INTERNATIONAL HISTORY 1900-1945: the globalization of world politics

image taken from this

THE ORIGINS OF WORLD WAR I

The origin of World War I included many factors, including the conflicts and antagonisms of the four decades leading up to the war. Militarism, alliances, imperialism, and nationalism played major roles in the decisions taken by statesmen and generals during the “July crisis of 1914”, the spark (or ‘casus belli’) for which was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Gavrilo Pricip, a nationalist Serb.

However, the crisis did not exist in avoid. It came at the end of a long series of diplomatic clashes between the Great Powers in the decade prior to 1914 which had left tensions high almost to breaking point.

Although World War I was triggered by this chain of events unleashed by the assassination, the war’s origins go deeper, involving national politics, cultures, economics, and a complex web of alliances and counterbalances that developed between the course of the nineteenth century, following the final 1815 defeat Napoleon Bonaparte and the ensuing Congress of Vienna.

The reason for the outbreak of World War I is a complicated issue. Some examples are:

• -                Fervent and uncompromising nationalism
• -                Unresolved previous dispute
• -                Intricate system of Alliances
• -               Misperceptions of intent :the German belief Great Britain would remain neutral (Van Evera, Stephen)
• -               Convoluted and fragmented governances
• -                Delays and misunderstandings in diplomatic communications
• -                Arms races of the previous decades
• -                Previous military planning (Sagan, Scott D., 1986)
• -                Colonial rivalry (imperialism)
• -                Economic rivalry

PEACEMAKING, 1919: THE VERSAILLES SETTLEMENT

The treaty of Versailles was one of the peace treaties at the end of WW I. it ended the state of war between Germany and the Allied Powers. It was signed on 28 June 1919, exactly five years after the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, one of the events that triggered the start of war.

PRESIDENT WILSON’S “FOURTEEN POINTS” AND SELF- DETERMINATION

A summary of Wilson’s “Fourteen points”:

1.               Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at international diplomacy to be carried on publicity

2.           Absolute freedom of navigation on the seas

3.           The removal of all economic barriers

4.           Disarmament undertaken and guaranteed by states to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.

5.           A free, open minded and impartial adjustment of all colonial claims.

6.           The evacuation of all Russian territory and settlement of questions affecting Russia

7.            Belgium must be evacuated an restored

8.           French territory to be evacuated and restored and Alsace-Lorraine to be returned to French rule.

9.           Italian frontiers to be adjusted a long clearly recognizable line of nationality.

10.     The peoples of Austria-Hungary to be given the opportunity for autonoms development.

11.         Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro to be evacuated. Serbia to be given access to the sea and international guarantees of the independence and territorial integrity of the Balkan state to be made.

12.     The Turkish portions of the ottoman empire to be assured a secure sovereignty

13.     An independent Polish state to be established

14.     A general association of nations to be formed to afford mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to all states.

Wilson believed that the avoidance of war could be furthered by creating an international organization, based on the principle of ‘collective security’. His scheme for a League of Nations was premised on the ‘peace-loving’ member states regarding any threat to the international peace as an act of aggression which ultimately threatened them all.

Wilson was an opponent of imperialism and believed passionately in the right of distinct national groups to govern themselves by being accorded sovereignty over their own territory. However, in practice, the nationalities of those parts of Europe where empire had recently crumbled – especially the Balkans and the central and Eastern Europe – were not neatly parceled into distinct territorial areas. The peacemaker therefore faced a difficult task of drawing the boundaries of the new states of Europe, some of which had never existed before. The new states in Southern, Eastern, and Central Europe not only had to contend with ethnic cleavages but also with weak economies and fledging political institutions.

GERMANY, ‘WAR GUILT’ AND ‘REPARATIONS’

Germany was found ‘guilty’ of having begun the war. Germany lost land to Poland. Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France. Germany was to be disarmed, with France occupying the Rhineland as a security zone and reparations were to be repaid to the victorious powers.

Many critics found fault with the settlement, either because it was too hard, or not hard enough, on Germany.

THE GLOBAL ECONOMIC SLUMP, 1928-1933

It was a wide economic downtown. It was the largest and most important economic depression in modern history and used in the 21^st century as a benchmark how far the world’s economy can fall.

The Great Depression originated in the US. Historians most often use as a starting date the stock market crash on October 29, 1929, known as Black Tuesday.

Depressions in many countries around the world resulted in extremist political movement gaining strength, many of which were of an extreme right-wing nature. The end depression in the US is associated with the onset of the war economy of WW II, beginning around 1939.

THE ORIGIN OF WORLD WAR TWO IN ASIA AND THE PASIFIC

The Pacific War was the part of WW II and preceding conflicts that took place in the Pacific Ocean, its land, and in East Asia, between July 7, 1937, and August 14, 1945. The most decisive actions took place after the Empire of Japan attacked various countries, who together came to be known as the Allies (for Allied Powers).

CONFLICT BETWEEN CHINA AND JAPAN

From 1868 onward, Japan underwent a rapid period of industrialization and modernization, with profound social, economic, and political consequences. To find new markets, raw materials and land for Japan’s growing population, Japan began to expand into northern China, while China was a protected state of civil war.

Between 1931 and 1933, Japan consolidated its hold over Manchuria, establishing a puppet state, Manchuguo. The League Nations’ response to the most obvious act of aggression it had thus far faced was minimal. And in 1937, Japan was at war with China, which caused worsening relations with the US-ultimately leading to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour.

THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE ORIGINS OF THE SECOND WW

The origins of the Second WW have been the subject of particular historiographical controversy. Historians still dispute how far Hittler planned the war actually and how ambition Nazi territorial expansionism actually was.

CONCLUSION

The first WW left many European states economically ruined, and with political structure weakened. Indeed, a number of empires based in Europe collapse during the war – those of Austro – Hungary, Turkey, and Tsarist Russia. This consequence of the war was initially masked by the optimism of the American economy.

Japan, in 1930s, was embarking on a search for territory in China and beyond. And Treaty of Versailles encouraged extremist political movements, most notably facism in Italy (and Spain) and Nazism in Germany.

The Second WW had profound global consequences. The war profoundly affected the map of Europe. Then, the first half of the last century should seem overwhelmingly fragmented and fissiparous.

OPINION

War always makes a big pain, incising deeply pain in everyone. It needs a very long time to be healed. I think that the world has need of mutual understanding, through cooperation and communication, that we can abolish war and engender war.

REFERENCES:

                The Globalization of World Politics 2^nd ed: an introduction to international relations, edited by John Baylis and Steve Smith

                Sagan, Scoot D. 1914. Revisited: Allies, Offense, and Instability (1986)

                Van Euera, Stephen. The Gulf of the Offensive and the Origin of the first WW. Summer 1984 p. 62

                www.greenwood.org

   

ON HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY OF INTERATIONAL RELATIONS

image taken from this

The history of international relations is often traced back the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, where the modern state system was developed. Westphalia encouraged the rise of the independent nation state, the institutionalization of diplomacy and armies. The contemporary international system was finally established through decolonization during Cold War. However, this somewhat over-simplified.

IR AS AN ART

International Relations as an art occur when a nation make a relationship with the other nations. For instance when a nations decide to work together in trading or military with the others.

One of the most significant problems in work on the history of IR is that these histories have failed to address question, how one should write the history of IR in the field? Describing the history of IR as if a complete consensus existed on the essential dimension of the field’s evolution is not easy at all, the absence of any significant controversy concern “how the field has developed” must be devoted. That’s why nobody knows “when or where” international relation began at the first time. But all of we knew that the achievement of the art of IR that a nation successfully fulfill its nation interest by its relationship with the other nations.

IR AS A SCIENCE

IR as a science is when we learn IR as a discipline study or science.

Initially, international relations as a distinct field of study (science) were almost entirely British-centered. In 1919, the Chair in International Politics establishment at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth (in 2008, renamed Aberystwyth University) from an endowment given by David Davies, became the first academic position dedicated to IR.

In the early 1920’s, the London School of Economics’ department of IR was founded at the behest of Nobel Prize winner Philip Noel-Baker. That is the defining moment of IR as a science.

There is a strong conviction that significant development in international politics (such as: war) shaped the development of IR as a science. It is characteristically as a reaction of World War I.

THE GREAT DEBATES

1.      The First Debate (1920-1930)

Utopian (liberalism) vs. Realism

It talked about ontology[i], the essential of the study of IR.

Liberal International Relations Theory arose after WW I in response to the inability of states to control and limit war in their international relations. Early adherents include Woodrow Wilson and Norman Angell who argued vigorously that states mutually gained from cooperation and that war was so destructive to essentially futile. It’s supported by W. Wilson as the president of USA that day.

The conception of Utopian is a man endowed with reason by nature; his actions are governed by norms and ideals founded in reason and therefore intelligible. It means that man is throwing into the contradiction of norm and reality. This situation instills fear; fear is countered by effort to achieve security by means of the acquisition, demonstration, and argumentation of power (over others).

Unlike realism, it focuses on state security and power above all else. Early realist such as E. H. Carr, Daniel Bernhard, and Hans Morgenthau argued that state is self-interested, power-seeking[ii] rational actors, who seek to maximize their security and chances of survival, balance of power (BOP) [iii].

Termination:

-          US Senate refused to allow the US to join and at first the original members refused to allow Germany or indeed Russia to become members. W. Wilson failed to sell his ideas.

-          1930s saw economic collapse (colonialism and imperialism).

-          Rise of dictators in various countries.

-          From 1839 to 1878 the international system was afflicted by 19 wars (William K. Domke: War and the Changing Global System, Yale U. P 1988).

Achievement: Utopian’s achievement is PBB, but all the failure caused liberalism led realist dominance following WW II.

2.      The Second Debate (1950-1970)

Traditionalism vs. Behaviorism (scientism)

It talked about methodology[iv], how to learn IR?

Traditionalism: politics is a specific social form of action full off sense and values; an art which can be learned on the basis of the historical examples. Historical and social phenomena can be clearly distinguished from natural phenomena; thus, they are not susceptible to scientific explanations.

Behaviorism (scientism): they advise to those who govern and political education of those who are govern and political education of those who are governed; evaluating comments, norm-based opinions, and recommendations; for action regarding present political decisions on the basis of respective scientific research results.

Termination:

The real problem of the second debate was striving for an ‘understanding’ of politics on the insight into and of knowledge of historical-social developments and process.

Finally, there is no winner on this debate.

3.      The Third Debate (1980-now)

Neorealism + Neoliberalism vs. Neomarxis

It talked about axiology[v], how to use IR as science in the field.

Background: linguistic turn in IR; Cold War

Neorealism/ structural realism is a theory of international relations, outlined by Kenneth Waltz in his 1979 book “Theory of international Politics”. Waltz argues in favor of a systemic approach: the international structure acts as a constraint on state behavior, so that only states whose outcomes fall within an expected range survive. Unlike realism’s (anthropological: man as a security and power-seeking agent), the foundation premises of neorealism is structural: anarchy of the international system. Neorealism developed largely within the American political science tradition, seeks to reformulate the classical realist tradition of E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau, and Reinhold Niebuhr into a rigorous and positivic social science.

Neoliberalism is a response to neorealism; while not denying the anarchic nature of the international system, neoliberals argue that its importance and effect has been exaggerated. Neoliberalism argues that even in an anarchic system of autonomous rational states, cooperation can be emerge through the building of norms, regimes, and institutions.

Both theories, however, consider ‘the state and its interest’ as the central subject of analysis. Neoliberalism may have a wider conception of what those interests are.

Marx believed that the identity of a social class is derived from its relationship to the means of production (as opposed to the nation that class is determined by wealth alone).  Marx describes several social classes in capitalist societies, including primarily:

-          The proletariat (those individuals who sell their labor power and who, in the capitalist mode of production, do not own the means of production). According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production established the condition that enables the bourgeoisie to exploit the proletariat due to the fact that the workers’ labor power generates a surplus value greater than the workers’ wages.

-          The bourgeoisie (those individuals who own the means of production and buy labor power from the proletariat, thus exploiting the proletariat).

Termination:

-          Individualist disagrees with the basic approach of Neomarxism that of viewing all people acting under the influence of socio-economic forces and instead focus on the differences and unpredictable actions of individuals.

-          In the other hand, neomarxism critics neoliberalism and neorealism.

1.      They (neoliberalism and neorealism) need not to synthesize their ideologies.

2.      Their ideologies are too luxurious.

3.      They supposed to talk about nations of the third world.

Finally, no one won the debate.

4.      The Fourth Debate (1980 until now)

Positivism vs. post-positivism

It talked about classic science and the freedom of thought.

Positivism is the philosophy that the only authentic knowledge is knowledge that is based on actual sense experience. Ex: realism, liberalism, Marxism, rationalism (reflection theories).

Post-positivism or also known as empiricism or is a metatheoretical stance following positivism. One of the main supporters of post positivism are John Dewey and Nicholas Rescher. It is a stance that recognizes most of criticisms that have been raised against traditional-logical positivism and similar foundational. Ex: critical theory, post modernism, feminism[vi], environmentalism, peace studies, etc (mainstream perspective).

Termination: there is no termination yet

MY OPINION

I think that there are so many problems with the conventional story about IR. Some of the more recent work on history of IR of the field are nothing more than myths. In my opinion in order for the investigation of history of field to receive the same intellectual respect as other areas of research, more attention should be placed on theoretical and methodological assumption. The absence of such attention in much of the existing literature on the history of the IR’s field had served to reinforce the history of IR is self-evident.

REFERENCES:

-          Schmidt, Brian C. 2002. On the History and Historiography of International Relation. “Handbook of International Relations”. London: Sage Publication Ltd

-          Fearon, James & Wendt, Alexander. 2003. Rationalism vs. Constructivism: Skeptical View. Handbook of International Relations. London: Sage Publication Ltd

-          University of Airlangga Roadmap

-          Angel, Norman. 1909. The Great Illusion. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons

-          http://dictionary.com (diakses tahun 2008)

-          http://hfienberg.com/irtheory/neorealism (diakses tahun 2008)

---

[i] Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being that such.

[ii] The concept of ‘power in international relations’ can be described as the degree of resources, capabilities, and influence in the international affairs. It is often divided up into the concept of hard power and soft power. Hard power is relating primarily to coercive power, such as the use of force. Soft power is commonly covering economics, diplomacy, and cultural influence. However, there’s no clear dividing line between the two forms of power.

[iii] BOP exists when there is parity/ stability between competing forces. It expresses the doctrine intended to prevent anyone nation from becoming sufficiently strong so as to enable it to enforce it will upon the rest.

[iv] Methodology is a set of system/ methods, principle and rules for regulating a given discipline, as in the arts of science.

[v] Axiology is the branch of philosophy, dealing with values as those ethnics, aesthetics, or religion.

[vi] Feminism in international relations is a broad term given to work of those scholars who have sought to bring gender concern into the academic study of international politics. However, it would be a mistake to think that feminist IR was solely a matter of identifying how many groups of women are positioned n the international politic system. From its inception, feminist IR has always shown a strong concern with thinking about men, and in particular, masculinities. Indeed, many IR feminist argue that the discipline is inherently masculine in nature.