Introduction
Ten years ago, the German government decided about the involvement in the ‘war on terror’ and his Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and the intervention in Afghanistan as part of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). This decision based on the resolutions 1368, 1378, 1383 and 1386 of the Security Council of the United Nation from November and December 2001. These resolutions legitimated the general conditions for the intervention from the perspective of the international law. Therefore also Germany’s participation in the war in terms of the system of a reciprocal collective security referred to article 24 of the German Basic Law (2006, p. 22). However, why voted Germany’s government for the deployment of military forces to Afghanistan? The initiative for the intervention came from the United States as reaction to the terrorist attacks from September 2001 to ensure the status as hegemonic power (Buro, 2009, p. 10). But civil war and terrorist networks were not at all a new phenomenon in Afghanistan. The German motives which entail the decision to be part of the OEF and the ISAF are the main research topics for this paper. Moreover, it intends to analyse the decision-making process for Germany’s participation in the war according to the methodological approach of ‘Bureaucratic Politics’, explained by Graham Allison (2008). To guarantee a solid understanding of this complex process, this paper will analyse all three models of Allison’s approach. It seems necessary related to Germany’s political system, in which organisations as well as individuals are closely linked as essential part of the policy and therefore influential actors in the decision-making process of the government. In this context numerous of...
... middle of paper ...
...enefit for Germany after the war and the establishment of a liberal economical system, Western democratic values, and institutions. It would be the best way to promote peace and to assist prosperity – for Afghanistan as well as for the whole world. Additionally, the neo-liberalism assumes that democracies will not fight each others. The German government supports these goals and a ‘state building process’ in its ‘Afghanistan concept’, which defines the interdependence of security, development and reconstruction (2007, p. 15-30).
Moreover, the importance of institutions and non-state actors that neo-liberalism attributes to international politics such as human rights, environmental issues as well as threats of terrorist organisations and networks creates an explanatory power of the global system which lacks completely in the theoretical approach of neo-realism.
“Over the past century, Canadian attitudes towards the use of force and the exercise of military power in support of national aims have fundamentally shifted”. This is a quote written by Major Todd Strickland in his article, titled, “From the Boers to the Taliban: How Canadians Attitudes towards War Have Changed”. This article reviews Canada’s history within the wars and also Canadian’s thoughts on war. The Afghan war began in 2001 and is still ongoing today. The war began due to the terrorist attacks that took place in the United States on September 11th, 2001, also known as 9/11. The purpose of this war was to invade Afghanistan and to disassemble an organization, known as the al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Another objective was to dismantle the Taliban government. The Taliban government was simply to blame for the deaths of so many Americans on 9/11. The leader, brains and financial support behind this organization was one by the name of Osama bin Laden. Because his country did not surrender him, the United States made the decision to declare war on Afghanistan and fight for those who lost their lives in 9/11. Canada became involved in the Afghan War very quickly after the attacks of 9/11. Because the Afghanistan war is a war that is constantly covered by the media, it makes the information overwhelming. To narrow the topic down, this paper will focus mainly on the Canadian’s involvement in the Afghanistan war. Violent political wars have been reoccurring for as long as anyone can remember, and the intensity of this violence continues to rise. The magnitude of political violence involved, the main interpretations on the causes of political violence, and the prospects for conflict resolution are all topics that will be covered...
International organizations such as NATO and the UN are essential not only for global peace, but also as a place where middle powers can exert their influence. It is understandable that since the inception of such organizations that many crises have been averted, resolved, or dealt with in some way thro...
On September 11, 2001, our country was hit with enormous devastation, just after eight o’clock a.m. the first of the twin towers was struck by a suicide pilot, the second was struck slightly later. The towers fell just after ten o’clock a.m., devastating the entire country, and ruining the lives of many. A plane also hit the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and another in rural Pennsylvania causing just as much grief. The U.S. is still in mourning, but standing tall, more Americans showed their American pride in the following months than ever before. In the months to come the only thing that was on the minds of millions was: Should we go to war? War is necessary for the survival of our country. Going to war with Iraq is a fight against terrorism. Many people believed that going to war with Iraq is unjust. Some believe that there are other ways in looking at the situation.
What neorealism believes is fear and distrust originated from the anarchy of international system, resulting in the pursuit of power for survival. As stated by Mearsheimer (2010), power is the currency of international politics. The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power. All states desire sufficient power to protect th...
The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines terrorism as “the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal” (“Terrorism”). Terrorism is a problem that all countries should be concerned with. Canada has been one of the countries that are concerned with the safety of people against terrorist attacks. Canada is very concerned with the issue of terrorism, it has a very specific position of counter-terrorism, it believes that violent extremists are the leading cause of terrorism, it has ways that the international community should respond, and it is willing to contribute to make the problem of terrorism end.
Canning, Kathleen. “Responses to German Reunification.” The Journal of the International Institute. 2000. The Regents of the University of Michigan. 07 March 05
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
From the realist point of view, the international political system is considered as anarchic. There is a lack of external authority among states that ensures peace, stability and balance of power. In the analyzed document, the author's main thesis states that changes of the system would alter the international political system. However, changes within the system will maintain its anarchism. In order to support his thesis, the author replies to liberal critics, who consider the neorealism as obsolete taking into account three important arguments against the neorealism.
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
...e power with which powerful states can rule the weak preserving their status as a regional and global hegemony. Finally, it is incorporated the democratic system. Although debatable for some people, democracy serves to spread the altruistic and moralistic rhetoric of a free and peaceful world. Additionally, Western states do not hesitate about the rice of new powerful nations or the threats of the mass destruction weapons, they are constantly monitoring their menaces and evaluating what is the most accurate strategy to maintain at least the status quo in this respect. The Western states need the realist approach in order to be well prepared to cope with any threat. In a final conclusion, all of these reasons have been assimilated by Western states in order to restructure a strategic doctrines with the purposes of counteract any possible threat before they emerge.
Terrorism will happen again regardless of how prepared the U.S. thinks it may be. This means that it is the country’s job to ensure that there is a continuation of measures that should be taken to fight against terrorism. Others believe that the U.S. is fully prepared for another terrorist attack and that enough has been done. The question at hand is, should the U.S. still be concerned about terrorism. The United States needs to be concerned about terrorism to prevent tragedies like 9/11 from happening again, to address problems with domestic terrorism, and to improve homeland security.
“The process of globalization and the increasing role of non-state actors in global governance are undermining the role of the state as the principal actor in global policymaking.”
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.