International Relations

[rousseau]

I've been interested in international relations for a while and recently got an e-reader so have started carting a few pdf's on the subject around with me. One book, more of a text, that I've been browsing through is 'Fifty Key Thinkers in International Relations' by Martin Griffiths. As you'd expect it's chosen a set of theorists based on certain criteria, categorized them into their overlying ideologies, and gives a short 3-5 page summary of their contributions to the field.

I've been enjoying it quite a bit so far and learning a lot. The first section of the book (that I'm still in) centres around thinkers who are focused on 'realism', people who recognize that the world has a set of objective properties, although many seem to let idealism slip into their thinking.

I'll avoid getting too far into the theories I've read up on and leave my OP at that, but am hoping to get a bit of a conversation going on the field:

- which thinkers do you know to be the most influential in the field?
- which thinkers in the field do you like the most?
- what are your own thoughts on international politics and power dynamics?
.. and so on.

 

[untermensche]

Those that talk about realism really just want to use power illegitimately.

There is never any rational reason to not be idealistic.

It is the basis of morality.

What is allowed for me is allowed for all. What is forbidden to all is also forbidden me.

It is possible for nations to behave like this. Many simply choose not to.

 

[Axulus]

You'll definitely want to check out some of Henry Kissinger's stuff. He is frequently studied at universities. His latest book seems right up your alley:

World Order

Henry Kissinger offers in World Order a deep meditation on the roots of international harmony and global disorder. Drawing on his experience as one of the foremost statesmen of the modern era—advising presidents, traveling the world, observing and shaping the central foreign policy events of recent decades—Kissinger now reveals his analysis of the ultimate challenge for the twenty-first century: how to build a shared international order in a world of divergent historical perspectives, violent conflict, proliferating technology, and ideological extremism.

There has never been a true “world order,” Kissinger observes. For most of history, civilizations defined their own concepts of order. Each considered itself the center of the world and envisioned its distinct principles as universally relevant. China conceived of a global cultural hierarchy with the emperor at its pinnacle. In Europe, Rome imagined itself surrounded by barbarians; when Rome fragmented, European peoples refined a concept of an equilibrium of sovereign states and sought to export it across the world. Islam, in its early centuries, considered itself the world’s sole legitimate political unit, destined to expand indefinitely until the world was brought into harmony by religious principles. The United States was born of a conviction about the universal applicability of democracy—a conviction that has guided its policies ever since.

Now international affairs take place on a global basis, and these historical concepts of world order are meeting. Every region participates in questions of high policy in every other, often instantaneously. Yet there is no consensus among the major actors about the rules and limits guiding this process or its ultimate destination. The result is mounting tension.

Grounded in Kissinger’s deep study of history and his experience as national security advisor and secretary of state, World Order guides readers through crucial episodes in recent world history. Kissinger offers a unique glimpse into the inner deliberations of the Nixon administration’s negotiations with Hanoi over the end of the Vietnam War, as well as Ronald Reagan’s tense debates with Soviet Premier Gorbachev in Reykjavík. He offers compelling insights into the future of U.S.–China relations and the evolution of the European Union, and he examines lessons of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Taking readers from his analysis of nuclear negotiations with Iran through the West’s response to the Arab Spring and tensions with Russia over Ukraine, World Order anchors Kissinger’s historical analysis in the decisive events of our time.

Provocative and articulate, blending historical insight with geopolitical prognostication, World Order is a unique work that could come only from a lifelong policy maker and diplomat.

http://www.amazon.com/World-Order-H...id=1448332926&sr=1-1&keywords=henry+kissinger

 

[untermensche]

If you want to read about Kissinger then read Hitchens.

 

[Axulus]

If you want to read about Kissinger then read Hitchens.

It was my understanding that rousseau was interested in learning about international relations, not reading a biography/analysis of a person.

 

[untermensche]

If you want to read about Kissinger then read Hitchens.

It was my understanding that rousseau was interested in learning about international relations, not reading a biography/analysis of a person.

What do you think "international relations" is?

Relations between abstract entities that can't talk or think called "nations" or relations between people, like Kissinger.

The fact that he ordered genocide has something to do with the reality of his feelings on international relations.

 

[Axulus]

It was my understanding that rousseau was interested in learning about international relations, not reading a biography/analysis of a person.

What do you think "international relations" is?

Relations between abstract entities that can't talk or think called "nations" or relations between people, like Kissinger.

The fact that he ordered genocide has something to do with the reality of his feelings on international relations.

You do know what ad hom is, don't you? It has no relevance to the validity of an argument or analysis. Go start your own "I hate Henry Kissinger" thread if you like.

 

[untermensche]

What do you think "international relations" is?

Relations between abstract entities that can't talk or think called "nations" or relations between people, like Kissinger.

The fact that he ordered genocide has something to do with the reality of his feelings on international relations.

You do know what ad hom is, don't you? It has no relevance to the validity of an argument or analysis. Go start your own "I hate Henry Kissinger" thread if you like.

It is why I recommended Hitchens. So it is not simply me giving my opinion.

But the facts about Kissinger are true. He is a criminal. He just happens to be a US criminal so he is above the law.

 

[Axulus]

You do know what ad hom is, don't you? It has no relevance to the validity of an argument or analysis. Go start your own "I hate Henry Kissinger" thread if you like.

It is why I recommended Hitchens. So it is not simply me giving my opinion.

But the facts about Kissinger are true. He is a criminal. He just happens to be a US criminal so he is above the law.

Which still has nothing at all to do with his expertise in international relations. Once again, start your own thread as you keep trying to derail this one.

 

[untermensche]

It is why I recommended Hitchens. So it is not simply me giving my opinion.

But the facts about Kissinger are true. He is a criminal. He just happens to be a US criminal so he is above the law.

Which still has nothing at all to do with his expertise in international relations. Once again, start your own thread as you keep trying to derail this one.

I am trying to explain what international relations REALLY is and who is really doing it.

Not some white washed nonsense that has no connection to reality.

Kissinger is a huge criminal. Few in history have committed such crimes.

 

[rousseau]

Read up on Kissinger briefly. Need to take a closer look soon.

Looks like 'real-politik' is the path of least resistance.

 

[untermensche]

Read up on Kissinger briefly. Need to take a closer look soon.

Looks like 'real-politik' is the path of least resistance.

Vietnam and Cambodia was the paths of least resistance?

"Real-politik" is an elaborate and immoral rationalization for deliberately committing atrocities.

 

[arkirk]

Read up on Kissinger briefly. Need to take a closer look soon.

Looks like 'real-politik' is the path of least resistance.

Vietnam and Cambodia was the paths of least resistance?

"Real-politik" is an elaborate and immoral rationalization for deliberately committing atrocities.

Noam Chomsky has a good take on international politics and policy. He is widely read all over the world excepting of course in the U.S.A. where we still don't appear able to accept the truth about policies of men like Kissinger. He truly is a model of the kind of international leader we need to avoid.

 

[rousseau]

Read up on Kissinger briefly. Need to take a closer look soon.

Looks like 'real-politik' is the path of least resistance.

Vietnam and Cambodia was the paths of least resistance?

"Real-politik" is an elaborate and immoral rationalization for deliberately committing atrocities.

I'll take your word for it, you sound like you know much more than I do.

By path of least-resistance I was referring to my assumption that real-politik is a means of maximizing power intake and minimizing power output, something like a political manifestation of darwinism / self-interest. That could be completely off-base because I don't know much about it, but based on my rudimentary understanding that's the impression I get, and actions which maximize internal power would usually represent the easiest choice to make politically, I'd think. Again.. I'm basically shooting from the hip here.

 

[untermensche]

Vietnam and Cambodia was the paths of least resistance?

"Real-politik" is an elaborate and immoral rationalization for deliberately committing atrocities.

I'll take your word for it, you sound like you know much more than I do.

By path of least-resistance I was referring to my assumption that real-politik is a means of maximizing power intake and minimizing power output, something like a political manifestation of darwinism / self-interest. That could be completely off-base because I don't know much about it, but based on my rudimentary understanding that's the impression I get, and actions which maximize internal power would usually represent the easiest choice to make politically, I'd think. Again.. I'm basically shooting from the hip here.

Do not take my word for it.

But just because a person says their actions are "Darwinian" does not mean they are in any way necessary or moral or justified.

Calling your actions "Darwinian" can mean anything. Nothing limits your actions when you say they are merely the product of evolution.

It is merely a way to abandon morality.

But not a way that justifies the abandonment.

 

[rousseau]

I'll take your word for it, you sound like you know much more than I do.

By path of least-resistance I was referring to my assumption that real-politik is a means of maximizing power intake and minimizing power output, something like a political manifestation of darwinism / self-interest. That could be completely off-base because I don't know much about it, but based on my rudimentary understanding that's the impression I get, and actions which maximize internal power would usually represent the easiest choice to make politically, I'd think. Again.. I'm basically shooting from the hip here.

Do not take my word for it.

But just because a person says their actions are "Darwinian" does not mean they are in any way necessary or moral or justified.

Calling your actions "Darwinian" can mean anything. Nothing limits your actions when you say they are merely the product of evolution.

It is merely a way to abandon morality.

But not a way that justifies the abandonment.

No argument there. I wasn't attempting to justify that style of politics, just making a comment on it.

Based on history it appears to be the default and what we need to strive away from.