Must-read crash course for a lay understanding of international relations and how this field affects current events geopolitically and geostrategically. It explains the logic of what goes on behind the scenes in the Great Game, which is otherwise somewhat perplexing owing to propaganda and psy-ops that are used to influence pubic opinion.
It is important to understand that despite whatever reasons are given for any action, US plans are developed by experts not only in economics, media/information and military – but are summarized and standardized in their presentation by experts in IR.
Background and Relevancy
In other words, despite what the layman believes or thinks are the reasons for decisions (and these opinions may be frequently right) at the level of US policy formulation, the language and theories of IR are used to explain, justify, and develop the actual plans.
IR was founded a hundred years ago in England by David Davies at the University of Wales, and within five years gained traction and was founded by Philip Noel-Baker at the London School of Economics.
IR is more than diplomacy, and more than agreements. In the US school, it also involves security studies, geopolitics, and geostrategy – the last two being the European schools of German origin and closest to and most compatible to the US school of ‘IR’. Frederick Lewis Schuman was the first American to take the German school of ‘War Geo-politics’ and make and found the US school of Geostrategy.
Superficially, Geopolitics directly infers a relationship to spatial geographic reality, and IR does not at least in its name. But IR must also incorporate the same spatial realities when translating any general theory into a specific set of policies or recommendations. Geostrategy relies heavily on real, actual, existing, material factors and tends to focus more on military matters, and as such is most compatible with realist theory in IR. After all, there are no such things as normative bullets, only real ones.
Indeed, there are a number of IR theories, which are often categorized. Over the course of the last century, any number of categories have been developed and specialized. While there is little agreement between the experts on the proper categorization of the theories, to generalize it is useful as an introduction to view all of these as either based in idealism (normative) or realism (positive). Classical IR theory, as with geopolitics and geostrategy, uses ‘States’, typically nation-states in the Westphalian model, as the basic subject and actor.
Basically, idealism or normative theories explain that states either are or should be motivated by ideas which relate to their core principles, and either do or ought to interact with the world in a way which furthers the vision-based interests of these ideals. States may act rationally in pursuit of these ideals (they may have a realistic assesment of their limitations), or in other theories the idealism itself prevents rational execution of such policies (such as in irrationalism theory).
Idealism therefore combines normative and positive explanations for the world: idealism can be used to describe the actual policies of a state as ideal-driven, or can be used to proscribe policies for a state – that they should be ideal-driven. That they ‘should be’ ideal driven often pertains to theories about peace and stability. However, other ideals may relate to the idealization of war and conquest.
Realism theory explains that states either are consciously or unconsciously – when successful – motivated by a realist assessment which places the economic, material, strategic needs either ahead of others (i.e. normative ones) or does not concern itself with others. Realism theory also understands that states can be driven by ideals – but would tend to view the resulting policies of those others states as tending to be irrational more so than rational.
By and large, most of these theories can be viewed either or both as competing theories or complimentary theories. Today there are dozens of sub-fields ranging from post-structuralism to neo-realism, and more. There are also many combinations of both realism and idealism, and other categories still which reject the utility of the categories. Others moreover suggest that what are believed to be new categories were not previously contemplated in the realism/idealism schema.Center For Syncretic Studies
Analysis of US and Israel Foreign Policy in IR Theory Perspective
Joaquin Flores
20 comments:
I forget the name of the US Admiral (or possibly General) who was asked that very question. He replied that Israel is a cheaper and more useful way of enforcing many of its aims in the region.
Tom, are you Thomas J. Hickey? I wanted to buy a wonderful book I read some time ago. Sometimes you can get a far better deal at Amazon.com than Amazon.co.uk. And there was a review by a "Thomas J. Hickey" of Arthur Fine's absolutely superb book "The Shaky Game". Inexplicably, this "Thomas J. Hickey" gave it a very poor rating! If you're one and the same, I'd say you've misunderstood the book. The "realism" Fine is examining and elucidating is in fact correct, as has been confirmed by numerous experiments. The local realism Einstein was defending has been shown to be wrong. Nonlocality exists in nature: the "spooky action at a distance" that so horrified him. Nonlocal realism can, however, be defended.
Oh, forgot to add, as I remember it, it's only when he puts forward his own arguments about realism and anti-realism that he starts skating on very thin ice. Otherwise, I found it to be a truly excellent book.
Not me, John. I never write reviews on Amazon.
Don't blame you! Given your deep understanding of philosophy, it seemed out of place that you'd misunderstand the philosophical arguments Fine put forth. Thankfully, it wasn't you!
Nah, the author is overthinking it.
Occam's razor -- maybe the reason U.S. & Israeli foreign policy is so inept, evil, narcissistic, and corrupt is simply because our leaders are inept, evil, narcissistic, and corrupt?
As PCR put it, "Americans need to understand that the only thing exceptional about the United States is the ignorance of the population and the stupidity of the government."
Dan,
That may be true, but it doesn't explain why the politics are what they are - what drives the policies.
Big business practically controls the politicians. So it isn't a question just of stupidity, although that does almost explain completely the neoconservatives (the ideological sadism explains the rest). Big business gets what it wants, and the American people and the rest of the world pays the costs. Other than for the richest Americans, healthcare, education and social security is scandalous. That isn't stupidity. That's a bought and paid for Congress doing what it's been bought and paid for. So, yes, corruption and evil. Narcissism to some extent. Inept? No, because they're doing what they're meant to. In that sense they're actually scarily competent.
On the international stage, business almost gets all that it wants, providing it doesn't clash with state power. However, Washington is now being met with forces that are beyond its control. That doesn't explain away the sheer incompetence and stupidity of the last twenty years or so of madcap misadventures, criminality and poor policy. But you can understand why Washington is doing what it's doing, however ineptly it is trying to achieve it. What it's trying to achieve (permanent global hegemony) may be impossible, but it is understandable. The fact that Washington keeps on shooting itself in the foot, legs, abdomen and face is unbelievably staggering and a wonder to behold, but it goes with the territory of an inability to face the truth of an emerging multipolar world.
@John, I agree. Pols do what their owners want them to do. Owners are inept, evil, narcissistic, and corrupt. Sheldon Adelson, David Rockefeller, Koch Bros, Waltons, Murdoch, and so forth.
US global hegemony = neoliberal globalization. The geopolitics is driven based on economics. This is the push for a global transnational corporate order run out of the US in which the US elite writes the rules and the US deep state acts as the enforcer.
It's basically a Mafia set up that makes offers counterparties can't refuse.
It's an international criminal conspiracy. Etymologically, the Latin roots of "conspiracy" mean "breathe together." Talk about bad breath.
"That's a bought and paid for Congress doing what it's been bought and paid for"
But mostly a bought and paid for central bank doing what it was created for - giving power to the banker and financial class.
Neil,
Aren't all central banks simply creatures of national governments? The national governments can change their remit at any time, so I'd say the blame is with the national governments, not the central banks. The bankers only have the power they have because national governments have allowed the financial set up they have. Central banks are an easy target, and I'd say the politicians want people's anger directed at the central banks rather than the true source of blame and corruption, the national governments, who like the arrangement for all manner of reasons, not least because unlike industrial capitalism, financial capitalism doesn't have any troublesome unions causing problems, financial capital can create the kind of disciplined workers throughout the economy that ideologues crave - as Thatcher herself, I believe, put it, an indebted worker, especially one with a burdensome mortgage, is less likely to go on strike or demand better pay and working conditions.
You can abolish central banks tomorrow, and run them from a small office in the treasury, MMT-style, and it wouldn't change a thing until their scope and policy are significantly changed, and legislation is passed curtailing what banks can and cannot do. For which you can expect to meet with an unfortunate accident! I rather imagine we need to wait for the next crisis - which can't be too far off now - before there is a significant effort to change the business of commercial and central banking.
But then there is also the ideological element. Even post-2008, how many national politicians believe that the set up we have is truly undesirable? Very few, I'd say, and that's not because they're necessarily in the pocket of the banks. They genuinely believe all the nonsense about efficiency, financial innovation, the economic benefits of the banking sector and all the other silly bugger stuff. There are thousands of intellectual demons that can be exorcised, but Introductory Macroeconomics doesn't seem to be one of them. It's a disease and there doesn't seem to be a cure. As Max Planck said, progress comes one funeral at a time. Although that may be far too slow a death rate.
Dan, I used to think that there is no man I'd like to kick to death more than Rupert Murdoch. But Sheldon Adelson has made me question that, as has Tony Blair. Murdoch is slipping down the list!
John,
I'd like to add Samantha Power to your list even though she's not a man ;)
@AmbassadorPower We call on #Russia to immediately cease attacks on Syrian oppo & civilians & to focus on ISIL
Will the US administration also call on Turkish to stop bombing Kurds and focus on ISIL instead? Laughable.
As bad as it is, until they can come with a good alternative to Assad I would back those over whatever Islamic radical sect or whatever feudal warlord in the region.
But this is by design, they all got the chaos they wanted in the region...
"Aren't all central banks simply creatures of national governments?"
No. ECB being the case in point.
In theory the government can change the remit of the central bank. In practice there is a wall of 'experts' who set the policy and the politicians just enact it.
The central bank is accumulating more and more power and the government is getting less and less important - as we can see with Greece.
Before too long you're past the point of no return that will require a war to recover.
I agree with Dan. People running the show are evil. It's about control, power, markets and profit
Tom nailed it when he mentioned the Mafia.
There's no better example of the mafia principle than Cuba. Cuba's not even remotely a threat. The blockade is not in our economic interests, business leaders have wanted normalized relations for years and years now. So why the continued punishment of Cuba? The Mafia principle, they dared to defy us, so they must be punished. Because if one shopkeeper doesn't pay his protections money and gets away with it then someone else might try it and the racket is over. The DEA has been trying to punish Morales (the atlantic called him the Mugabe of the Andes, wtf?), and how many attempts were there to overthrow Chavez? Arristide in Haiti was overthrown twice, how could he have possibly been a threat to us? Utterly powerless people being punished. Does the MLB have that kind of pull? Can't you get baseballs made cheaply almost anywhere?
Israel's a funny malignant tumor on America's ass that I can't explain. It would seem that our support of Israel is entirely against our interests now (in the early days, they did our dirty work, so they were useful, but now?)
Just thought of this, Perhaps, support of israel being against our interest is in our interest. They inspire terrorism against us which gives us the excuse to keep meddling in the middle east.. Best I can come up with, shit, it's early in the day still.
The ECB is the creature of an international treaty - by definition it cannot be controlled by a national government.
It's independent, immensely powerful and essentially unaccountable. It can crush the banking system of a state and get away with applause for doing it - a feat other central banks can't even dream about.
The founding treaty can be changed only by unanimous vote. And yes - it's hard to imagine a scenario where all the governments that signed the treaty would decide to change the ECB's status.
The bank is in a category of its own. Compared to it the Fed, the BoE or the BoJ are almost models of democratic accountability.
The system has zero resiliency, this elitist Republic system they are trying to build will blow up on the next serious recession.
People is almost ready to let it blow up and enact a dictator in power if needed. This little lapse of "capitalist democracy" (contradiction in terms) we had during the last century in some parts of the world will be gone for in a few decades. What will substitute it is difficult to say, probably different regions will adopt different systems instead of an impossible monolithic world-system.
This system will last only as long as high volume international trade with wasteful supply chains, local stability and different forms of colonialism and expansionism are possible. When it's over, and it's fading faster than we think, the system won't have many more legs and will decay like the late Roman empire but probably faster. The higher information transfer rates, flow of trade and high consumption/dependency rates has accelerated the rate of change in human societies (how fast societies decay and change towards a new meta-equilibrium point) and we already saw that the past century, so instead of centuries of transition between cycles now is a matter of decades.
Given the little resilience the current system has and its many contradictions change will accelerate at a point of crisis again, for the good or for the bad.
Neil: "No. ECB being the case in point. "
But it was brought into existence by national governments agreeing its remit, functions and authority, no? It didn't jump into existence out of a vacuum. It was created by the EU national governments, just like the Fed was created by Congress and the BoE owes its *modern* existence, remit and functions to the UK Parliament.
National governments can opt out at any time by leaving the Euro. They can then, if they so choose, restore their original central bank but with a different remit and functions, or not have one at all. These are and were voluntary choices. No one forced anyone to join the euro and submit to the harebrained lunacy of the ECB.
Jose: "It can crush the banking system of a state and get away with applause for doing it - a feat other central banks can't even dream about."
Only if you voluntarily choose to stay in. The nightmare ends when you voluntarily choose to leave. No one's going to stop you, and as Neil Wilson has ably pointed out, it is a simple matter of choosing to do so. The mechanisms of relaunching your national currency are straightforward. And while this is being done, there is no reason not to choose a different way of banking, from central banking all the way down to local community banking. The banks are bankrupt anyway! What power do they have, other than the ideological? So shut them down, or nationalise them and then break them up. The EZ countries have chosen death over life. It's an economic death cult!
Absolutely, John. Never, ever forget: The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed. The man who said this was beaten to death, and knew he might be when he said that. But he could see what the real weapon was, where the real power was.
"Only if you voluntarily choose to stay in." is absolutely right. The ECB & the Eurocrats had shot their wad. Their was nothing else they could do. The poor dumb Germans - Schauble - even gave the Greeks a decent plan, the best practically imaginable outcome - a negotiated Grexit. But as James Galbraith noted - people missed the French Rasputins & the ECB behind it - wielding power that was ultimately nothing but fraud, not force.
Post a Comment