Political science weekly journal

Political science weekly journal

TOPIC 4

Topic four: a reading of Cooperation under the security dilemma.

It talks about lawlessness and the Security dilemma that has made working together seemingly impossible. This leads to questions about the reasons that would make the states to work together. Supposedly, a mechanism should be in existence which would enable different states to bind together and maintain these relations so as not to “defect”.  The mechanism should also help in identifying the parties that are likely defect and take appropriate action. According to Jervis, there exists two main variables; the balance in offense or defense, and the ability to differentiate offensive and defensive postures. He uses these two variables to create a mental simulation of possible strategic environments:

1/2.Indistinguishable offensive/defensive postures- Countries who take offensive measures often play a very dangerous card because their neighbors, enemies, and allies start to develop

mistrust to the intentions of the offensive measures the state is taking.

3/4.The Security dilemma is distinguishable between offensive and defensive advantages- Countries that often use offensive action to protect themselves often incentives and probable reasons. The other States chose to remain the same and therefore can differentiate themselves from aggressors. They are able to get warnings on the intention of aggressors’.  However, taking a defensive standpoint, the advantage would be that greater investment into defense will neither bring about mistrust nor frighten the states’ neighbors.

The extent to which each state will take in its steps will depend on how much the security dilemma is at play. This depends on previous interactions between states that may have led to trust or mistrust. In a perfect world, the best way to avoid the security dilemma would be for countries to have the ability to look at other nations and see their intentions. Since that is not an option, the next best ideas are the use of conversation. The best idea mentioned in the article would be to enhance transparency in these conversations and ensure that each country considered it beneficial. Due to this, there would be no reason for any country to defect, by simply “not biting the hand that feeds them”. So far there is no organization or authority that makes and enforces international laws. There are no rules set and the only thing keeping the world out of war or paranoia is the knowledge that the common goal of prosperity brings common rewards and failure by others to cooperate may bring. States are aware of that as lawlessness promotes

bad character leaving players in worse conditions. This may escalate to extreme cases where all states chose to change the normalcy.

TOPIC 7

In Chapter 3 of the World Order, Kissenger discusses the Muslim religion and the struggles faced by Islamic governments. He explains that the main two focuses of conflict for Muslims are; Muslims who believe in the principles of Westphalia versus the Muslims who believe that states and the building of a world order violate the Quran. For example, in Egypt, when Mohammed Mosri was elected, his extremist views caused the military to revolt against his government. The second main conflict is the Shia Muslims against the Suni Muslims. The obvious example of that is the intense rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Kissenger states that it will be difficult for the U.S. to diffuse the situation between the Saudis’ and Iran. They can condemn extremist groups like Al-Qaeda and Al-Assad. I personally agree

with Kissenger’s views that the US should condemn the extremist groups but I don’t believe they’ll be able to solve the issues between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Chapter 4 focuses on the political history of Iran. Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, strongly believed that the Arab

Spring was the beginning of an Islamic World Order. Iran supported the spread of radical

Islam and has harbored many different terrorist groups within its borders. Khamenei sees the

influence of the US as the spread of pure evil throughout the world. Iran’s nuclear program also

makes it extremely difficult to negotiate with them concerning other nations. I believe that if there are still disruptive nations like Iran, then there will never be a true World Order.

TOPIC 8

Chapter 5 of the World Order focuses on the recent political history of Asia but specifically Japan and India. Japan went from being in isolation to learning to be like their counterparts. After World War 2, Japan tried to modernize like America and took up the values of democracy. Japan then became an ally of the US joining their World Order. After India became a single empire the British came and took over. After rebellions, Britain deemed India as a whole country and helped in modernizing the country. The Indian’s main focus was independence for their country. They were not part of the Cold war but were in war with China and Pakistan. After the Cold War, the country experienced economic and military reforms. Kissenger believes that India will be an important nation in Asia for America to keep good relations with. I agree with Kissenger because the US will need a country like India as a close ally.

Chapter 6 is focused on China’s recent history. For a large portion of China’s recent history, it has had one ruler and believed they were superior to the rest of the world. Mao brought the rise of industries in China and tried to halt the apparent institutionalization of Chinese leadership by sending educated youth to the countryside. After Mao’s death, Xiaoping came into power and reformed both the economy and social freedoms. With Xiaoping in charge of China’s economy, it is arguably the largest in the world. In Kissenger’s opinion, China and U.S need to band together so as to stop the North Korean crisis. I personally believe that either one can solve the issue as

long as other doesn’t intervene.

TOPIC 9

In topic 9, we looked at the United States, Liberal Internationalism and World Order. How the

The USA believes that it is obligated to spread freedom and all of its beckoning ideologies around the

world. After the years of American isolationism, President Woodrow Wilson believed that

America was destined for greatness. Wilson tried to implement a concept called “collective security” where states who share common interests would come together to collectively secure each other against aggression from other states in or out of the alliance. This is a very international liberal ideology that seems to play out rather favorably most of the time. Despite this, collective security aimed to help prevent aggression, when and when not to use force is something that America has struggled with in the past. Truman said that America’s actions in the Korean War proved that the end goal was peace in Asia. It caused people discomfort as there was no clear winner in this war. Then America got involved in Asia again when it tried to install democracy in Vietnam. This was a hopeless task as Vietnam was not ready to support itself as a democracy. The whole endeavor was a waste, the American public caught word of US soldiers killing civilians and then America withdrew troops in exchange for Prisoners of War. Kissinger talks about the next couple decades of American policy and how it’s a mix of ups and downs, ducking and dodging, then eventually getting involved in international squabbles. All in an effort to most efficiently spread Liberal democracy wherever they could.