How do we Approach the Study of International Relations?

By Chester B. Cabalza

Blogger's Notes:
Commentary of an Academic 
(Copyright @ 2010 by Chester B Cabalza. All Rights Reserved).

International Relations (IR) examines the effects of political interaction among states which constantly pursue power, while it simultaneously seeks peace and stability for the world.

International Relations should be looked at unto our advantage as an approach. Because of the relevance of IR in our globalizing world, we can now be able to analyze that contemporary world order and its challenges, concerns, and risks; the factors which influence the formulation and implementation of foreign policy, bilaterally, regionally, and globally; the contribution of international law and intergovernmental organizations such as the UN, EU, ASEAN, OAS, NATO, etc. in managing the orderly behavior of states and in providing security to their people; and the Philippine involvement and participation in the diplomatic environment of the region and globally, both as beneficiary and agent of stability and peace.

In applying IR to global and regional issues, I believe that there are two major schools of thought in international relations. These are Classical/Traditional Realism and Liberalism/Idealism, as well as their variants, Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, and how these theories address the anarchic condition of state relations. Also included in the discussion is an analysis of the concept of power versus cooperation among states.

The world is leading towards greater realism.

Using the most dominant power (the United States) positions in recent global events as templates, particularly those in the Middle East, I believe that the world is fast leading towards greater realism. The US (with minor participations from allies IGOs) invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are manifestations of a state imposing and pursuing it its own interest to gain power and control of resources, at the expense of other states. The war in Iraq is essentially a war for oil. The war in Afghanistan is the same, although in the guise of pre-empting terrorism. These are calculated moves to ‘maintain or increase the power of the state’ or to ensure the very survival of the state by maximizing the use of military power. The minor military participations of other countries in the US presence in Middle East prove that IGOs are merely ‘alliances for convenience’ used to give semblance of concerted and mutual participation of member states. The truth maybe that the US (and some of its allies) are merely advancing their own interest. And just how these wars are being funded points to “national interest”. To maintain control of the sources of oils best serve the national interest.

In our country, applying realism as a theory of IR has repercussions on how we deal security issues. For instance, the situations posed by the Chinese presence in the Spratly islands. Contested by many states, the islands were said to be oil-rich also, and the very reason why Chinese presence in the Islands could not be controlled is because securing the island for future use best served its national interest. Also, if we are believe reports that the scuttled MOA-AD in Mindanao is actually a discreet effort of the US to control access to China, that is an example of classic realism.

The current scenario of the global environment, as I personally assess, have entered a period of profound challenges to humankind’s capacity to solve international and transnational problems. Thus, the existence of regional and international organizations – such as the UN, EU, African Union, ASEAN, NATO – is a tangible example which gears towards a liberalist approach. These organizations manifested that the concern for others can make progress a possibility. Obviously, cooperation is paramount to have a working atmosphere in the international arena.

It is in this context that liberalism is now clouding the world, with policies made to create an ambiance of working relationship among the different nations. Personally though, my point of view is that, the global scenario is on its right direction to control each country on their international relationship. Such control includes the number of military hardware, such as missiles, to have a balance of power. Military upgrades should be solely used for external aggression agitated by another country for protection. However, it is paramount to argue that international relations policies should respect the sovereignty of each state, not intruding the domestic problems of any country in order to have a hand in the familial government’s direction to create its mandated task of leading the country’s internal relations.

It is best to make the assumption that “no man is an island” needing our neighbors for economic reasons. Not only for economic side, liberalism should also be used to preempt the terrorist attack initiated by international motives. This is a transnational offense which involves innocent ones and could lead to untoward relationship of any country.

Most importantly, the globe has been beset by the climate change that showed the great possibility of destroying the earth. The Kyoto Protocol was a significant development, though, big countries, especially the United States, had been hard headed to join the international clamor to reduce its gas emission that will destroy our atmosphere.