from Iraq at an unstable time has allowed ISIS to occupy parts of the country as well as destroy the existing government. I understand that it is difficult to make the decision to engage in combat for a multitude of reasons; however, the inability to take action against a serious threat has left us in an even more difficult place than we were weeks ago.  

One of the staples of realism is the emphasis on security. The safety and well being of our countrymen and women should be placed before anything else. While we should strive to be moral and just, there is no universal definition of what morality is, especially in times of war. In Morganthau’s “Six Principles to Political Realism,” the issue of morality is addressed. President Obama did look into what he thought would be the moral thing to do, but he delayed taking any action for an extended period of time. Some may argue his new tactics are immoral, but as Morganthau said, “the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation… get in the way of successful political action…(Morganthau 12)" We are not seeking war; we are doing what is necessary to protect our country.   

These terrorists have murdered countless men and women and have threatened our national security.  The President’s less than authoritative stance in foreign policy has put us in a difficult situation, and he should’ve addressed the issues with a realist approach earlier in his term. As a leader of a country, citizens put their faith in you to protect them from any threats and to take the proper actions. With his past approach to foreign policy, President Obama had Americans feeling as if they were unsafe. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll revealed that “47 percent of Americans feel the country is less safe than it was before we were attacked on 9/11 2001 (O'Reilly 1).” This number rose from 28 percent to 47 percent in just one year, which proves Americans have not been confident in the President’s ability to protect us from harm. I believe the switch to a realist approach will improve the feeling of safety and security in our country. 

My argument is not that there is no room for any other type of foreign policy, but rather that we should determine the best course of action given the situation at the time. As a result of this idea, I believe it would be foolish to embody any other foreign policy than realism at this moment in time. 

Works Cited:

 Morgenthau, Hans. “Six Principles of Political Realism” in International Politics:

 Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. edited by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis. 8th ed. New York:   Pearson/Longman, 2007,

                O'Reilly, Bill. "Protecting the Folks." Fox News. N.p., 10 Sept. 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.