International Relations: Questions Discussion

Question1: MacInder Geographical Pivot in History (check the file) Maclnder talks about several factors that he uses to explain why Russia is the center of the world. I want the same factors identified in the article and tell me which country today is considered to be the center of the world and Why?

If this sample essay on"International Relations: Questions Discussion" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

Geographical Pivot in History

In the early years of the twentieth century, Mackinder laid the foundation for the most interesting perspective of conflict of the future: land versus sea powers. Generally speaking, this is the conflict between the Great Britain, Eurasian heartland, and the United States for penetration to the marginal region from Western Europe to China. Towards the termination of the century, the containment of Russia appeared complete. This was due to NATO and the European Union military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. It was also due the rise of China and India as substantial powers on land and sea (Mackinder 1904).

The accessibility of the Arctic region with its mineral resources, sea routes and new fisheries is making Russia a maritime state. The result of this is that Russia will no never be prone to geographic isolation. On the other hand, such changes require that Russia become even more firmly absorbed into active global financial networks (Mackinder 1904). These engagements involve the nation into favorable international business and at the same time, making it to participate in international organizations which enhance international security and environmental regulations.

In the dispensation of the new geostrategic engagements, Russia takes a role as one of the maritime champions of the marginal region. It follows that the Russian Arctic has become a new geographical pivot among the great powers. However, several decades may pass before Russia can completely make a turn-around to Arctic coastal region from the Eurasian heartland. There are already efforts to integrate policies towards this turn-around, into strategies of National Security Council and federal ministries, with plans to seize its future position among the dominant maritime states of the world.

Current Geographical Pivot

With the United States of America becoming the greatest power in the Eastern region, the European powers are directly affected. It is further generally viewed that the mighty potentialities of the South America might have a dividing influence on the European systems, thereby favoring the United States, and strengthening it even further as the current center of the world. The U.S has become a watchdog for the human rights in the whole world, making it to have an advantage over the European nations (Mackinder 1904). In fact, only the countries that have learned to conduct their affairs in the most decent manner gets the approval of the current superpower. Otherwise, many nations seek the United States interventions in their nations whenever political grounds go sore. This only happens because the U.S has caught the attention of the world as a caring nation and that comes to their aid both politically and economically.

Question2: Do you think the countries are the only important things matters in the international relation today. (Give opinion + elaborate your evidence in the real world example+ say whether you agree or disagree)

MarcInder reveals Russia as the champion and the center stage of the worlds public relations.

From the new dispensation, this IS NOT the case the case in the times of the present days. We cannot put Russia at the center stage of the world and as the only factor that dictates the policy in the international relations. The reason behind my augment is that at the time the book was published Russia was the world's superpower. Russia seemed to be making most of the decisions that pertain to the world governance. Russia lost this glory to rule the world when its economic value went down, and the world started experiencing revolution. The United Nations was formed to take charge of the world affairs (Riasanovsky, 2010). This gave each and every country who are members of the union to have equal decision makers.

Most changes have occurred since the Russia succession. This is since the 1970s. For instance the development of American-China agreement, and the unrest of reforms of international law on the monetary spending. Russia remains as social Soviet with no power to rule the world economy. The problems faced in the world may not be solved by one single country but needs togetherness of each and every stakeholder. Problems such as that of intensification international economy and the state of Indonesia needs the worlds attention. Below are the reasons why Russia is no longer a center stage of the world international relations.

The world politics has become complex and more diversified.

It is reported that the world has achieved an era where international relation have become much diversified. There are several reasons for this diversification. First, the growth in the national power of both Japan and the countries in the Western Europe. The second factor is the rise of China and its vast economic growth. That has caused Sino-Soviet conflicts. This has also resulted in the collapse of very strong colonial systems and growth in nationalism. Many nations are now more inclined to the countries in the west and not in the east.

The other reason is an influence of the United States in the bilateral relations has remained predominant and full control to the world politics today. Focus has shifted from the Middle East politics to the United States. It can comfortably be concluded that the force needed in the bilateral convincing is very logic and has had a consequence in the world business and the contemporary international community.

The increased interest in the nuclear control

It is evident that advances in the nuclear field and technology have an immense impact on nature of the international relation. Every country and especially the superpowers are fighting to control nuclear production in all the regions. Therefore today no single country can give an assurance of security in the world. This explains why Russia cannot be the center stage of international relations.

Question 3: NeoRealism says anarchy produces three kind of distinct behavior from countries no matter where they from located in the world how powerful or weak they are. What are three ways countries think because of anarchy? (Why + evidence from real world example for each of the behaviors)

Anarchy Definition

Anarchy is defined as conditions of a society or group of peoples reject leadership. Its origin was traced from a country without a leader. This is a condition where individuals become ungovernable. In the present day, this word can be used to define abolition of a traditional form of leadership.

Countries Perspective about Anarchy

Anarchy is view by countries today as a state of anger, social intimidation and all sought of violence. For instance anarchy in Somali. Somali is one of the countries who survived without a government. The situation has been this way from 1991. The president was pulled out of power in what people thought was an unfair treatment of the weak member of the community. The new government arrangement is well organized in that each clan has its militia (Shah, 2010). This clan has also been split into sub-clans. The country is now divided into different fiefdoms under the controlled warlords. This warlord always has territory clashes. Most societies ask a question of what will Somalia be without a government for the next few years.

Somalia case is a perfect example of and a confirmation of how countries think about anarchy. This because before the division of clear rural governance, there was violence in the conflict of interest. Every member of the community wanted to rule the country. The communities faced anger against each other due to the feeling of unfair division of labor and resources.

The concept anarchy is more on labialization of a country and people. This is could possible that everyone involved in the process cooperates and no dictatorship and not strong group exploiting the weaker group. It simply advocates for equality of every member of a country. For any group to achieve this state of mind, anarchy demands that all the parties become in solidarity as a mob rule. Most critics of this word view it as an action that has very negatives. It is important to note that anarchy presents people and anti-big-government violence and protest (Stringham, 2011). Law enforcement is required in this belief in holding anyone who acts opposite to the belief. Below is a list of how countries view anarchy.

The origin of anarchy may be the lack of a stable political and economic collapse followed by lack of written law. For instance, when you find a mob with an angry look trying to take charge. When people hold up trying to defend what belongs to them and try to help themselves and their friends.

Question4: Do you agree or disagree with expert who says with the concept of complex of interdependence theory? (Tell me why yes or no and give me examples to back up the argument)

A popular and recognizable attempt to theorize the concept of interdependence in the field of international relations is the complex interdependence theory. According to Robert Keohane, Interdependence is a reciprocal impact among the actors that occur from international transactions (Keohane & Nye, 1974). These international transactions are inclusive of money flow, people, goods as well as the flows of messages and information across various borders. These aspects have been studied in the recent part with much less emphasis given to the flow of information across borders. Keohane's idea has had a significant impact in the field of international relations. They have tried to visit it and exemplify its validity. Other experts have supported Keohane's idea by saying that it has made a significant contribution by conceptualizing matters that may arise from this concept and how it expands knowledge on matters such as politics of many issues. These scholars did also justify that they did necessarily posit that monetary relations had something to do with complex interdependence in the late 1970s. For this reason, I agree with these experts in regards to the concept of a complex of interdependence theory and I will give my part of the argument on this matter.

In a modern world of complex interdependence, politics would be a unique aspect, the instruments of nations policy as well as the goals, the issues linking the states and national agenda all would be unique in a way as the impacts of the international institutions. I believe that complex interdependence theory incorporates an idyllic type of international framework and it is more the same as neorealism. In such states, power is the ultimate resource for an overall political bargain. The control of resources depends on the probability that one party in a system of social relationship would conduct his will regardless of the resistance that may arise and other external forces and also devoid of the point on which this probability rests. This is what I also agree on as the control of resources and ultimate control of power (Keohane & Nye, 1974).

In complex Interdependence system, the agenda of multiple states having an interstate relationship entails various matters that are not necessarily organized in a clear hierarchy. In this case, the military security does not dominate the agenda. The politics is not divided into high or low (Keohane & Nye, 1974). Therefore, military forces are not considered when it comes to solving matters that arise among the parties in this framework, but it is imperative for such system.

I agree with the experts that...