Coercion Theory
According to the political realism, politics is governed by the objective laws that their roots in human nature. This political objective and the interest defined in terms of power have failed to cooperate and build the state of nature among states of the world. By the state of human nature, I meant self-interested, and the desired to gain power, and by the state of nature, I meant the equality, where no states have the authority to rule over other states (Hobbes and Locke). Morgenthau said, “The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power” (8). We have seen that coercion is the central part of policy making for both domestically and internationally. So in this paper, I will incorporate my points to discussing the consequences from coercion in the contemporary world.
We could ask ourselves if it is rational that one state gain authority to forcibly rule the other state or we could question why the world is fragile and fragmented. My answer no, it is not rational. The world is so fragile and fragmented is not just because we hate each other, or because we discriminate each other. But, importantly is because we want to have control over another. Coercion is straight and plain a process of realism theory rather than a Liberalism theory. Where it mainly focused sought power than to create a rational institution. Firstly, the superpower states like USA, Russia, China and others have more power to influence the international law than the other developing states in the world. These superpower states can forcibly intervene or stop the other states from any action if they see that the action is not necessary or it jeopardizes the other states. Their power is seen rational and sometimes is seen to be irrational. In few cases is seen as a mass destruction and a violation of human rights. For instance, the invasion of Iraq by the United States in 2003 would be considered as a mass destruction over the Iraqi territories and the peaceful living of the people in the State. The US invaded Iraq with a consent to remove an abusive dictator Saddam Hussein and his Baathist party for violating human rights. At the same time, the US disbanded the Iraqi military who is involved under Hussein’s regimes. Ironically, the De-Baathification seems to fit into an umbrella of interest as defined in terms of power. The invasion is seen as a very complicated environment to understand, and it caused chaos all around the world. The complexity of the invasion comes to a point where we don’t know who has control over the Iraqi territories. Iraq had fragmented, and the rules of laws are under the hands of both the government and the terrorist organization (like ISIS). The invasion of Iraq has tremendously affected the living conditions of the Iraqis around the states. It has become a serious problem and an uncontrollable situation until many Iraqis fled their homes and searched refuge in other states of the world. While the government disbanded the Iraqi military and caused chaos over the Iraqi territories, the terrorist organization likes ISIS takes chances to recruit the unemployed military and fight against the government. The fight was inhumane, in which the ISIS persecute people with no mercy regardless of their nationality and religion. By the end of the day, we realized that the invasion of Iraq by the US is not just about protecting human rights. But, it is all about the interests as defined in terms of power.
You had a very clear thesis to start of your paper. When you start to delve into the evidence to support your thesis, you bring a lot of information readily available to you. Try to be more clear in explaining how the evidence directly relates back to your thesis. You talked about coercion being rational or irrational, do you think this logic is tied relative to point of view? (like is it arguably rational from the US realist point of view for the US to invade as much as other states than the US found it irrational?)
ReplyDeleteThank you Zach! If we refer to the realist point of view, the invasion is rational. For realists, the invasion is seen as a victory for the US regarding power. However, what results from the invasion is insane and completely irrational. I find it hard to rationalize the actions that completely violates human rights.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou talked about some very important points in your discussion on the coercion theory. Specifically, I found your argument that power is the main interest in international politics to be particularly interesting. I definitely see how power is the underlying driving force for many actions in politics, even though it might be seem like that on the surface. When the United States intervened and invaded Iraq, they did so with the intentions of restoring human rights in Iraq. However, in the end, the United States gained a sense of power over Iraq with this invasion and this did not go unnoticed. Do you believe there have been any instances in the history of international relations in which one country intervened in the affairs of another country, but solely to benefit that other country?
ReplyDeleteThank you Victoria! For instance, British ruled India for 200 years, and it was all for their benefits not for India! If the invasion is good, I don't think they would fight for independence.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI liked your use of strong evidence and clear thesis in this post. It was smart to explain the difference between irrationaI and rational power, specially liked the way you concluded the post with a the statement that interests are primarily defined by power. Your explanation of power in terms of coercion theory was informative and had examples (Iraq and the U.S.) to back it up. I believe power is such a force because it manifests itself socially and physically. In what way do you think negative control and power can be eliminated in international politics?
ReplyDelete