Quo Vadis Somalia?

Teddy Lishan Desta, PhD

Teddy is an Associate Editor for the Journal of the International Relations and Affairs Group (JIRAG). He has lectured at colleges and universities on International Affairs. He holds a PhD in International Relations from The University of Texas at Dallas, a Master of Science in Economics degree from Baylor University. He specializes in International Relations Theory, International Trade, Economics and the International Political Economy.




Since 1991, Somalia has been synonymous with chaos and anarchy. For the last two decades the country has seen endless civil-wars as various forces battled each other for the control of central power in Mogadishu. In recent years, the appearance and operations of pirates off the coast of Somalia, and the emergence a group with suspected links with al-Qaeda, known as al-Shabab have all exacerbated the security situation within Somalia, in the regional countries, and the maritime sea lanes in the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. All these effects arising from chaotic Somalia have caused alarm bells to ring in regional capitals, and in many other which are concerned with regional security, international terrorism, maritime trade, humanitarian crisis.

The security implications of the long-standing crisis in Somalia are manifold. Not only Somalis within are affected by the crisis, but the turmoil in Somalia has also become a threat to regional stability, global security, and international maritime trade.

First, there is the case of the threat to human security. After the collapse of the central government in 1991, Somalis could not lead a normal life. Besides the hundred thousands who have lost their lives, millions of Somalis have been displaced internally and externally. In 2010, Somalia began to suffer its worst drought in 60 years. The crisis fully erupted in July, when the worsening humanitarian crisis reached a tipping point and the UN announced famine conditions across parts of southern Somalia. Hundreds of thousands of Somalis in famine-stricken areas fled to the capital, Mogadishu, and Kenya in search of aid. The famine crisis has been made worse when in 2009 al Shabab banned almost all international aid agencies, claiming that they were Western spies and that their food assistance was a conspiracy to drive Somali farmers out of business. The group not only prevented aid distribution but also forbade famine victims from fleeing to Kenya, even going so far as to deny the existence of a famine.[1]

Second, Somali pirates have become a major threat to maritime trade, their threat expanding as far as the Persian Gulf. For example, in 2010, pirates took 1,181 people hostage off the Somali coast. About half were released after the payment of ransoms; a few have died of abuse or neglect. Often hijacked vessels are employed as mother-ships from which the pirates stage further raids. The problem has worsened sharply in recent years. There were 219 attacks in 2010 compared with 35 in 2005. Ransoms paid in 2010 climbed to $238m, an average of $5.4m per ship, compared with $150,000 in 2005. On UN report estimates the economic cost of piracy at $5 billion-7 billion a year. Currently many countries have stationed part of their navies in the Gulf of Aden and the environs of the Indian Ocean off the coasts of Somalia to thwart any sea piracy.[2]

Third, the other major concern is the regional threat the instability in Somalia poses to neighboring countries. On July 11, 2010, the Somali terrorist group Al-Shabaab carried out multiple suicide bombings in Kampala, Uganda. An estimated 76 people, including one American, were killed and more than 80 injured. Units from the Kenyan army crossed into Somalia in October to create a buffer zone against al-Shabab, following a series of kidnappings by the militia in northern Kenya.[3] The US is also active in the affairs of Somalia, both in fighting the danger of terrorism and in averting humanitarian crisis. The US has launched attacks by unmanned drones and special forces looking for suspects of transnational terrorism hiding with al-Shabab. On May 1, 2008, American war planes reportedly killed Aden Hashi Ayro, the former leader of al-Shabaab. The U.S. backs the TFG, and supplies weapons and support to the AMISOM forces.[4] (CFR, 2011)

Just due to recent developments in Somalia, the lives of millions of Somalis have been endangered, international maritime commerce threatened, and the peace and security of regional countries severely rattled. In order to contain the security condition fast deteriorating in Somalia, regional countries and the international community have doubled their efforts to do something to realize a turnaround. For example, some regional countries have sent their armies into the south –western half of Somalia to fight on behalf of the weak transitional federal government (TFG). For the armies of Uganda, Burundi, Kenya, Ethiopia, and now Djibouti (some of which are fighting under the AU peacekeeping mission in Somalia) their main target is the al-Shabab group which has been threatening the internationally recognized, but weak, transitional federal government of Somalia. What makes these countries and the rest of the world jittery about al-Shahab is its known links with al-Qaeda.

Turning a Corner?

Since January 2011, the TFG and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) have intensified their attacks against Al-Shabaab forces in Mogadishu and southern Somalia. As of June 2011, Al-Shabaab forces had lost a number of districts in Mogadishu to TFG and AMISOM forces. A number of Al-Shabaab fighters have defected to the TFG and a number of their senior commanders have been killed. In early August 2011, Al-Shabaab forces pulled out of Mogadishu.[5]

The military interventions by the regional countries, whether operating under the umbrella of the African Union Mission in Somalia (Amisom) or acting independently, are greatly changing the military and political dynamics of Somalia. For the first time since its formation in 2006, the al-Shabab group seems on the verge of defeat. The group which has been in control of much of Somalia, even with a strong presence in the capital city, Mogadishu, now appears to be on the run as it comes under sustained pressure from the armies of the regional countries and the anti-terrorism and anti-piracy operations of countries such as the USA and France.

So what is the future for Somalia? Here, I entertain one scenario.

One Economist report gives the impression that Somalia is headed towards a new form of political arrangement.[6] That is the possible prospect that (Mogadishu-) Somalia could be carved up into sphere of influences by three regional powers - Kenya, Uganda, and Ethiopia.(1) Each of these countries could likely end up setting up their "protectorates" inside Somalia. Each countries' efforts is expected to be helped by the cooperation and tacit acquiesce of local tribes and tribal leaders. These will likely lend their support because they are tired of civil conflict and all its attendant evils. It is also likely that regional bodies like IGAAD and the AU, and world organizations like UN will also support these interventions under the rubric of regional peace-keeping or fighting terrorism.

How does this scenario play out? At least, the resulting protectorates (mini-states) will serve each of the regional countries as buffer zones against classical chaos, or as control mechanism for the much feared regional jihadism of al-Shabab. If these "protectorates" succeed in providing safe havens for Somalis who have suffered depredation under warlordism, lawlessness, and al-Shabab's austere laws, then the rest of the world will be happy to lend its material support to the regional countries so that they could assist in the rehabilitation of the areas they have pacified.

However, any promise of support from the outside world would come under the tacit assumption that these "protectorates" will later be joined together to form a larger Somalia, a Somalia which will be at peace with itself and with its neighbors. Of course, this type of outside support for the regional countries subsumes the repeat of the German story at the end of WW II. This is the scenario where soon after end of WW II, the western allied powers pacified, stabilized and lent support for the reconstruction of the zones they controlled. Within a few years the allied forces have combined their respective spheres of occupied Germany into the W. German state. A German nation pacified and integrated into Europe came about only through the sacrifices and efforts of other great powers.

Such a rosy and probable outcome the world could expect from the African nations' foray into Somalia could be marred also by other efforts which support elements who oppose the presence of these regional countries in Somalia. For example other regional powers like Eritrea will attempt to have its own sphere of influence in Somalia through its alleged support for al-Shabab. Al-Qaeda as an organization with a deep going interest in Somalia will also do its best to thwart such an effort. Equally there may other Somalis which could oppose the idea of sphere of influence by the regional countries just for the sake of hard-core Somali nationalism.

However, there are a few major reasons to view the presence of the regional countries in Somalia with a positive light. If these the regional countries commit the necessary resources and implicitly work under the oversight of the international community, and work hard to win the trust of the local people, this scenario could prove to be a turning point for Somalia. The worst fear expressed has been that these countries as agents of their own national interests or as participants to some western imperialist conspiracy will remain in Somalia for many years or dismember the remaining part of Somalia for ever. [7]But such a fear is quite misplaced, because:

i). There is little to keep these countries in Somalia except the overriding interest to bring stability to it lest they themselves become destabilized by spill-over effect from Somalia's unending turmoil.

ii). Long-term occupation (beyond pacification) of some other country's territory is not a sustainable proposition for these countries from the viewpoint of their own economic capability, their domestic politics, international opinion, and the backlash from Somali nationalism.

iii). The presence of armies from neighboring countries in a civil war-torn African country is not the first to happen. Based on the record we have, such presence has never mutated into a permanent occupation, or led to the dismemberment of the "occupied" country.

Somalia's greatest assets are its very resourceful people who will not need many years to build their country into a hub of economic activity and innovation once they are provided with peace conditions or economic assistance, or both thru the support of the international community. I choose to view the presence of east African armies in Somalia as part of this effort. Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, and Ethiopia's armies in Somalia should be viewed as necessary evil to bring long due pacification to Somalia. It should be seen as part of the effort to bring desired stability, and yes even ultimately that united Somalia.

Somalia will not be the first country where neighbors' showed up to extinguish a fire that is consuming the country and is also threatening their own survival. In all cases (I can recall) all these small countries go back to where they come from either successfully extinguishing the fire or reducing it to a very manageable level.

One thing the presence of the regional countries can take advantage of in the case of recent developments in Somalia is the appearance of mini-state like political entities which are trying to take shape in areas vacated by al-Shabab. The appearance of such autonomous zones should not be viewed with undue alarm, but taken as an opportunity to create order out of chaos. These newly appearing cantons (mini-"states"), if handled correctly, can serve as critical stepping stones to pacify, build, and ultimately unite Somalia. However, this idea, if expected to work, has to fulfill a few key assumptions:

(i). No canton will have the motivation nor the power to try to dominate another mini-“state.”

(ii). Each of these cantons are the largest logical governance blocks that can hold and sustain on their own. Because of cultural and historical reasons - related to clan affinity and the bad experience the region has since 1991 – conditions make clan-based cantons fit for the political ecology of Somalia.

(iii). Regional powers exercising power within their respective spheres of influence will keep the balance of power among these cantons. The regional powers will thereby prevent any type of predatory or dominance-oriented activity arising from any of these cantons to succeed.

(iv). Another role of the regional countries will be to encourage good governance and normal economic activity in each canton. They will oversee the emergence and consolidation of a responsible leadership and normal economic activity in each of the autonomous zones they each control. They will censure among the canton leaders any tendency towards pillage, warlordism or the ideological dominance of other cantons. The local leadership will mentor and supported to focus on peace, stability and reconstruction of the zone under its management.

(v). Regional countries will empower the local population in grassroots democracy (a system to be rooted in the traditional culture) so that a leadership that does not perform as expected will be weeded out and replaced with an energetic and visionary leadership.

Hence, it is not a far-fetched idea to contemplate the emergence and sustenance clan-based cantons as the groundwork for the reconstitution of Somalia. One big reason in this regard is that these mini-"states" will be small and weak that they will be quite amenable to outside pressure and incentive to go in the direction mapped out for them. If there be a time where the adage of "divide and rule" could apply for positive results, then it must be now in a place called Mogadishu-Somalia.

As for the rest of the international community, it should exercise first oversight and secondly provide logistical support to make the regional countries as responsible agents to pacify, stabilize, and ultimately put together Somalia.

Moving Forward in Somalia
Today the momentum in Somalia favors the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) than its opponents, represented mainly by al-Shabab.


Since January 2011, the TFG and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) have intensified their attacks against Al-Shabaab forces in Mogadishu and southern Somalia. As of June 2011, Al-Shabaab forces had lost a number of districts in Mogadishu to TFG and AMISOM forces. A number of Al-Shabaab fighters have defected to the TFG and a number of their senior commanders have been killed. [8]

Facilitated by the UN mission in Somalia, currently there is a concerted effort to give Somalia an elected parliament and broadly-based government by late 2012. In September 2011, Somali political leaders agreed a "road map" for the formation of a government to replace the TFG by August 2012. The adoption of the plan, which is based on four major benchmarks -security, the constitution, political outreach, and reconciliation and good governance -was the culmination of a three-day consultative meeting on ending the transition in Somalia. The “roadmap” was signed by the TFG, the Federal Transitional Parliament (FTP), the two autonomous regions, Puntland and Galmudug, and the pro-TFG Islamist militia, Ahlu Sunnah.[9]

Another new development on the Somalia political scene is the active interventionist role regional countries are playing to help pacify Somalia. And secondly, al-Shabab is showing signs of degenerating from its high-ground ideological and nationalist "purity" and military strength into becoming a band of predatory and criminal organization. These rapidly evolving changes call for a new assessment of the political and security situation of Somalia. One key step in such re-assessment will be to identify and categorize the major role players in the politics and security of Somalia. It is only from such understanding (and knowing the objectives of each major role player) that any meaningful analysis and recommendation can arise.

(i). Internal forces
These forces are purely of Somalia in origin and operate fully within. Some have international and regional legitimacy; some do not. Some are fully political; others are quasi-political tending on the criminal. Some have a pan-national objective; others are more local actors.

The variation in the internal forces ranges, say from the transitional government to the remnant of the "old-style" warlord type to al-Shabab to a band of pirates. Therefore, there is a need to create sub-categories in the rank of internal forces.

(ii). Internal-external forces
These political and social forces are Somali in origin, but reside or operate outside the country. These play a role in Somali politics by the kind of hard and soft support they provide or even deny to the various Somali internal forces active in Somalia. There is one additional fact why these forces are quite important in the dynamics of Somalia. These forces are indispensable to the international community which tries to bring order to Somalia through reconciliation or the setting up of a national government.

(iii). External-internal forces
These are regional countries and other organizations which have made their foot-prints in Somalia. Some are there under the umbrella of the AU peacekeeping forces (Uganda, Burundi, and now Djibouti), and others have made incursions into Somalia to prevent spill-over effect (Kenya and Ethiopia). Currently, the number and clout of these regional countries in the affairs of Somalia has grown proportionally.

(iv). External forces
These are outsides forces, countries or organizations, with minimal political or military physical presence in Somalia. But they show attention and engagement with the local situations not to be considered or ignored. Their actions clearly show that they have some stake or interest in the present and future state of Somalia.

Some of the external forces lend support to the transitional government, and a few others to al-Shabab. Some are key because their diplomatic, financial and material clout is immense; they can bestow or deny international legitimacy to any of the forces operating within Somalia. Some others make a military impact; they either engage some of the internal forces militarily on occasional basis, or supply arms and others logistics to Somali combatants.

The identity and objectives each the major external force (i.e., what kind of Somalia they want to see emerge from the ashes) should be identified and understood for correct analysis of the situation, and even for seeking solution.

Simply put the politics of Somalia has many moving parts which each needs ample attention in order to the fix the broken place. In my opinion, today there is a shift that is developing in the affairs of Mogadishu-Somalia which if handed carefully could lead to positive results to pacify, stabilize and restore the place. Here are some reasons:

a). In the case where at least five regional countries (Uganda, Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Djibouti) have made their presence felt in Somalia, it is quite difficult for any local Somali force to get the upper hand over its power competitors without the support of these countries.

Given there fire-power, resources and support they have from the international community, the role these countries could play in the political dynamics of Somalia, as by tilting the balance of power in favor of some of the internal forces, is quite immense. In this regard the probable winner seems to be the transitional federal government (TFG), at present whose power barely extends beyond the capital city, Mogadishu. Therefore, the fate of Somalia will highly depend what these countries will end up doing in the country.

b). In the case where al-Shabab because of its misdeeds and missteps is fast losing even its ideological justification and the nationalist mantle, it is proving itself as a less and less an attractive option even for its original Somali supporters. On top of the support it is fast losing within the areas it operates in, al-Shabab is coming under immense military pressure from the armies of the regional countries now operating in Somalia (as well as the direct military hits it is taking from other external forces). Therefore, al-Shabab is fast disintegrating; hence it is no longer able the feared unified armed organization threatening to take power in Mogadishu any time soon.

c). In the case where small bands of vice-based bands of operators (pirates, etc.) do not have any sort of political vision for Somalia, these could survive for some time until the place gets a normal life and economy. Of course, in this regard things could get a little worse before it gets any better. That is because as al-Shabab splinters and disintegrates, it will inevitably swell the ranks of small groups of “bandits” whose primary objective will be sowing chaos and earning a living from extortion.

d). In the case where mini-state-like zones are emerging in the spaces vacated by al-Shabab these developments allow for traditional Somali governance to take root among the people. These mini political entities will provide their local communities with a modicum of governance working as functional cantons, as they will be sensitive to their community needs, amenable to international community influence and incentives, and adverse to destructive forces. These even though they may look for autonomy as much as possible from the center, may not want to challenge the legitimacy of the transitional government as the war-lords or USC or al-Shabab did.

Carving a Role for the Somali Diaspora
Today millions of Somalis reside outside their country, and most of these have been forced to leave their native land due to the insecurity that engulfed Somalia after the fall of the Said Barre regime in 1991. Many of these have taken refuge in neighboring countries like Ethiopia and Kenya, and many others have settled as far away in the Middle East, Europe, North America and Australia. Wherever they may be, most of the Somali Diaspora maintains a very keen interest in what is going on in their native land, socially, economically and politically. For example, the remittances the Diaspora send home provides as a lifeline that sustains many families through the chaos and the hardship caused by the civil war and by famine conditions as the one which hit the country most recently. Remittances from the Somali Diaspora are forecast to remain steady at around US$1bn a year in 2012-13, as the impact of weak growth and the risk of another recession in the developed world is countered by improvements in money transfer technology.[10]

Politically, the Somali Diaspora has played a key a role in post-1991 Somali politics in the form of hard and soft support they provide (or deny) to the various groups operating within Somalia. The Diaspora has also been one indispensable pool of human resource wherever the international community plans any form of political or humanitarian intervention in Somalia. In many instances exile Somali groups have been the main power brokers in the various efforts in peace negotiation among the warring factions, or in the attempts to give Somalia a central government. Such a close engagement is equally illustrated by the fact that the last two prime ministers, a host of members of parliament, and cabinet ministers hold dual US-Somali nationality.

Now as explained above the political and security dynamics of Somalia is entering a new phase where things are evolving very rapidly. So it is important to assess what role the Somali Diaspora play in order to capitalize on the developing situation, thereby assisting the long-term vision of stabilizing and returning Somalia to a normal life. What can actually the Diaspora do to help the forces of national and regional peace?

At this juncture the Somali Disapora has two main choices:
(i). Reject the intervention of the regional countries seeing it as a conspiracy to dismember Somalia. In this case the Diaspora will either back al-Shabab and reform it, accepting it as a nationalist block, or lend support to one or some of the canton leaders which may try to play the nationalist card more than any of their peers. Or, the Diaspora may come together to form a new nationalist party that will try to coordinate efforts to kick out the invaders from Somalia. This scenario looks unlikely at the moment though given that the Diaspora want to see a semblance of stability in Somalia, at least the Ethiopian and Kenyan armies have been given the benefit of the doubt but things might change in the future of these armies do not stabilize Somalia.

(ii). Accept the regional countries armies in Somalia as a necessary evil meant to bring peace and stability to the endless civil war that have wracked Somalia since 1991. In this scenario, the Diaspora will quickly recognize the regional intervention as a positive development and proceed to organize a committee that will allow the Diaspora to play its historic part in bringing stability to Somalia. . The London Conference on Somalia organized by the UK government could be a starting point for such an initiative and the UK based Diaspora which is already engaged in various initiatives can take the lead.

The Diaspora committee may need to make initial contacts with the TFG, regional and world organizations, and the rest of the international community, including some of the great powers in order to be accepted as a role player in the new effort to stabilize Somalia. The committee could easily be accepted by others because there are a few quite critical tasks it can realize. First, the committee can recognize and enhance the TFG, thereby giving it a broader legitimacy among all Somalis. Second, it can begin to provide the TFG with the critical manpower which can help the TFG run the country. Third, the committee can provide experienced interlocutors and diplomats for the TFG to represent the Somali interest abroad. Fourth, by working hand in hand with regional and world bodies, the Diaspora committee exercise oversight over the regional countries militarily active in Somalia. By ensuring the work of the regional countries in Somalia as a short-time mission, the Diaspora can minimize the risk of any Somali nationalist backlash against these countries. Fifth, by working the Somali community channels, inside and outside Somalia, the Diaspora committee can bring pressure on Somali forces working in the piracy, jihad or other forms of evil enterprise. And finally, the Diaspora can invest in development projects and social infrastructure in Somalia to foster a return to normal economic activities and to lay the groundwork for development projects and foreign direct investment by multi-national Corporation.

In short, the Diaspora committee can function as a complement to the TFG, by working as a shadow government from outside. Its endeavors will be directed towards supporting and enhancing the TFG work inside the country. The committee will also act as the diplomatic arm of the TFG, representing the Somali interest outside the country.

In all these, one big question remains to be answered: Will the Somali Diaspora view the military presence of neighboring countries as a colonial enterprise and a conspiracy to dismember Somalia, or as a golden opportunity to pacify the country? If the Diaspora chooses to ally itself solidly behind the regional and international forces, then the prospect of peace in Somalia will be brighter than ever. However, if the Diaspora chooses to reject the current regional and international effort, then Somalia will be destined for another cycle of violence. The future of Somalia heavily depends on the answer the Somali Diaspora will give to this important question. In all these indications are the majority of the Somali Diaspora are more involved in making the TFG work than supporting the al-Shabaab.

References

1). Foreign armies in Somalia and the appearance of state-like entities in Somalia.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2011/11/ethiopia-kenya-and-somalia
http://somalilandpress.com/the-end-of-somalia-scenario-of-partition-25321
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/world/africa/10somalia.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=africa
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15499534
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16156157

2). How history affects the relationship between Ethiopians and Somalis
http://news.yahoo.com/troubled-ethiopia-somalia-history-haunts-horn-africa-114234432.html


3). Al-Shabab becomes a danger to Somali culture
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/world/africa/somalia-faces-alarming-rise-in-rapes-of-women-and-girls.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&ref=world&src=me


4). Sea Piracy
http://www.economist.com/node/18070160

5). USA fights against terrorists and pirates in Somalia
http://www.cfr.org/somalia/terrorism-havens-somalia/p9366?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F196%2Fsomalia

6). Famine in Somalia
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68221/ken-menkhaus/somalias-starvation

7). Country Report
Economist Intelligence Unit (2011). Country Report: Somalia.
Congressional Research Service (2011): http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33911.pdf
___________________________________________

[1] Ken Menkhaus (2011). Somalia’s Starvation. Foreign Affairs. Available at: http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68221/ken-menkhaus/somalias-starvation

[2] Economist (2011). At Sea. Feb. 3, 2011. Print. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/18070160

[3] Economist Intelligence Unit (2011). Country Report: Somalia.
[4] Julia Hunt (2011). Terrorism Havens: Somalia. Available at: http://www.cfr.org/somalia/terrorism-havens-somalia/p9366?breadcrumb=%2Fregion%2F196%2Fsomalia

[5] Ted Dagne (2010). Somalia: Current Conditions and Prospects for a Lasting Peace. Available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33911.pdf

[6] http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2011/11/ethiopia-kenya-and-somalia

[7]Abdishakur Jowhar (2011). The End of Somalia: Scenario of Partition. Available at: http://somalilandpress.com/the-end-of-somalia-scenario-of-partition-25321

[8] Ted Dagne (2010). Somalia: Current Conditions and Prospects for a Lasting Peace. Available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33911.pdf

[9] Economist Intelligence Unit (2011). Country Report: Somalia.
[10] Economist Intelligence Unit (2011). Country Report: Somalia.

The Historical Development of International Relations and the State of it Today

Daniel J. Evans is the Executive Director and Editor in Chief of the International Relations and Affairs Group.  He has experience analyzing how crises unfold and evaluating contingencies for dealing with complications as they arise. His specialties are foreign affairs research, International Relations Theory, Systems Theory, Globalization, Geopolitics, Intelligence Analysis and Homeland Security. His training deals with assessing transorganizational structures for the management of Homeland Security and developing plans for coordinating networked Homeland Security organizations.


Recently, there has been a growing interest in the field of International Relations and Affairs. However, in conversations and discussions there seems to be a debate between where the field is going and where it came from. The historical development of the International Relations field has always had an emphasis on dominant theoretical perspectives and paradigms. I decided to assess the state of IR today, as well as, where it came from. I also looked at the driving questions and controversies and the crises of thought and of theory.

The historical development of the field of international relations can be traced back for centuries but much of what is thought of as that actual field of study is mainly thought to have emerged in the beginnings of the twentieth century. There are many paradigms and theoretical perspective that have shaped and molded the field, as well as the ever changing international system. In the changing system many new questions have arisen and many controversies from contending theories, and possible lack of theory, have caused this field to become even more vibrant today than it was in its inception. The treaty of Westphalia first discussed the nation state. Prior to Westphalia and the idea of the “nation state,” there existed tribes and ethnicities. In the manner of tribes, the most dominant tribe would dominate the others. International relations theory, especially throughout the late 1940’s and the 1960’s, had a huge interest in theoretical analysis weaving together insights from biology, psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics and the behavioral sciences; it started to give shape an explanation for international politics. The approaches even then were focused on (a) ecological factors and the individual relationships between humans and their milieu (b) functionalism and regional integration (c) systems theory (d) the causes of war (f) arms race (g) decision making (h) games and theory and (i) related subjects in foreign policy and international relations (Dougherty, 16-19).

Idealism/Wilsonian-Idealism
Woodrow Wilson had the idea that WWI was so horrific that it would be the war that “would end all wars”. Wilson is seen more as an idealist and although idealism has been taught in academia the processes have never seriously been implemented, and most of these liberal reforms have been attained. (Kegley, 34-35). Woodrow Wilson’s perspectives incorporated what he called the fourteen point program. He wanted to have relationships between the great powers after World War I. Wilson thought that there should be “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at” instead of treaties that many countries had kept in secret; he believed that the secrecy between nations was part of the cause of the war. Much of this prompted leaders and academics of countries to study international relations. Wilson was able to do many things that the field of international relations has learned from. There was the inception of the League of Nations which wanted to focus on a peaceful world without war and greater cooperation between nations. Much of this perpetuation of international relations happened between the two world wars and by the 1930’s the League of Nations was already breaking down and leaders were looking at other ways in which conflicts could be created and how to conduct foreign affairs. Idealism comes from liberal thought process. Idealism serves a purpose and it is obviously something that in a perfect world could transform the world into world peace. However much of international relations has been dominated by the realist school of thought – realist theory, neo-realist theory, and neo-classical theory (Dougherty, 65-67).

Realism
Realism has been a major influence in the field of international relations. The realist schools of thought incorporate realist theory, neo-realist theory, and neo-classical realist theory. Realest theory centers on the international systems level of analysis, and the state or unit actor. The balance of power is the main theme, and the nation-state is the primary actor. Power, a key concept is derived from either military prowess or economic power. A notable contributor to realist theory was Hans J. Morgenthau. Morgenthau’s six basic principles were: (1) “political relationships are governed by objective rules deeply rooted in human nature;” (2), political leaders “think in terms of interest defined by political power;” (3), “the meaning of interest defined as power is not easily determined;” (4), “universal moral principles cannot be applied to their actions of states in their abstract, universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place;” (5), political realism does not identify the “moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe;” and (6 the “autonomy of the political sphere” (Dougherty, 14, 16).

Neo-realist theory uses an approach known as “constellation analysis” which is a “multi-method system of inquiry.” This consists of (1) system design (2) perception and reality (3) interest and power (4) norm and advantage (5) structure of independence and (6) cooperation and conflict. Neo-realist theory uses the bases of realism but adds factors such as “cross cultural comparative analysis.” Neo-realism tries to broaden and deepen realism. A major contributor of Neo-realism was Kenneth Waltz who spoke of “structural realism”, and “power remains a key variable”. Others such as Gottfried-Karl Kindermann stated power is not always the primary factor in politics.

Neo-classical realist builds a link between international and domestic politics; it suggests that leaders seek to control resources to advance international and domestic agendas and seek economic and technological wealth. It speaks of external extraction: actors will access resources beyond their borders to achieve domestic and international status or power. External validation: leaders seek authoritative status in the international community so they can enhance their domestic image. Charles Glaser, an influence on neo-classical realism came up with contingent realism: when states enter into escalations, such as arms races, they may enter into a self-help system, because they have seen the benefit versus the cost of making such an agreement; or they have weighed out the consequences (Dougherty, 88-89).

Marxism Feminism & Liberalism
Other theories of international relations are Marxism and Feminism. Marxists focus on the problems in the world as a result of the imperialistic agendas of capitalism and the inability to co-exist which each other. They believe that capitalism wanted to create “surpluses” overseas and the imperialist forces would colonize countries in order to accomplish this. Once this was achieved they would then take materials from those countries to continue the aggressive drive of capitalism. Feminism focuses on the unequal treatment of woman, injustices, and other prejudices. Feminists believe that decision making in foreign policy is influenced by gender-identity (Kegley, 46). The Marxist-Feminist approach focuses on the idea that capitalism oppresses woman. This theory does not focus on power such as in the realist approach. Feminism believes that male driven theories are “inadequate if not misleading” (Kegley, 101, 143, 404). Liberalism or Idealism is much the same thing. There is the belief that negations and agreements, international laws, international organizations, collaboration of states and integration, and ethical principles are the way to establish international relations; not a quest for more power. The theorists of liberalism/Idealism believe in achieving peace through diplomacy, without resorting to war. There is also the belief that much of this is done through the regulation of state behavior along with international organizations, systems, and institutions (Dougherty 65, 419-420).

Constructivism & Postmodernism
There are also other theories such as constructivism, postmodernism and critical theory that have emerged in the field of international relations. These theories are considered to be the Post-positivist era. Feminism can also be incorporated into the post-positivist era. Constructivism started to emerge in the later part of the 20th century and has become in influence on the study of international relations. They believe that “intersubjective consensus” meaning that all institutions are socially constructed to include the state. This also stems from political science and the idea of shared social beliefs, values, and behaviors. Constructivists believe that policy making is derived from individual members and other actors. They believe that this is how decisions of going to war and peace are concluded and what perpetuates cooperation or conflict. Constructivism also incorporates some feminist thought believing that even gender is socially constructed. Postmodernism consists of explaining reality as a condition or state of being. It is said to mainly be a reaction to modernism and against assumed theories. Postmodernism attempts to explain the constantly changing international system and institutions through demonstrating how bodies of knowledge are constructed; this is opposed to relying upon already existing explanations. And though postmodern thought takes the context of culture, gender, history, etc. into account when looking for explanations, it also looks to not be bound by those systems when constructing meaning. Critical theory comes from the 1920’s from the Frankfurt School and is defined as “theory which can provide the analytical and ethical foundation needed to uncover the structure of underlying social practices and to reveal the possible distortion of social life embodied in them” (Dougherty, 38-40, 477-478).

Democratic Peace, Core & Gap
Other smaller theories of international relations are the Democratic Peace which states that “democracies are less likely to fight wars with each other”. This theory is rooted in liberalism and is another critic of realism (Appendix C). Thomas Barnett’s “Core and Gap” model has had both criticism and favorable impressions. The model states that there is a core made up of inter-connected states which are technologically, economically, socially advanced and the Gap is composed of isolated less developed or failed states. While the Democratic Peace is much more of a model derived from liberalism the Core and gap model derives much of itself from realism perpetuating the balance of power idea. However, what is shown from the field of international relations is that there are both ideas still being stemmed from realism and liberalism (Barnett).

Wallerstein’s Contribution
Immanuel Wallerstein had a major influence on the study of international relations and more importantly he is known for world systems theory more specifically the capitalist world-system, core/periphery and semi-periphery states. He discussed the rise and hegemonic fall of agrarian, industrial, and financial powers from core states to peripheral areas, as cyclical systemic phenomenon (Dougherty, 137-140). Giving the examples of the Netherlands, Great Britain, and the United States, he demonstrated how power is both gained and then diffused. This perspective has validity and can be applied to recent events with the example of the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union. During the 1980’s the Cold War and arms race was a systemic escalation between the United States and the Soviet Union that could have ended in a cataclysmic war. However, the hegemonic power of the Soviet Union was diffused. With regards to cycles that may be unfolding, if we look to past cycles we see that many cultures when they reach their peak, the next step is that they fall – such as Rome, or Peloponnesians. They do this through becoming over-extended in their resources, through cultural divisions from within, such as the greater division we are now having between liberals and conservatives, as one of many examples (Dougherty, 137-140).

The Cold-War
The Cold-War had a showdown between the United States and the Soviet Union. This may or may not be viewed as a Just War from one of several normative approaches to it: such as applying a qualitative sense of traditional values, in addition to a quantitative analysis of behavior; or even through the application of principles of modern pacifist theory because of economic emphasis of free trade and peace; or any one of the older theories, which could be used to explain, in essence, a traditional concept of war centering it around the nation-state. However, with the end of the Cold War and the beginnings of the Global War on Terrorism the nation-state finds itself no longer engaging with uniformed military. And the military targets themselves and their objectives are no longer clear. It more so finds itself with the nation-state on both a defensive and offensive stance having to be flexible with changing missions and priorities during a conflict, fighting the same local tribes it just trained and at times struggling to trust allies it may have just made (Dougherty 627-630).

The Global War on Terrorism
The Global War on Terrorism has modified many theories such as traditional concepts of war centered on the nation-state. This new phenomenon has several variables including geopolitical emphases that non-state actors have on nation-states themselves, instability of host nation states to combat host non-nation-states, the inability to identify non-state actors in a nation state, non-state actors that work for the nation-state and non-state group, as well as several other factors that ultimately modify the traditional concept of war. Traditional concepts of war could almost describe the nation-state as adversary against adversary and could even be thought of as something as simple as the fairy tale knight fighting the dragon. Both are very distinctive in conflict and there is no misunderstanding as to who is fighting who and ultimately what the demise would be to either of them. An analogy of United States fighting in the global war on Terrorism with the knight could be as such. The knight (US) in The Global War on Terrorism has not slayed the dragon (foe nation-state) and finds himself with no clear adversary. However, there are clearly groups that do not share the same principles as the knight. Whereas before the dragon was easy to identify, but now it is not dragons that the knight is fighting, it is multiple serpents that he is fighting (Drinkwine, 2009). One or two bites from a serpent is not going to effect the knight it a mortal way but if the knight is bit from several different directions and many times eventually it is going to wear down the knight and eventually could be his demise. Al-Qaida could be thought of as the serpent. The group will continue to hide itself and camouflage itself within the geopolitical environments that it now operates. In the age of the Global War on Terrorism technological advances and new tactics will allow nation-states to operate in environments where they are not engaging with a uniformed army and they will continue to have to draw on lessons learned from past wars as well as global histories of wars (Drinkwine, 2009). Adapting the traditional theories of war could require countries like the US, which is the last superpower, to operate more like a “police state” dealing with “criminals” in a non-nation state fight that could cross several geopolitical boundaries (Buck-Morss, 2003). In essence a lot of the fundamentals of theories of war can still be used. The major differences being non-state actors do not have to be part of a nation-state and operate independently not necessarily condoned by the nation-state that they are in.

Integration/Disintegration, Systems, & Structural-Functionalism
Integration and disintegration are becoming key components in the study of international relations. For example, there is integration of the European Union and World Trade Organization and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union. Traditional theory has not caught up with much of the current phenomenons. Integration is not necessarily a new concept. Talcott Parsons, a major contributor to systems theory, wrote about integration. Joseph Nye also had perceptions of integration which were slightly different than Parsons. Parsons believes that action between an individual and actor; action in a “societal context” called “action systems.” His systems place people in the role of subjects and objects. He also explains that at any given time people are members of several other action systems such as family, employer and nation-state. Parsons states that the three subsystems are 1) the personality system 2) the social system 3) the cultural system. They are interconnected through the action system. If there is a change in one of the subsystems it will affect another in turn affecting the entire action system. The systems theory “assumes the interdependence of parts in determinate relationships, which impose order on the components of the system.” “Social systems are characterized by a multiple-equilibrium process because social systems have many subsystems, each of which must remain in equilibrium in the larger system is to maintain equilibrium” (Dougherty 115-116).

Causes of disintegration, from Parsons point of view, explicates how the systems deal with stress. Parson’s four functional conditions are prerequisite: 1) Pattern Maintenance 2) adaptation (to the environment) 3) goal attainment 4) Integration (of the different functions and the subsystems into a cohesive, coordinated whole. “The integrative function is fulfilled by the cultural subsystems the serve the function of pattern maintenance.” “According to Parsons, the formulation of common values that cut across national boundaries is essential to international order.” If you look at the EU this is in place and happening very clearly but looking at the former USSR states it can be seen that several of these factors are not taking place and only a handful are fairly being used (Dougherty 115-116). The conditions of integration that Joseph S. Nye explains are what the EU follows: (1) Politicization (2) Redistribution (3) Reduction of Alternatives (4) Externalization. In short the EU has a common interest to have a closer knit Europe, a single currency to allow for less exchange rate processes, the states involved have a parliament that is able to discuss sovereign alternatives, and they seek to not bring in external forces to control the general premise of the EU. This can be very attractive to many countries and membership into the EU could perpetuate them more in the global market where they once had trouble competing (Nye & Dougherty 515-519).

The former Soviet Union continues to be a place of study in the field of international relations. Even after the 1917 revolution, when communism ushered into the country to modern day with the fall of the former USSR and the forces of disintegration. The disintegration of the former Soviet Union which has several implications as to why it did not work and why there is a lack of integration between the former members. The Soviet Union itself integrated was a single party regime that controlled everything and dictated the actions of its members. Of course this ultimately failed and a lot of the factors may not be simply human nature and the inability to completely be socialist because of greed and other factors that influence behaviors (Riasononovsky & Steinberg). Factors that caused the disintegration of the Former Soviet union include nationalism inside former states splitting into separate states along with ethnic disputes, ideological conflicts, competing economic factors that include raising prices higher than market conditions, and several other factors. The disintegration has also caused some states to become Isolationists, such as Russia because of several reasons but a major point being the idea that they had been taken advantage of economically (Dougherty 93 & 106).

Failure to acclimatize to the new systems or not keep up and will be much like indigenous tribes that become extinct because of lack of flexibility. The EU has become very flexible and adaptable to many market conditions. The EU’s inception, whether acknowledged or not, is to knock the US down from being an economic superpower. There is no doubt that the EU supports democracy and capitalism, however its focus may have to become broader as the economies change over time as of right now its flexibility lean towards the idea it will continue to prevail. However, to compare the EU with the US the Structural-Functional approach could be used. It has the ability to view political systems individually as well as compare vastly different political systems to each other. There are two main points with the structural-functionalist approach. (1) “In different countries, the same structure may perform different functions” (2) “institutions often do not have a monopoly on any given function”. This tells us that there are factors that work as a cause and effect type model and derives much of this from systems theory itself (Almond, 33).

The International Political Economy & Globalization
The international political economy has also become a subset of study in international relations. Politics and Economics have intermingled since the existence of one another and most intellectuals acknowledge their relationship but have been studied separately instead of the relations ship between them. In the later part of the 20th century international relations has studies the two together. Capitalism is defined as “an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market” (Webster). Democracy is a “government by the people ; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections” (Webster). Free countries follow a capitalist market system in which they are able to establish profit for goods and services allowing the seller to make a profit. This is thought to establish and allow economic growth. While these concepts are basic there are economic factors that influence political decisions. The understanding that politics and the economy are nothing new, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and many other dominate historical figures spoke of it but much of the earlier work is thought to be mercantilist and followed: (1) states cannot remain powerful in an anarchic setting without a strong economy (2) economic strength must be preserved by protecting key industries and jobs (3) such protectionism may require tariffs and governmental subsidies (4) low-priced imports may threaten domestic jobs and industry, (5) the state can and should remain sovereign in economic matters and (6) membership in international economic organizations may have adverse consequences for national strength. More contemporary approaches follow economic liberalism and believe that markets need to operate free from government intervention (Dougherty, 416-419).

Globalization has become a huge topic of study for international relations. Instead of just focusing in the nation state there are many more actors than there was before including everything from IGO’s, MNC’s, NGO’s, terrorist groups, rouge states and other actors. Wars are no longer always fought against uniformed armies there is now the clash of ideologies and nation states versus non-nation states such as the United States and the war on terrorism. Many nations feel they must form alliances with one another to combat many of the current problems such as terrorism and rogue nations. The fact that they are surrendering some of its authority to an international organization once again the benefits of protection and collaboration seem to outweigh the costs (Dougherty, 559, 631-632).Globalization and the forces of disintegration and economic integration are changing the field of international relations. The EU is lessoning on countries nationalism and a buy in of economic collectivism because of the common currency and the fact that the economies of these nations are now much stronger and can more easily compete against the United States and now have more clout and purchasing power. However with this there is less patriotism of the individual state and more value for the bigger economy. The loss of group identity in a globalizing world is a contributing factor for the rise of nationalist movements redefining the borders of nation-states but as long as the economies are strong it is almost definite that this is not going to happen as much until a true recession hits hard to drive it home for the individual states (Bhagwati).

The field of international relations has many more actors than is had before. There are Intergovernmental Organizations or IGO’s like NATO that is usually an organization set up so that two or more nations can form treaties and accomplish common interests. The other type of International Organization is a Nongovernmental Organization or NGO. NGO’s are very different from IGO’s in the fact they do not have to “operate in a vacuum” basically meaning they can operate independently from a governments and intergovernmental organizations. However, both IGO’s and NGO’s play an important role in dealing with conflicts and disasters. In essence they are specialists and perform essential tasks that many time governments simply cannot perform. The economy is definitely shaping into more of a global economy than it been. There will always a place for the nation state; however, there are many more actors than there was before including everything from NGO’s, terrorist groups, and rouge states. Wars are no longer always fought against uniformed armies there is now the clash of ideologies and nation states versus non-nation states such as the United States and the war on terrorism. Along with IGO’s and NGO’s there are also multinational corporations or MNC’s that can have immense influence on countries there enter. MNC’s can play much of a role in passing certain conditions for workers and several other factors because of the impact they have on a countries economy especially in the third world (Bhagwati , Dougherty & Bennett).

Conclusion
International relations theory must catch up to modern conditions. Currently there is disconnect with terminology in international relations about modern phenomena, but there is plenty of theory in place to build upon to develop new theory and explain conditions. The end of the Cold War leaves Russia as a superpower no longer, and it has been proven that communism does not work. Now the factor is the disintegration of the former USSR. Russia believes they have been betrayed by the same countries they once supported and kept going economically. There are several parts of theories that can explain some of what is going on such as systems theory, however there is no theory in place the fully explains the disintegration. Like many countries such as in the Middle East there are ethnic disputes and clashes from religious affiliations, but nothing completely like what has happened in the former USSR. If anything it seems to be several factors with several different variables happening simultaneously. The state of international relations is changing and theories that once seemed to be able to explain much of the world are no longer viable. With the ever-changing global climate the field of international relations is probably going to stay exciting and like the rest of the world, students, like countries that do not keep up, will be left in the dust.

References

Almond, G.A., Powell Jr., G.B., Dalton, R.J., & Strom, K. (2008). Comparative Politics Today: A World View. 9th Edition. United Sates: Pearson-Longman

Barnett, Thomas P.M. (2003).The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Berkley Books

Barnett, Thomas P.M. (2005). Blueprint for Action: A Future worth Creating. New York: Penguin Books

Bennett, A. Leroy & Oliver James K., (2002). International Organizations: Principles and Issues, Seventh Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

Bhagwati, Jagdish. (2004). In Defense of Globalization. New York, New York: Oxford University Press

Buck-Morss, S. (2003). Thinking past terror: Islamism and critical theory on the left. London; New York: Verso. Retrieved May 24, 2009 from http://www.versobooks.com/

Capitalism. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism

Democracy. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
Retrieved June 3, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy

Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 65, No. 2 (Apr., 1957), pp. 135-150. Published by: The University of Chicago Press. Retrieved from Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1827369 on June 2, 2009

Dougherty, J. E., & Pfaltzgraff, R.L., (2001). Contending theories of international relations: A comprehensive survey. New York: NY. Longman.

Drinkwine, B.M. (2009). The serpent in our garden: Al Qa’Ida and the long war. http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/. Retrieved: May 24, 2009.

Kegley, C.W., & Blanton, S (2009). World politics: trend and transformation. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

Nye, J.S. (1988). Integration and Conflict in Regional Organization The American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, 4, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1961822 retrieved July 19, 2009.

Riasononovsky, Nicholas V. & Steinberg, Mark D. (2005). A History of Russia. Seventh Edition. Oxford University Press

“The Democratic Peace Idea” Appendix C. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1346/MR1346.appc.pdf Retrieved August 16, 2009