Eye in the Sky (2015)

Eye in the Sky (2015)

The relations among countries is the concern of the international relations disciplines. Countries relate based on economic, social, cultural, and political coexistence for the peaceful undertaking of the operations and safeguarding a national interest without affecting the other. Among the plethora of international theories, most of them deal with the issue of political relations of a country (S.E.P., 2017). The movie Eye in the Sky is one unique one in the concept of international relations for its ability to highlight one of the political theories of constructivism throughout its action. The study, therefore, highlights aspects and the successful use of constructivism in the Film by its actors and director.

Review of the Film

Eye in the Sky is a drone strike thriller highlighting the political complications and the ontology and epistemology of nature of reality. And the kind of knowledge as used in constructivism theory in international relations. The movie highlights the social life of truth in the relationship among countries by the fact that British considers there two nationals who are terrorist more dangerous than other citizens being associated by the group thus warranting them to execute a drone strike (Patterson, 2016). The three countries, U.S.A., U.K., and Kenya demonstrate the fact that the ability to act of a nation and the international system consisting of ideas and material interest are mutually constituted. America and the U.K. agree on the terrorist war and result in the killing of civilians and carrying an attack on Kenyan soil since their common interest makes the act justifiable. The constructivism informs Powell’s actions argued of identities controlling actions and interest, explaining why Americans implied that they could take the steps they deemed necessary since they had no interest in the war. Still, Powell wanted to prove the military power of the U.K. in Kenya even though terrorist is on its soil does not act. Since it’s a small state compared to U.S.A and U.K., and its identity is not proving superiority over anything like the others. Thus the two can control and act in their country.

Constructivism Review

Constructivism is concerned about explaining the interactions between states through their identities and interests. The theory also explains why states undertake various decisions resulting in the issue of social norms. Mostly the more advanced nations and the less developed nations have different identities and interests. For instance, America and the U.K. are more sophisticated and, thus, large states compared to Kenya, a small state. The uniqueness and interest of the two large countries are different from that of Kenya, thus making them make decisions concerning operations in Kenya without the involvement of Kenya in the decision making. The way the two countries solve the issue of terrorist is highlighted in the social norm. Since the attack favors more the two countries than Kenya they apply the logic of appropriateness in explaining their behavior and actions. Powel representing the U.K. and the Secretary of state of America acknowledges the need to execute the terrorist, making the civilian causalities experienced during the strike acceptable since the two countries achieve their desired results. Since the large states have adopted the use of the military to combat terrorist, the actions are welcomed, and civilian casualties are overruled and overrode.

Q.3 (a)

Main Actors in the Film

Constructivism involves the states as actors. The main actors of the movie are the three nations of America, the U.K., and Kenya. Colonel Powell (Helen Mirren), the one in charge of the operations and represents the state of the U.K. in advancing their views and identities. The Foreign Secretary (Iain Glen) represents America, while the spy represents the Kenya state. The scenes are quite riveting, and the movie provides enormous insights into the constructivism theory and the interactions between nations. The justification of the need to strike by Colonel Powell since some of the terrorists were British nationalists demonstrates the factor that the identities and interests of a country shape their behavior. Through this act, the U.K. feel the two nationals as a more thereat more than the fact the terrorist would have been their own since she is more concerned with the possibility of the two running away. She insists on the only chance they had to capture them, and since they did not want the issue escalating to the point of the public knowing about the operation, she orders a drone strike to safeguard their interests. And if the media knew about it would bring a backlash to the country’s military involvement (Laurier, 2016) and damage the relationship between the U.K. and America.

The relationship between these countries is shaped by their interactions, which influences their actions. The U.K. provides human resources and makes decisions while the U.S. A provides the technical operations of a drone, and pilots who operate it come from Nevada. A direct involvement of the America in Kenya would influence the relationship among the countries and since the two large countries enjoy what to remain in good terms with each other they are brought together with a common goal of combating terrorists. However, the U.K. has along with outstanding history with Kenya. Therefore their involvement seems more of helping Kenya while also strengthening their relationship with the two countries since they believe that each has the ability to act in different perspectives to sabotage each identity, thus the coined relationship. The U.K. official constantly engages the American official for advice on the matter, showing that the U.S. A also provides assistance to show their military power. At the same time, Powell, on behalf of the U.K., decides to show also their military ability in gathering intelligence. The common interests of the two countries override the civilian casualty issue resulting to the strike even under a 45% possibility of analysis of civilian casualty. In this idea, the states are the main actors whose primary interest is the interest of their own country. It provides the need to pursue national security even in other countries in search of terrorists whose actions may undermine the security and national interests of the states (S.E.P., 2017). The British in the movie feel the need to contain the terrorist before they escape with any means even if it necessitates bombing. Some of the terrorists are their nationals and do not what the public to figure out. Since that would change the perception of a terrorist being associated to a specific nationality (Hood, 2015), through their involvement, the civilian casualty becomes a dilemma, and Colonel Powel makes the analyst to confirm a percentage lower than what he identifies to have the green light to authorize the drone kill.

(b) Conflict engaging the main actors

The conversation between the U.K. foreign secretary and the United States secretary of state shed light on the conflicts involved in the main actor’s actions and behaviors. (Hood, 2015). America finds terrorist as a threat to national security and thus want the U.K. to conduct the drone strike without having to factor the civilian casualty since the war is justified and that the victim of war is overruled by the justification of the need to curb the terrorist conflicts and the identity of the nations. However, the British are of contrary opinion of trying everything they can to minimize the casualty from civilians to avoid a political consequence from the war (S.E.P., 2017). Due to this, the girl Alia who is in front of the house selling slices of bread, must be removed from the place and the colonel, the ground spy Abdi, to buy all the dough (Hood, 2015). Since the cover is blown and the girl remains there, the colonel finds it necessary to carry out the strike or miss the terrorist. Therefore the main actor’s dilemma is about maintaining the identity and interests and observe the issue of causing injuries to civilians and destroy their social relations.

(c) Tools preferred by main actors

The main actors also utilize the tools of concessions and historical background knowledge to engage the war. The U.K. has a history with the Kenyan government. Thus they can engage in operations in the country to help destroy a terrorist group instead of U.S.A engaging I the country, which would appear as if they are sabotaging Kenyan sovereignty. The two countries use their powers and common interests and identities in shaping the social norm regarding the fight against terrorism. Though Kenya has experienced the effects of terrorism they are more conservative in engaging them since they mostly look on how to survive and construct their economy and would not operate in the two countries. But since they are powerful the two make it right to engage in a foreign country without engaging it based on the matter of terrorism to the extent of making it right to cause civilian harm without question. The interest of self –interest supersedes morality principles. Right or wrong consideration, according to Thucydides, has never caused a turn from opportunities of aggrandizement presented by the superiority of the power of a country. The actions of the colonel in carrying the attack show that the interest of the country is much essential that the consideration of the moral obligation to ensure no civilian is harmed. But since the al-Shabaab had attacked a British/ Kenyan citizen, the urge of retaliation and to affirm their stand on terrorists was more pressing. And because the terrorist involved were from the nation, they had to contain the situation before information leaked to the public through the press by the attacker escaping (Patterson, 2016). The Kenyan country had the personnel and military capabilities to capture the terrorist while inside the building. Still, the historical involvement of the terrorist with the western countries played a role for the British to consider a drone strike and not involve soldiers also for the sake of safeguarding their interests of not letting anyone escape.

(d) International Relations logic utilized in the Film

The two countries use the logic of appropriateness in defining their interactions and actions. The countries have a common ground regarding war on terror which warrants the use of military force and thus justifies the actions of the two large nations to use lethal measures given their historical background with the terrorism. Also, the interests of the two nations considerably help in shaping the war on terror and perception against the problem. The fight involves the social dilemma of safeguarding the life of innocents or pursuing relationships of country relating to identity and interests. The war on terror and the operations in Kenya are agreed upon by the two countries due to their might in military compared to Kenya and it is through their involvement that they define the social norm on war on terror as it suits them. By executing the terrorist they both safeguard their identity and interest with Kenya. This they use as an excuse to escape the question of social moral and justify the civilian casualty even with the numerous legal advice and the presence of Kenyan military personnel who would have caught the terrorist without causing any casualties to civilian. However, the identity and the interest of the U.K. drives them to execute the kill since the knowledge of their two citizens involved with terror would have detrimental consequences on their social relationship with the two countries

References

Hood, G. (2015). Eye in the Sky [Video].

Laurier, J. (2016). “Eye in the Sky”: The liberal war on terror. Retrieved from https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2016/03/31/eyei-m31.html

Patterson, J. (2016). Eye In the Sky: an indictment of drones or just a wishy-washy liberal war movie?. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/11/drone-thriller-eye-in-the-sky-helen-mirren-alan-rickman

SEP. (2017). Political Realism in International Relations (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/