By Ryan Christiano
In an address before The House of Commons, on the 1st of March 1848, Lord Palmerston declared: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal, and those interests it is our duty to follow”. Which theory or theories of International Relations motivated the Iraq War, and more narrowly, inspired President Bush? The President’s State of The Union Address; four short months after the attacks of September 11th, declared that a new ‘Axis of Evil’ exists in the world after 9/11. In the 2003 State of The Union Address, the President declared that America and her allies were the only things that stand between a world of peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm; and that Iraq now threatened the world with chaos and constant alarm. On March the 17th, 2003, just two days prior to the commencement of the Iraq War, President Bush, in an address to the nation, declared that: “events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decisions”. During his Inaugural Address in 2005, the President made a potentially startling declaration regarding America’s foreign policy. The gathering threats posed by the war on terrorism present profound challenges to the Realist Theory of International Relations in the years ahead.
The President’s State of The Union Address; four short months after the attacks of September 11th, declared that a new ‘Axis of Evil’ exists in the world after 9/11. President Bush stated:
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.
We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons. (Applause.)
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight. (Applause.)
The axis of evil portion was written by leading Neoconservative thinker David Frum. Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, a close advisor to several Republican Presidents, is a renowned Realist who believes that such phrasing is not constructive. Morality is a secondary concern to Realists, Realism focus primarilly more on concerns of levels of power. Hans J. Morgenthau, one of the intellectual fathers of Realism, believed that a nation’s foreign policy must advance a ‘realistic’ national interest, and more important for this disscussion, be divested of a crusading idealistic spirit. The rest of the speech is close to Realist thinking with a declared strategy that emphasizes national security as the dominate consideration. The argument of a clear and present threat posed by Weapons of Mass Destruction, threaded throughout all of these speeches, is consistant with Realist thinking. Realists believe states are inherently aggressive (offensive Realism) and are preoccupied with security (defensive Realism). This speech was the closest in Realist thinking among the speeches I chose.
In the 2003 State of The Union Address, the President declared that America and her allies were the only things that stand between a world of peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm, and that Iraq now threatened the world with chaos and constant alarm. The President declared in his Address to Congress:
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
The most glaring aspect of this address inconsistant with Realism is the “Bush Doctrine” of preemption. Realism literature is replete with condemnations of the preemption doctrine of preemption, or as Scowcroft declares it: “radical interventionism”. Once again, one is able to see influence of Neoconservative foreign policy theory rather than Realism. Neoconservative theory of International Relations often emphasizes the need to preemptively eliminate potential threats at an earlier time, rather than allowing the potential threats to grow stronger and more powerful over time. Realists believe stability is crucial. Stability in geopolitical affairs is a cornerstone of Realist thinking: “It is easy in the name of stability to be comfortable with the status quo”, wrote Brent Scowcroft. Scowcroft continues with this line of thinking by stating: “The status quo is not necesssarily a good thing, but it might be better than what follows. My kind of realism would look at what are the most likely consequences of [pre emptively] pushing out a government. What will replace it?” The doctrine of preemption is not a tenant of the Realist Theory of International Relations.
On March the 17th, 2003, President Bush, in an address to the nation, declared that: “events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decisions”. President Bush addressed the American People just two days before the war commenced:
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.
The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations -- and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
Realists would not give much weight to the “security of the world”. Realists are concerned with ‘overiding national interest’, which is deemed as the national security and survival of the state. Realists would most likely be skeptical that any conflict could advance the security of the globe because the actors (states) involved are inherently self-interested and are seeking to advance self-centered goals. Global security, even if it were possible to achive, which Realism is skeptical of, would be secondary to the strategic interests of the U.S.
During his Inaugural Address in 2005, the President made a potentially startling declaration regarding America’s foreign policy:
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
Very likely the most prominent living Realist, Secretary Henry Kissinger, believed this to be Wilsonianism Idealism: “The United States…must temper its missionary spirit with a concept of the national interest and rely on its head as well as its heart in defining its duty to the world. Kissenger went on to write in the third volume of his memoirs, that America should be guided by strategic self-interest, and that moral considerations are secondary at best. Realists tend not to support this: “Wilsonianism with teeth”, in the words of political scientist John Mearsheimer. President Woodrow Wilson belonged to the Idealism Theory of International Relations, believing that America must make the world safe for democracy because it was in the nation’s strategic interest to do so, and equally as important, it was the moral thing to do. Realists, such as Morgenthau and Kissenger, have often argued that Wilsonianism Idealists have “an unacceptably high tolerance for the kind of instability that the export of democracy can bring”. Do not be guided to the misimpression however, that President Bush emodies Wilsonianism Idealism in regard to foreign policy. Idealism would not necessarily allow for the imposition of democracy, by overthrowing brutal regimes through war. Neoconservatism sometimes blends both Idealistic and Realism elements together by adhering to the belief that overthrowing/displacing tyranical and brutal regimes by transforming them into democracies is morally right (Idealism) and in the strategic-self interest (Realism) of America. This is certainly not always the case and it is prudent to point out that Neoconservatism Theory has many internal variations, just as Realism and Idealism Theories of International Relations do as well.
The gathering threats posed by the war on terrorism present profound challenges to the Realist Theory of International Relations in the years ahead.
I am not entirely convinced that the Realist Theory of International Relations can handle the terrorist threat. To be fair, I am not quite sure any current International Relations Theory can handle terrorism. State-sponsored or state-based terrorism, if you will, is rapidly being overtaken by the emerging threat of ‘stateless’ terrorism. Stateless terrorism in the sense that terrorist cells may exist in a given state but not be funded, assisted, or consciously harbored by the government of the state in which the cells operate within, and potentially launch attacks, from. Pakistan comes readily to mind as an example of the delicate intricacies involved with the dance that is International Relations. Al- Qadea is not a state. The international organization, loosely associated cells were able to launch the September 11th attacks absent the capabilities and resources readily available to most states. The devastation was just as, if not more, cataclysmic than an attack launched by a state, as envisioned in the Realism Theory of International Relations. Terrorism tends to be anarchic, so in this narrow respect, Realism may be able to provide strategic insight and solutions, since Realism adheres to the belief that the International System is anarchic. Idealism is not a strong active force in International Relations of the twenty-first century, so therefore it is highly unlikely that states will turn to Idealism when confronting terrorism. Idealism fell largely into decline after it failed to prevent WWI. Neoconservatism is most closely identified with the Iraq war and is unlikely to be the International Relations template that the next Administration turns to when confronted with terrorism. Some Neoconservative foreign policy elements have been successful, however, utilizing a complete Neoconservatism approach is like fitting the proverbial square peg into a round hole. Neorealism currently seems to be the most active field of study and research in the International Relations realm. It is most likely to early to predict with any accuracy or certainty if Neorealism will be a viable and sustainable International Relations Theory capable of confronting terrorism. Perhaps Ambassador and International Relations expert Richard Holbrooke is envisioning the form that foreign policy will take in the years ahead for confronting terrorism: “A good foreign policy, ought to marry idealism and realism, effective American leadership and, if necessary, the use of force”.
I propose a theory of International Relations that has conditional sovereignty at its core. This would be a foreign policy based upon a hybrid “Realistic Idealism”. The United States has the right, though not a duty, to intervene in tyrannical regimes that violate the natural rights of the individual. Future American Administrations should place diplomacy first and foremost, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the right of such governments as Iran’s and North Korea’s to exist. The principle of conditional sovereignty does not always result in regime change. Conditional sovereignty does insist upon the interjection of morality into International Relations. When the individual is enslaved by a government, it is no longer a government, but an enslaver. Strategic foreign policy sometimes compels countries to diplomatically engage such regimes. They should be accorded the minimal humanity one would present to a slaveholder, not the respect accorded to a government of, for, and by the people. Moral relativism in International Relations is the equivalent of Russian roulette; the bullet will kill you eventually.
The foreign policy legacy of President George Walker Bush is still an unwritten chapter in the great history of the American Nation. Through the many setbacks, obstacles, and mangled policies, one profound fact emerges. Seven years after the attacks of the 11th of September, there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. If the foreign policy legacy of President Bush is to be composed by future American generations, I believe the absence of another attack should be the first words written upon the blank page.
Perhaps the twenty-first century world is like a three dimensional chess match, and it will take a blending of many different theories of International Relations to best formulate a foreign policy able to confront, and emerge victoriously from; the war on terrorism, tyrannical regimes with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and a world in which the toppling of one domino can cause them all to fall down.
“I believe in the fallibility of human nature. We continually step on our best aspirations. We’re humans. Given a chance to screw up, we will.”
- Brent Scowcroft.
By Ryan Christiano
Posts
