America’s great power and wealth tempts some to advocate its intervention when civil wars in weakly or ungoverned lands threaten to become humanitarian disasters or when tyrants refuse to surrender their thrones. Our aid for victims should be readily offered in these cases, but very rarely should our troops. America must avoid becoming the global policeman, self-designated or not
The mushroom cloud has retrospectively obscured the context in which American leaders took the decision to build and use the atomic bomb. The principle rationale behind the intensification of the Manhattan Project in the first half of 1945 was the desire of the US bureaucracy to end the war in the Pacific before the planned invasion of the Japanese mainland in November 1945.
Warfare today is changing. The course of conflict in the 21st century, and the problems we in the West may continue to face in the coming decades are mutating, developing and adapting in ways that make their defeat – whilst not necessarily more difficult – an entirely different prospect to face.
International institutions are generally the results of leading states. Therefore, it is world powers that could eventually, under conditions of extreme political will, promote global peace and security and not the international institutions they have created in order to build their spheres of influence and increase their power in the international system.
The fact that Hamas and Hezbollah have participated in elections does not necessarily mean that they have abandoned Islamist ideology. The very term ‘Islamist’, or at least its application, is highly problematic. Furthermore, all Islamist organisations are very different, and are constrained by the institutional rules of participation to differing degrees.
A liberal foreign policy based on the assumption of DPT – that liberal democracies will be less likely to go to war with each other – does have flaws and weaknesses. While fixing these flaws and strengthening these weaknesses may be difficult, time-consuming and painful, the promise of peace is surely worth the effort.
The need to resort to strategic symbols like Mahdi is to some degree the result of the Persian cultural trait of ta’arof which discourages direct confrontation and criticism. Westerners, bewildered by such peculiarities, often fall back on what they know best, Iran’s foreign affairs, while overlooking the domestic aspects that fuel Iranian behavior.
The Arab Spring will most probably exacerbate areas of conflicting interests between Iran and the US, as the regional designs and aspirations of both nations are deeply antithetical. One may argue that the prospect of a violent conflict is looming large on the horizon.
Social control, which is essential to all social relations, is at the center of international relations. Calculation of self-interest best explains actors’ underlying incentives, and thus their willingness to comply with rules.
Violence in the international system can manifest itself in several ways. Principal among these are interstate war, civil war and military interventions. Yet in terms of human behaviour, conflict is relatively infrequent. This essay will examine this paradox.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.