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.
By definition neo-liberalism is “a reinterpretation of liberalism that posits that even in an anarchic international system, states will cooperate because of their continuous interactions with each other and because it is in their self-interest to do so; institutions provide the framework for cooperative interactions.” (Mingst, 2011) The theory (neo-liberalism) relies on the prisoner’s dilemma, the initiation and use of institutions, and the common interest of one’s self to gain power and/ or advance without hurting themselves.
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.
The United States of America proudly present themselves as a humanitarian liberal democratic power and as the main liberal architect whose role, became more significant in the post-Cold War world, given the end of the bipolar system which created a systemic permissiveness for the institution of the so called “New World Order”₁ paired with liberal ideals and the desire to spread peace and democracy in a global scale and pursue “(…) America's ideals -- liberty, democracy and peace.” ₂
Long a polarizing issue, a balance between civil liberties and national security has constantly trailed America’s pursuit of happiness. Civil liberties are defined as rights for each individual person that serve to protect said individuals, by law, from unjust governmental interference, and encompasses all interference that may infringe on given rights. Incidentally, America has sucumb to such infringments within its lifetime, some early in its history, and some with recurring now with vestiges of the more prominent liberty violations which had reigned before. A much more recent example, terrorist attacks offended on September 11 shook our nation and brought with it government reform that many had not seen before. And with these governmental reforms, America has begun to backlash after more and more information about these unjust offenses has begun to leak from both prolific media outlets and workers in government themselves. The attacks committed on September 11, 2001. Although initially intended to protect America, the war on terror has begun to encroach on civil liberties and the ...
Neo Gramsican is a critical approach to the study of International Relations and the global political economy. It explores many elements that are essential for the maintenance of the international relations. It explores the interface of ideas, institutional and material capabilities as they form the specify shape of the state formation. Neo Gramsican analyzes how the grouping of social forces defines the sustainability of the world orders. Cox’s perspective on Neo- Gramscian is about the transformation of the main forms of state and their change under the pressure from the forces from world order and civil society.
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 War On Terror. It is a name that brings many strong thoughts and emotions to mind for Americans still to this today. It is has been Americas longest war, most expensive war, and a deadly conflict. All in all, the Iraqi War from 2003 to 2011 brought a cost of 500,000 lives from civilians to militants (Vergano 1). Among the U.S. army alone it is estimated that around 900,000 veterans have had some form of injury ranging from PTSD to amputations (Ruis 1). Not to mention, many experts say once all war reparations have been paid the war will cost upwards of three trillion dollars (Broder 1). That means when the math is done, if the war cost were to be split evenly among all American households, than every family in the U.S. would have to pay $75,000 (Auken 1). When President Barack Obama was campaigning in 2008 he once argued that through various taxes the Iraqi War (2003-2011) was and is costing each America household over $100 a month (Broder 1). With such catastrophic cost and tolls of the thousands of innocent lives where can the foundations for such a war effort begin?
On september 11, 2001 there was an attack on America. Four airplanes were hijacked, two were crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, the third crashed into the Pentagon in D.C. and the fourth got stopped by a passenger. It was the first terrorist attack on the U.S. soil. Thousands of lives were lost that day. This attach was the most devastating act of belligerence on U.S territory since the Civil War (Terrorism, 2011). This even had an enormous influence on America and its history. It led to numerous short and long term effects. On September 20, 2001, former president George W. Bush announced publicly that he declares “War on Terror”. After this announcement, our country has altered. To determine if an effect was positive or negative, determines on the view point of the person. Some of those effects include; USA Patriot Act, creation of TSA, the War, and issues soldiers have after combat and health problems of Ground Zero. However, if the effects were positive or negative, it still made a massive mark in our country.
The War on Terror is a military campaign enacted by George W. Bush to fight terrorism following the attack on 9/11 conducted by al-Qaeda according to thebalance.com. The War on Terror also included the Iraq War. The Iraq War was a long time coming with the hostility and aggression of the country. Iraq continued to resist attempts at peace made by both the United States and the United Nations. The twelve years of diplomacy employed by Iraqi officials was just a facade, a tactic to stall for more time according to the source document President George W. Bush’s announcement of US invasion of Iraq. The repeated attempts of the world to try and peacefully disarm Iraq of its catastrophic weapons were unsuccessful and met with enmity. The United
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.
As described by Tim Dunne, the “United Nations is a multi-purpose agency directed to specific goals including collective security, peace-keeping, health, environmental and human rights concerns” (Dunne, 2007: 103). Although there are many concerns regarding the UN, there are two classical viewpoints which divide opinion on the UN’s effectives on the global stage; the realist and the liberal argument. The realists can point out that international organizations such as the United Nations are “of little help in channeling the perpetual power struggle between states, since they cannot change the anarchical structure of the international system” (Rittberger, 2006: 15). On the other side of the argument, the liberal viewpoint, strongly influenced
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
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.
...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.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.