Essay on International Relations in Education
The field of international relations is the educational study of the beginnings and outcomes (both normative and empirical) of a world segmented among countries. Therefore, international relations become a wide field of study. It entails a range of sub-disciplines like foreign policy evaluation and diplomatic statecraft, historical sociology, comparative politics, global political economy, strategic researches, international history, military affairs, international political theory and ethics. The world appears to have conflicts and wards. Merely by observing a hundred years back, history is loaded with massive wars such as the two World Wars, the persistent fright of rise of danger during the Cold War as well as the Afghan and Iraq War (Zakaria, 2009). In spite the face that individuals always express about the demand for tranquillity, instead the world is loaded with continuous security perils and fear. This directs to an expected conclusion that there exists specific hindrances that protect coordination between countries. This essay will examine two of the most recent international conflicts for the understanding of the involvement of international forces in these conflicts and how far they have been effective.
Discussion of Conflicts in International Relations
In 2011, Egyptians expressed nationwide protests against the government of President Hosni Mubarak. Numerous protestors are murdered as Hosni Mubarak and his followers try to kill the uprising (Varol, 2012). While the fatal violence in Egypt has caused condemnation from several global leaders, critics say that nation’s status in the Middle East and the massive resentment of its internal politics hinder any external engagement a secluded possibility. The experts have argued that there is no possibility of foreign interference in Egypt to create serenity. However, the president of the United States, Barrack Obama expressed a strong condemnation on the measures taken by the Egypt’s armed forces recently and declared that he was terminating mutual military exercises between U.S. and Egypt (Maliniak et al., 2011). In addition, the foreign minister of Canada, John Baird has also expressed his apprehension over the aggression, stating the military along with the Muslim Brotherhood should immediately unite together, settle their disputes and work diligently to stop this violent conflict. Egypt is one of the highly populated Arab nations and the cultural hub of the Middle East. The stability and peace of Egypt thus becomes highly critical to the whole region. Even though there is much concern regarding the potential of international inference, external nations are involved in this dispute, and have been engaged in this crisis from the very beginning. The conflicts in recent times are a sign of the profound segments between the interim military rule and the Muslim Brotherhood (Kratochwil, 2013). As the political conflict in Egypt deepens, few critics intimidate that the nation is gradually moving towards international involvement which could have perilous results (The ties that blind: Military-to-military relationships, 2011). The United Nations Security Council organized an emergency meeting to call an end to the conflict taking place in Egypt and demanded national settlement. This measure was defined as the initial stride toward internationalization of the Egyptian crisis. Whether the conflict will be internationalized relies on the interim government of Egypt and its willingness to pacify the condition or to carry on rigid policies, as suggested by an ex-army general. The international calls for resolving the political crisis with the help of national reconciliation must be respected and implemented. The potentials of international interfering will augment after the UN termed the Egyptian violence as the carnage without rationalizations (Eltantawy and Wiest, 2011). Thus, the international forces economic compulsions would become more aggressive over the Egyptian state and the country would fall under the rule or security of several countries, predicting the political deadlock in Egypt to terminate swiftly.
Another recent conflict has been witnessed in Northwest Pakistan. Humanitarian relieve in Pakistan has been a captive of internal as well as external political and military aims. This happens through the regulation and blocking of humanitarian help by the Pakistani forces, and through the utilization of relieve by donor nations as a method of stabilization in regions regarded strategically critical (Zakaria, 2009). These fads are supported by the strategies and approaches of the relieve community. The extremely politicized offering of relieve is eroding the potential of humanitarian rules to assure access and acceptance. In scenarios like Pakistan, donors argue that during a short term, the delivery of aid will capture the minds and hearts, while medium to longer terms growth aid will assist in lifting the people’s living standards and therefore reduce their susceptibility to radicalisation. However, this is not the case in reality. Concerns associated with the effectiveness and adequacy of the international forces of humanitarian laws along with the laws related with the utilization of compulsion has been specifically expressed. An extremely modality of contemporary conflict, armed drones underline the potentials, issues, future and drawbacks of high-technology warfare. Such conflicts raises queries associated with the donors’ aid of whether their intervention is resolving or igniting the warfare. The American drone impacts in Northwest Pakistan have not been regarded as illegal under the international humanitarian law (Blank and Farley, 2011), although, similar to any other strategic decision in the situation of asymmetric conflict, they should be persistently and directly monitored as per the principles of law with care to basic facts. The drone attacks in Northwest Pakistan are among one of the most critical and controversial features of the Barack Obama’s ruling approach to combating terrorism. While warfare in other regions like Kosovo, the involvement of international forces was validated on humanitarian basis, in Pakistan there is an opposite trend: the reaction of humanitarian acts is being vindicated on security basis. This has obviously augmented the doubt sensed towards international aid by several Pakistanis. This misbelieve is worse by the acts of the United States forces in conducting reconstruction initiatives. During 2010, a bomb attack at a paramilitary Frontier Corps fleet in Timurgara, Lower Dir that killed almost 14 people and over 100 injured (Barnidge, 2012). The United States’ embassy’s primary clarification was that the American pair killed in the blast was USAID employees. Later, the embassy accepted that they were military workers in reality. This was a clear instance of distortion of military employees as common humanitarian employees-with what deliberation is doubtful, other than making more complexity and distorting the difference between the humanitarian and military fields, with possibly deadly consequences. Evaluating these impacts under international law of humanitarian rules needs defining whether a military warfare standard relates and, if yes, how the armed military warfare at issue should be determined.
In the pursuit of understanding international involvement in recent conflicts and their effectiveness, the paper has discussed two critical warfare conditions prevailing. The political forces working in Egypt need to remain sober towards the role of the United States. They are accountable for the future of the country and further violence and turmoil will only devastate the country’s economic and political texture and make it more susceptible to international involvement. In Northwest Pakistan, the relieve community must avoid efforts to co-operate humanitarian activities. There is a need to have a precise difference between development measures that, however reluctantly, offer the aims of the Pakistani state and the West, along with a legal humanitarian conduct with an instant, life-saving objective only.
Barnidge, R. (2012). A Qualified Defense Of American Drone Attacks In Northwest Pakistan Under International Humanitarian Law. Boston University International Law Journal, [online] 30(409), pp.410-439. Available at: https://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/international/volume30n2/documents/article_barnidge.pdf [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014].
Blank, L. and Farley, B. (2011). Characterizing US Operations in Pakistan: Is the United States Engaged In An Armed Conflict?. Fordham International Law Journal, [online] 34(151), pp.151-160. Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2275&context=ilj [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014].
Eltantawy, N. and Wiest, J. (2011). Social Media in the Egyptian Revolution: Reconsidering Resource Mobilization Theory. International Journal of Communication, pp.1207–1224.
Kratochwil, F. (2013). Politics, law, and the sacred: a conceptual analysis. Journal of International Relations and Development, [online] 16, pp.1–24. Available at: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jird/journal/v16/n1/pdf/jird201220a.pdf [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014].
Maliniak, D., Oakes, A., Peterson, S. and Tierney, M. (2011). International Relations in the US Academy. International Studies Quarterly, [online] 55, pp.437–464. Available at: https://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/trip/ir_in_us_academy_2011.pdf [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014].
The ties that blind: Military-to-military relationships. (2011). The Economist, p.66.
Varol, O. (2012). The Democratic Coup d’Etat ´. Harvard International Law Journal, [online] 53(2), pp.292-356. Available at: http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/HLI203.pdf [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014].
Zakaria, F. (2009). A Turnaround Strategy: We’re better at creating enemies in Afghanistan than friends. Here’s how to fix that-and the war too. Newsweek, 153(6).