Debating IR

Probing the philosophical underpinnings of the international system and anything else of interest.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Washington, D.C., United States

Currently seeking a JD at the Syracuse University College of Law. Formerly an undergraduate at American University getting a degree in international studies.

|

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Hegemony, empire, and the international schoolyard

I found this article on the U.S. as an empire quite interesting in light of our discussions of historical materialism. Usually, we debate whether empire is morally good or bad, not whether it is advantageous or disadvantageous to have one. This article takes the stance that our imperial ambitions have shot us in the foot, as in this statement: "The Bush administration stands guilty of an extraordinary act of imperial overreach which has left the US more internationally isolated than ever before, seriously stretched financially, and guilty of neglect in east Asia and elsewhere."

Since the U.S. isn't yet capable of running the show on multiple continents at once, can it still be called an empire? The words "empire" and "hegemon" get thrown around in my SIS classes, but Brenner's discussion in my Analysis of US Foreign Policy class last semester pointed out that you're not a hegemon unless you can get people to agree with you, and that hegemony is a term most aptly used when countries follow your lead not because you force them into it, but because the fact that you're doing something makes the option look attractive and advantageous to them. Obviously, "empire" is a little harsher, encompassing military forms of coercion as well. But I would hesitate to call the U.S. either of these things. We failed miserably to convince other countries (except the UK and, who could forget, Poland) to go into Iraq; we are consistently condemned in the UNGA for our actions regarding Cuba, when our hegemonic status should theoretically convince these countries that oppressing Cuba would be a fun hobby for them too; and countries increasingly express dislike for our lack of respect for national sovereignty and our hypocrasy concerning human rights.

If hegemony just means that you're more powerful than the countries around you taken individually, then yes, we are a hegemon. If hegemony means that you're influential, then we're a hegemon. But we're certainly not hegemonic by the definition listed above -- just powerful enough that no one really wants to mess with us. And while our methods can be imperial, we don't have enough absolute control to merit the title "empire." But don't despair; while these lofty aspirations may go unfulfilled, at least we're the toughest bully on the playground. (Seems like a letdown, doesn't it?)

|

Wednesday, April 12, 2006

Jonathan Berman Says Money Isn't Everything

Let's face it, money can't buy you happiness and, if you think about it, it won’t get you enlightenment either. What I’m getting at is that economics isn’t responsible for everything that goes on in the world. I think historical materialists (Marxists) and world system theorists put so much emphasis on economics as the root cause of events in IR that they forget that there are other factors that may be equally important. Thus, they suffer from economism.

Personally, I am a fan of "complimentary holism" developed by Professor Hahnel (although I recommend he find a new name for it). Hahnel's theory is that all societies have four basic spheres. They are the economic sphere (production/consumption), the political sphere (government/law), the kinship sphere (family/gender roles), and the community sphere (culture/society).

Marxists and world system theorists look at societies as being created to merely decide what to make and who gets what. Thus, under a Marxist approach the economic sphere is the most important sphere and it undoubtedly influences politics, the family, and society.

However, I believe this is where Marxism goes astray. I do not believe that all societies are inherently influenced by their economics. Certainly, this could be the case; however, we cannot just make a blanket assumption of that magnitude. For example, South Africa had a capitalist economic system, however, the reason blacks were excluded was not because of capitalism. It was because in the political sphere the whites had all the power and in the community sphere people were assigned to different ethnic groups which determined their station in life. Thus, community membership determined what most people could and could not do.

According to Hahnel, fundamental change occurs in "complimentary holism" when the operating procedures of one of the spheres (economic, political, community, or kinship) changes. In South Africa, once blacks achieved the end of apartheid this opened up the options blacks had and allowed them to serve in the government. As a result, blacks managed to alter the political and community sphere. However, this didn't radically change South Africa's economic system. As we are all aware, it is still capitalist, only blacks can now own property and enter the business world.

Marxism espouses a belief that change throughout history is driven by economics. On the other hand, "complimentary holism" teaches us there are a number of ways for societies to change. As a result, any group who is advantaged or disadvantaged in one of the spheres can act as an agent of history, not just the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

|

Who would have thought...

...that the United States would use the rhetoric of human rights to shield its true ambitions of power and empire? Gasp. I like historical materialism. It seems like a hybrid of realism and public goods liberalism, but from the criticism angle. It combines the theory that countries -- well, basically the U.S. -- act the way they do in order to get power (realism) and reap rewards specific to their needs (PGL). In this case, the U.S. wants to do both of these by creating and sustaining an empire. However, while PGL is more forgiving and says that even actions done with self-serving motivations can produce good results, historical materialism condemns adopting the guise of human rights and democratization to conceal one's real desires. Basically, historical materialism hates false marketing and subjugation, which isn't a bad platform.

Cafruny's article in the Sterling-Folker book calls the Iraq campaign on its adoption of the liberal human rights agenda in order to cloak a "far more ambitious imperial offensive" (223). Okay. My first reaction is, "As opposed to?" Does anyone really believe it when politicians, whose goals are to make America stronger/make the American people more prosperous, spout idealistic justifications for their actions? If they were too concerned about other countries, their constituents would probably become restless and demand to know what their politicians were doing for them. Of course they're going to phrase it in an internationally acceptable way, and of course they're going to try to give the American people something that sounds nice to stand behind, but the truth is that American citizens enjoy being on top, and if politicians tried to democratize/improve every troubled nation, it would end up hurting them (by stretching the military too thin/weakening it, driving up debt, and resulting in lengthy occupations), whereas the more modest goal of promoting power and securing advantages is ultimately good for the U.S. Except, of course, when it goes horribly wrong, as it has in Iraq, but it's the thought that counts. As Regrin pointed out, it's not so unusual to think of the U.S. taking an action to ensure its own protection. If the U.S. really went into Iraq for oil (and personally, I think our reasons were a lot more diverse than that), it would at least be a logical decision: "If we had no oil, we would be lost - or hitching a ride with those who were smart enough to buy an electric car."

Cafruny cites Chandler, who says, "A real debate over the pros and cons of the 'new imperialism'... has to tackle the elitist framework of great power domination as it is articulated in the 21st century language of human rights and cosmopolitan duties" (223). In other words, if we want to address this concept of imperialism we have to cut through the doublespeak of promoting human rights while crushing them in order to create/maintain empire. We can't change our thought processes until we're honest with ourselves about what we're actually seeking. By "we," I mean American citizens, as I suspect that policymakers do know what they're trying to do and simply choose to layer this veneer over their motivations to get support. (Option B is that they believe their own rhetoric, which is a more disturbing prospect, given its disconnected idealism. Would you rather have a corrupt politician or a crazy one?)

|

Tuesday, April 11, 2006

Jonathan Berman is Not Dependant on Dependency Theory

I am not a great fan of dependency theory. I have had a chance to read Prebisch and Bhagwati who were main proponents of the theory way back when. Their theories were good but they were based on faulty assumptions. Namely, that manufacturing and technology would not spread to the low-income countries no matter what they did. In part, this view came from a belief that the prices of primary goods, mostly produced by the Global South would continuously deteriorate.

However, these assumptions were proven false. Even Bhagwati admit this (happily). What happened is that no one expected manufacturing to go global the way it has. Who in the fifties though Mexico would be assembling cars or China would make laptops? At this point in time, the third world doesn’t have to merely supply the first world with primary products.

Next, what dependency theorists also didn’t predict was that even as the prices of primary products decreased, so too did the prices of manufactured goods. As a result, more people in the world have access to technology because the prices of PC’s, cell phones, and cars has declined steadily.

I think most importantly is that dependency theorists are wrong to assume that trade between the “core” and “periphery” is a win-lose proposition. Since, the prices of both primary and value-added goods are declining and the ability to perform value-added activities is spreading countries can benefit from trade. As a result, countries like India, China, Chile, and Brazil are benefiting from trade and are escaping the “periphery”.

Google
|