The study of international relations as a subject began in 1919 following the end of World War 1. The study began because leaders and scholars around the world did not know what caused World War 1 to happen. Individuals studied and researched what the cause was and how to prevent more wars. Though the study began in 1919, it does not mean that there were not any international relations before then. There was – it just happened to be an unstudied subject.
International relations has generated and claimed many theories. Of the numerous theories, only three are relevant to this essay. Each theory has changed over time, so there are a number of forms for each.
Realism is “the theoretical approach that analyses all international relations as the relation of states engaged in the pursuit of power,” (Baylis, 2014, p542). It is the most dominant theory in international relations but it is one heavily criticised. Realism often uses the word “anarchy” to describe international relations. This theory believes that the natural state of the world at an international stage is anarchy. International relations has no central authority – there is nobody in charge. “Realism developed in international relations as a rejection of idealism in the post-Second World War period,” (Steans, 2010, p71).
The definition of liberalism “…include[s] the following four claims…all citizens are juridically equal…legislative assembly of the state possess only the authority invested in it by the people…right to own property…most effective system of economic exchange is…market-driven,” (Baylis, 2014, p538). This theory views the world and the people in it in a positive manner. It believes that states can be cooperative rather than antagonistically.
Marxism is defined as “…gives primary attention to economic analysis and is mainly concerned with exposing capitalism as a system of class oppression that operates on national and international levels,” (Heywood, 2014, p72). This theory focuses on the structural processes evident in the world economy.
The two events that will be discussed in this essay are the Iraq War and the Rwandan Genocide. Each event will have three perspectives – realist, liberal and marxist.
Rwanda is an African state and in 1994 violence broke out “where militias formed mostly of members of the Hutu majority conducted a genocidal mass killing of members of the rival Tutsi Tribe,” (Haugen, 2009, p160).
When it comes to the Rwandan Genocide, realists look at it in two ways – France’s complicity and lack of US involvement intervention. Prior to the genocide, the Hutu and the Tutsi had been engaged in a civil war for three years, where thousands of lives were lost.
“Success is the ultimate test of policy and success is defined as preserving and strengthening the state,” (Waltz, 1979). From this, you can extrapolate that the Hutu and state leaders were only trying to strengthen their state and ensure their survival by committing genocide. France’s non-prevention of and complicity in the genocide can also be explained as looking out for its own interest as a state. Due to previous losses against British forces, France feared British influence spreading. France considered the Hutu to be French influenced and the Tutsi to be British.
In spite of the Clinton Administration having a number of liberal interventionists the US did not intervene in the Rwandan Genocide, despite several opportunities to do so. They had the technology to block the broadcast that coordinated attacks and they had a mission to the region which they prevented. Furthermore, when General Dallaire (UNAMIR leader) had the opportunity to obtain Hutu weapons, he was prohibited from doing anything because the US (an essential UN member) did not support aggressive peacekeeping. It was not in their national interest to be involved as they would gain nothing from intervening. The US did not want to be involved in this conflict, therefore they used any excuses to prevent their involvement.
Liberals look at the Rwandan Genocide in two ways – the UN peacekeeping and the Arusha Accords. Though Dallaire requested 5000 troops, he received 2500 ill-equipped and predominantly undertrained Belgians. Linking back to the realist perspective, the US, UK and other key powers were not willing to send in troops as it was not in their national interest. When states did send troops, it was only with the mandate of extracting national citizens from Rwanda. Furthermore, the Hutu were aware that if they attacked the troops, they would be withdrawn – they did this successfully, leaving only two hundred.
The difference between realists and liberals is that liberals believe in cooperation. Unfortunately, this failed spectacularly during the Rwandan Genocide. To stop the civil war between the Hutu and the Tutsi, the Arusha Accords were brokered. They were supposed to reintegrate the Tutsi into Rwandan society but all it did was aim a target at the Tutsi. Moreover, it helped the Hutu in committing the genocide. Diplomats and politicians focused too heavily on the Arusha Accords to realise what was actually happening in Rwanda.
The Marxists perspective views the genocide through the economic causes. When the World Bank funded the establishment of cattle ranches in 1974, they allowed tension to be created when they ignored the fact that the Hutu were reducing the Tutsi’s prosperity and increasing their dependency on the Hutu. Commodity prices collapsing lead to famine and increases tensions.
The state elite needed foreign aid to remain in power – the famine and commodity price collapse prevented that. In order to remain in power, they agreed to reforms imposed on them by foreign powers. Their currency was devalued, consumer and fuel prices increased and the education and health systems collapsed. Unluckily, this allowed the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) to invade the country. Rwanda was on the periphery of Wallerstein’s World-systems theory. Rwanda’s dependency on prosperous nations was critical in enabling the genocide because it lead to the economy crashing. Tensions between the Hutu and the Tutsi just kept rising and rising with every collapse until it reached the point of no return – the RPF invasion.
The Iraq War was a response to the attacks on the world trade centre on September 11th 2001. The US gained little from this war and it is estimated to cost them with interest over $6 trillion.
The realist perspective focuses on America’s hegemony and Saddam Hussein’s rationality. America invaded Iraq despite facing international and domestic objections. They also went against the UN Charter which forbids the use of international force with the exception of it being under self-defence following an armed attack across international lines. This is in line with realism, as realism does not believe in international organisations having influence other than what states give them.
America and Britain justified the war by stating that they needed to obtain Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and linking 9/11 with Iraq. There was uncertainty on whether the weapons actually existed and there was little to no evidence to support the claims made by America and Britain. The US Secretary of State even inferred this to the UN Security Council, despite the lack of evidence. The US proceeded with the war, people protesting. As Thucydides (Melian Dialogue) once said, “the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
Quite a lot of well-known contemporary realist scholars argued against the administration of President Bush’s decisions to invade Iraq. Kenneth Waltz, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt presented arguments that stated it was not in their national interest to invade Iraq. They used the Gulf War as an argument where economic sanctions and retaliation were used as deterrents. They believed that it would still work even if Saddam Hussein had WMD. Realists have this assumption that state actors will be able to act in a rational manner. They believed that because Saddam had not used weapons of mass destruction against US troops in the Persian Gulf, he could be deterred and that he was rational.
The liberal perspective focuses on whether the invasion constitutes a ‘humanitarian intervention’ and the spread of democracy. Humanitarian intervention is usually carried out to protect human rights. The international community is allowed to intervene in state sovereignty if states abuse the rights of their citizens as they forfeit their right to sovereignty. Relating back to the realist perspective, there was insufficient evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, some individuals on had the belief that they were freeing Iraq from cruelty. Moreover, at the end of the war, no weapons had been found so support for freeing Iraq from cruelty increased. However, there are individuals who have the opinion that Iraq did not meet the requirement for humanitarian intervention.
Additionally, the Bush administration hoped that Iraq would act as a bastion of democracy and hope in the Middle East. They did not take into account that they might lose. Nor did they take into account that they were being hypocritical – democracy is allowing the people to vote for what they want but by making Iraq a bastion of democracy, America is taking citizens’ decisions away from them.
Marxists heavily criticised the Iraq War, especially the reasons on why they went to war. They focus on the motives, the hypocrisy and suffering of civilians.