Fine you want an essay.
This was my first ever uni essay that I did last year. Got a low 2.1 for it.
Critically assess the claim that the anarchic structure of the international system determines the behaviour of nation states.
The theory of neo realism states that the nature of the international system is anarchic and that this is the driving force behind international relations and that a states self interest is often pursued and conflict happens regularly as a result. As such realists claim that states cannot trust other states as the lack of international order makes them self seeking and as such are likely to deviate from agreements to suit their own purposes. However many realists fail to account for matters where the system isn't necessarily anarchical such as trade which requires trust of both parties and where selfish actions by a state will often result in other states refusing to trade with them.
Neo realists claim that the international system is mostly kept in order by the balance of power with a unbalanced system resulting in conflict. However even if there is a balance of power conflict can arise 'asserting that an international system is in equilibrium does not mean there are no conflicts'.
[1] This can explain conflicts such as the First World War where the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance had roughly similar power. The system being anarchic also means that sovereignty is the most important issue for neo realist. The Falklands war is a classic example of this 'it was not the war itself, but the principle over which the war was fought, and which still characterised international disorganisation'.
[2]
However even if the system appears to be in complete anarchy a state might not completely focus on military policy or act selfishly. 'In Japan, the warlord Kuroda Nagamasa (1568-1623) noted that "The art of peace and the art of war are like the two wheels of a cart, which lacking one will have trouble standing."'
[3] Considering that Kuroda was a Daimyo during what could be considered the most anarchic time in history, as during the Sengoku Jidai every clan was effectively acting as a state with its own borders but every Daimyo had their eye on the same goal, the Shogunate which could only be claimed by one clan. This naturally led to a lot of mistrust and selfish actions yet Kuroda still praises the art of peace leading to the idea that even if states cannot trust each other conflict does not always occur and that cooperation can be achieved. Long term partnerships during the period help cement that idea such as the Oda and Tokugawa partnership. The fact that the Oda had liberated the Tokugawa from being Imagawa vassals at Okehazama (1560) (meaning there was a strong power advantage in favour of the Oda clan) yet still went on to form an alliance suggests that even the if the balance of power is heavily biased, cooperation is still possible. This also suggests that the system is not completely anarchic as in an anarchic system the way neo realists describe the weak will almost always get overpowered by the strong and states will always act selfishly which in the case of the particular alliance seems not to be the case.
The world economy has a strong role in preserving order as well. Trade is needed to keep a state's economy strong and this creates a need for agreements and peace. The fact that trust is needed for such trade agreements shows the system to have order rather than being in anarchy. If one state acts selfishly and does not keep their side of the deal then this will cause future trade to be under threat as other states will not trust them enough to make deals thus causing the state's economy to decline. 'Strange calls the traditional concept of power relational power. It is the capacity to make someone else do what one would not otherwise have done. Yet, this concept of power cannot account for the power or dependencies that derive from the capacity to provide the societal needs of a global economy.'
[4] States forcing other states to do as the state wishes can have a major impact on as well not only in distrust over the trade itself. An example of this would be the trade embargo placed on Japan by the United States in the lead up to World War 2. The embargo placed was due to the United States not being happy with Japan's actions in Asia. The result was that although Japan had not, not kept their side of the deal, the country suffered. Although this particular example led to war it shows that countries acting selfishly can ultimately cause them harm and thus makes cooperation a more rational and desirable choice, which in turn leads to world order rather than anarchy.
Past relationships can also have an impact on the situation. If two states have a long term cooperative past then this can result in increased trust. Likewise a hostile past can result in distrust 'States that trust each other sufficiently can cooperate; states that do not may end up in conflict.'
[5] This trust system when combined with other factors such as the global economy can create world order. If 2 states have a positive past relationship with one another this can create the basis for a stronger trade relationships and thus make more out of trade. A positive past relationship can also mean that even if the balance of power is biased, the weak will not always be overrun by the strong. For example the United States of America is easily in a position to threaten many of their allies such as Japan. However since the end of the Second World War the two states have been friendly to one another and that has strengthened their ties, trust and ultimately led to cooperation and order between the two. Another would be Germany and the United States. 'The European states were able to cooperate with each other, the United States and Germany after World War II because the United States, as a trustworthy hegemon, enabled them to overcome serious mistrust problems.'
[6]
Another point to consider against the idea of international anarchy is states being given independence after being defeated by a state that has every reason to distrust them. Under an anarchic system surely the United States would have taken control of Japan permanently rather than give the country and independent government as this, although regulated by United States military presence allows the state to become a problem if not dealt with quickly where as permanent occupation would remove that risk entirely thus the United States giving Japan and independent government shows that the system is not completely in anarchy. 'Not even the occupations of Japan and South Korea, successful as they were in installing governments friendly to the United States, assured the continuance of peace in the Far East. Japanese expansionism had not been the only threat to the West's historic hegemony in the Orient. Asian nationalism was another.'
[7] This shows that the international system is not anarchic in two ways. Firstly Asia remained stable. Secondly the United States did grant independence despite there being a threat according to the theory of an anarchic international system from both Japan and South Korea.
International aid also shows that countries are not always self seeking and also show the system to not be anarchical. States don't have to give aid and thus the fact they do shows that they are not as selfish as realists claim they are. 'Foreign aid has been the largest financial flow to most less developed countries (LDC's) over the past 40 years.'
[8] Also it shows there is global harmony. Money sent in aid is sometimes given to the government of a state. In an anarchic system surely this would be a very bad move unless the state receiving the money was of strategic importance as the state could spend it on arms.
Overall the evidence suggests that the international system is not only non anarchical but also that not all states are selfish as a neo realist interpretation of the international system implies.
Bibliography
Niou, Emerson MS, Peter C. Ordeshook, and Gregory F. Rose.
The balance of power: Stability in international systems. Cambridge University Press, 2007, pg 8.
Gustafson, Lowell S.
The sovereignty dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press, 1988, pg 120
Yamamoto, Tsunetomo.
Hagakure [eng.] The book of the samurai. Shambhala Publications, 1979. pg 18
Guzzini, Stefano.
Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: the continuing story of a death foretold. Vol. 6. Taylor & Francis, 1998. pg181
Kydd, Andrew H.
Trust and mistrust in international relations. Princeton University Press, 2005. pg 4-6
Graebner, Norman A., Introduction: the sources of postwar insecurity, Graebner, Norman A ed.
The National Security: Its Theory and Practice, 1945-1960: Its Theory and Practice, 1945-1960. Oxford University Press, 1986. pg 28
Lumsdaine, David H.
Moral Vision in International Politics: The Foreign Aid Regime; 1949-1989. Princeton University Press, 1993. pg 4
[1]Niou, Emerson MS, Peter C. Ordeshook, and Gregory F. Rose.
The balance of power: Stability in international systems. Cambridge University Press, 2007, pg 8.
[2] Gustafson, Lowell S.
The sovereignty dispute over the Falkland (Malvinas) Islands. Oxford University Press, 1988, pg 120
[3]Yamamoto, Tsunetomo.
Hagakure [eng.] The book of the samurai. Shambhala Publications, 1979. pg 18
[4]Guzzini, Stefano.
Realism in International Relations and International Political Economy: the continuing story of a death foretold. Vol. 6. Taylor & Francis, 1998. pg181
[5]Kydd, Andrew H.
Trust and mistrust in international relations. Princeton University Press, 2005. pg 4
[6] Kydd, Andrew H. , 2005 pg 6
[7] Graebner, Norman A., Introduction: the sources of postwar insecurity, Graebner, Norman A ed.
The National Security: Its Theory and Practice, 1945-1960: Its Theory and Practice, 1945-1960. Oxford University Press, 1986. pg 28
[8] Lumsdaine, David H.
Moral Vision in International Politics: The Foreign Aid Regime; 1949-1989. Princeton University Press, 1993. pg 4
Sorry the footnotes are at the bottom but I am not spending ages assigning them to each paragraph. Also I started this at 3am and submitted it at 9am same day so it clearly isn't the best I could do.
Alternatively if you want one on the media. Also done last minute because I was stupid last year.
Using a news story of your choice critically analyse the role of the media in today's society.
The war in Afghanistan has been a focal point of the media ever since the conflict started in 2003. The coverage of this story has changed over time as it has gone from being very supportive of British intervention to just reporting deaths as time has passed. The war is important as it has highlighted the many different areas of the media. This essay will cover how the war is political, why it is news, the different actors in the story and the role technology has played throughout the conflict.
The war in Afghanistan is very political. Primarily it is a conflict with soldiers fighting on behalf of the state. The state intervention on this matter means that it involves the top levels of government as well as the military hierarchy. The debate on whether it was justified continues and this makes it political on all levels both in Afghanistan and at home as the public and the individual state governments try to justify their claims. The public initially supported the war '92 percent supportive of the war on terror' (Wolfe, 2008, p42) The media initially tried to increase this support for the government action by publishing stories such as 'A Merciful War' (KRISTOF ,New York Times, 2002) Which contained words such as 'By my calculations, out invasion of Afghanistan may end up saving one million lives over the next decade' (KRISTOF ,New York Times, 2002) Related to this is the issue of state security. On the 9th of September 2001 the security of the United States was compromised which triggered the war. One of the aims of the conflict was to deal with this threat. In the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2010 it has a subtitle as 'Deny Al-Qa'ida the Ability to Threaten the American People, Our Allies, Our Partners and Our Interests Overseas' (Obama, 2010). Another reason this story is political is that it directly affects the lives of civilians. Civilians in Afghanistan will be relying on their government to help them and thus create domestic pressure on the government. Another way is the idea of war crimes. What is and is not considered a war crime is down to international diplomacy.
The story is news because it constantly grabs the public's attention and also it is easy to write about without having to spend lots of money trying to get the information. The war in Afghanistan falls under 9 of Galtung and Ruge's 12 points of what makes a story news worthy. These 9 points are frequency, threshold, meaningfulness, unexpectedness, continuity, reference to elite nations, references to elite people, references to persons and referencing to something negative. (Harcup, O'neill, 2001, p262, p263) The frequency is important in this story becoming news as although the overall story of the war is a long process the stories within that often develop at a similar pace as they are being reported. Events battles are often reported as they unfold. The threshold matters as well as the story of war often means that there are deaths. Sometimes a horrific war crime is uncovered which also grabs people's attention. This also makes an impression on those who select the stories to be published meaning that it gets published rather than discarded. The meaningfulness in this story is high as it affects United Kingdom soldiers and also American soldiers. This means that the news selector and news readers share a culture with those involved and thus the story is meaningful. The story keeps a high level of unexpectedness as stories constantly evolve from the war. The trigger on the 9th of September 2001 was hard to predict and so are many of the other stories that unfold throughout the war as war is an ever evolving thing with new events happening 24 hours a day. Continuity also applies as the war was front page news when it started and also when the story starts to get too repetitive the evolving nature of war has often refreshed interest and started the cycle off again where the story is news because it is familiar and the new stories and the lasting coverage justify why the story deserves so much attention. There are always references to elite nations in the Afghanistan war as the United States is directly involved. The news in Britain will refer to United States as it shares a similar culture to the United Kingdom and thus makes it a more important state for the British public. Also the actions of the United States often have far reaching consequences. The story also covers elite people as it involves top politicians who are known to the public. For example the media were particularly interested in the account of Tony Blair and his views on whether going to war was the right thing to do. For example 'Tony Blair denies military action 'radicalised' Muslims' (BBC News, 2011) although at the same time it could be just because Blair was the person to enter us into the war and thus it is natural to question him rather than the news covering him because he is an elite figure. However there are also other elite figures who go to Afghanistan which raise s the interest the public has in the war. For example when the royal family visit Afghanistan the public are interested and this fact gets published. For example 'The Princess Royal has visited Afghanistan to see the work of British troops.' (BBC news, 2012) The media also talk about persons individually in the war. Deaths are regularly reported and they are reported individually by name. An example of this would be 'A British soldier who died at Camp Bastion in Afghanistan has been named as Sapper Adam Moralee.' (BBC News, 2014) and this makes each and every death a new story. It is also increases sympathy for those affected and thus creates interest. The story is referring to negativity constantly. War is often filled with things that are not very nice such as deaths and people losing limbs. Also if it is judged that a group of people should be questioned at least over a suspected war crime then this also boosts interest as the public want to know what awful crime the accused had committed and whether they were guilty.
There are many actors and institutions in this story. These are split into two sections. Formal actors who wield state sanctioned power and informal actors that do not have state sanctioned power. The military for example is a formal actor as it usually wields a state's aggressive power. The media can be both. It can be heavily regulated by the government to serve their own needs 'For the invasion of Afghanistan (2011), many editors, bureau chiefs and correspondents regarded the Pentagon's reporting rules as some of the toughest ever' (Tumber, Palmer, 2004, p3) This ultimately results in the media reporting the government line as they are restricted in what they themselves can see or report. This shows a complex relationship between the media and the state and the military. Civilians also have a large role to play. In the Afghanistan war the civilians which are most often acting as non formal actors will speak out about their suffering. Also civilians can become formal actors as the civilian death count rises. As civilians are murdered or beaten by one side or the other they may sometimes join the opposing side in an attempt to gain some power and a better life free of the misery caused by their oppressors. The suffering caused may be accidental as strikes against suspected targets sometimes later become 'confirmed strikes on civilians'. (Cordesman, 2002, p33) Civilians are actors in another way as well. Civilian contractors are often hired to help with the management of a military establishment such as an airfield like Kandahar airfield or a military camp like Camp Bastion. These contractors then act under the state's rule which means they can become formal actors but rarely go outside of the establishment in which they have been assigned during working hours thus making that scenario unlikely and confining contractors as non formal actors with links to the state and the military of which they serve. The media play a key role in all this as they have a large amount of power over public opinion. The governments around the world have increased regulation to try and stop public opinion ever since the Vietnam war as there was 'the belief that television had somehow "lost the war" in Vietnam' (Tumber, Palmer, 2004, p2) leading to the media showing more of what the government wants it to and less of what it wants to report. On the other hand the media which is outside the western states control is more free to publish anti war messages. Al Jazeera is one such news organisation and more frequently publishes anti war messages.
Technology has played an ever increasing role from social media to drones and round the clock news. The technology available has changed rapidly as well during the war. Since the war started social media has become a lot bigger with websites such as Facebook and Twitter coming in and this has opened more avenues for communication. With this the civilian voice has been stronger but the unreliability of the news has also gone up, as more of the public look at Facebook and Twitter and citizen journalists to replace traditional journalism. The problem with that is that tweets and Facebook posts are often unreliable and as the news if presented as each source of news is chosen and posted as soon as the individual hears about it and you get a lot less filters on what becomes news and what does not. Also more extreme views are put across as less filters between the public and the internet mean there is a much bigger chance for a member of the public to put forward extreme views.
The subject of drones has become a hot topic during the war. As the war has gone on drones and drone technology has become more widely used. This has caused a lot of controversy and it has helped keep the story fresh. The public have been protesting on a large scale about the use of drones since the middle of the decade 2000-2010. Some consider it worse when there is no pilot in the seat of the aircraft as there is no physical connection with there being no pilot, just an electronic one back to a man in front of a television with a gaming controller to control the drone.
Another way that technology has played a part is round the clock news. As the ability to report 24 hours a day has come about the news on the story has become more readily available. However this has also brought with it some issues regarding accuracy. Journalists are expected to know information the minute it comes out when there is often little to go on at that moment in time. Journalists are being increasingly asked to try to make judgements when the story is not clear and this leads to mistakes.
In conclusion therefore the story of the war in Afghanistan is very news worthy as it meets several criteria and it is a constantly evolving news story that is changing both with the rate of technology advancement and with it the way it is reported and as the political scenarios change.
Bibliography
Cordesman, A. H. (2002).
The lessons of Afghanistan: War fighting, intelligence, and force transformation (Vol. 24). CSIS.
Harcup, T., & O'neill, D. (2001). What is news? Galtung and Ruge revisited.
Journalism studies,
2(2), 261-280.
'A Merciful War' KRISTOF, N. 1st February 2002
A Merciful War - NYTimes.com http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/01/opinion/01KRIS.html?action=click&module=Search®ion=searchResults#3&version=&url=http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/?action=click®ion=Masthead&pgtype=Homepage&module=SearchSubmit&contentCollection=Homepage&t=qry327#/war+in+afghanistan/from20010101to20020505/allresults/4/
[Last accessed 28/03/2014]
Obama, B.
National Security Strategy of the United States (2010). DIANE Publishing, 2010
Tumber, H., & Palmer, J. (2004).
Media at war: The Iraq crisis. Sage
Wolfe, W. M. (2008).
Winning the war of words: selling the war on terror from Afghanistan to Iraq. ABC-CLIO.
.'Tony Blair denies military action 'radicalised'' Muslims 10th September 2010
BBC News - Tony Blair denies military action 'radicalised' Muslims http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14858265
[Last accessed 28/03/2014]
'Princess Anne visits troops in Afghanistan' 18th December 2012
BBC News - Princess Anne visits troops in Afghanistan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20772932
[Last accessed 28/03/2014]
'Camp Bastion fatality named as Sapper Adam Moralee' 6th March 2014
BBC News - Camp Bastion fatality named as Sapper Adam Moralee http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26474457
[Last accessed 28/03/2014]
I hated that essay as the lecturer demanded I use Harvard and I hate Harvard. I use footnotes when I can.
It's a 4 page essay due on Tuesday, November 18th.
I wish my teachers at school would have accepted that length essay for my course work.
