Lecture 1: Introduction + Clash of Civilizations
1. Introduction International Relations
The Political Scientist:
The political scientist is specialised in identifying and analysing conflicts between and collective decision-making
processes by groups and organisations (2), tangible and intangible interests, institutions and processes of power
that influence these conflicts and decision-making (1), and the resulting societal effects (3).
o (Domain-specific framework of reference, 2017)
Why study IR?
o The main reason why we should study IT is the fact that th entire population of the world is divided into
separate political communities and independent countries, nation-states, which profoundly affect the way
people think and live
o In highly successful nation-states, most of the population identify, often quite strongly, with the country of
which they are citizens.
o The state promotes their economic prosperity and social welfare, taxing them, educating, health, etc.
What is IR?
IR can be defined as the study of relationships and interactions between countries, including the activities and
policies of national governments, international organizations, non-governmental organizations, and
multinational corporations.
o IR only became a proper academic discipline in the early 20 th century.
Political Science broadly conceived and IR:
o Public Policy + global governance:
There are different specializations within IR, such as public policy and global governance.
o Comparative Politics: e.g. Arab Spring (2011)
o Political theory: theorising IR (theories and approaches)
o (International) Political Economy
Power and the monopoly on violence: traditional focus on inter-(nation)state relations:
o The traditional focus is on relations between states, which have certain powers and abilities.
Power and welfare + transnational politics
It focuses on the various activities of nation-states:
o An independent nation or state:
May be defined as a bordered territory, with a permanent population, under the jurisdiction of a
supreme government that is constitutionally separate (independent) from all foreign
governments: a sovereign state.
Together, those states form an international state system that is global in extent, which is the
core subject of IR.
The state system:
The state system is a way of politically organizing populated territory, a distinctive kind of territorial political
organization, based on numerous national governments that are legally independent of each other.
There have been state systems at different times and places in different parts of the world:
, o E.g. Ancient China, Ancient Greece, and Renaissance Italy.
Ever since the 18th century, relations between independent states have been labelled ‘international relations’.
Initially, the state system was European and with the emergence of the US in the late 18 th century, it became
Western, then in the 19th and 20th century it expanded to encompass the entire territory of the Earth.
Five basic values that states are usually expected to uphold:
1. Security:
2. Freedom:
3. Order:
4. Justice
5. Welfare
There were significant moments of heightened awareness of these major values during the twentieth century:
o WWI made it clear how destructive modern mechanized warfare between major power could be na dhow
important it is to reduce risk of war
This led to the first major developments or IR though which tried to find effect legal institutions.
o WWII showed how important it is to hold a balance of power, and not let any one power get or of control.
o The Cold War:
Cuban Missile Crisis reminded of the dangers of nuclear war.
o Anti-colonial movements, Secessionist movements, terrorist attacks, the Arab Spring.
o The Great Depression, global inflation, global financial crisis all show how interconnected the world has
become.
Different views of the state:
Traditional view:
o States are valuable and necessary institutions, they provide security, freedom, order, justice, and
welfare. People benefit from the state system.
Alternative or revisionist view:
o States and the state system are social choices that create more problems than they solve. The majority
of the world’s people suffer more than they benefit from the state system.
Central (recurrent) themes in IR:
Conflict and Cooperation
Development and Underdevelopment
Civil Society and Transnational Politics
Integration and Fragmentation
Globalisation as (the emergence and development of)
complex interdependence
2. Clash of Civilizations
Huntington - The career:
University Professor at Harvard
, Director John M. Ohlin Institute for Strategic Studies: The changing security environment and American national
interests (post-Cold War):
o Involved both in academia and politics, part of the establishment of Huntington and colleges
He is an example of the typical American organic intellectual:
o Articles in Foreign Affairs
o National Security Council (Jimmy Carter administration)
o Contribute to different power politics, legitimizing the unequal distribution of power.
Publications:
o Political order in changing societies (1968)
o The Third Wave (1991)
o The Clash: article (1993) and book (1996)
o Who are we? (2004) (cultural Balkanisation):
Warning against the Balkanization of the U.S., saying that the Latin part because they are
growing as an independent society (differentiated from the American one), they are running the
national identity.
His book, ‘The clash of civilizations’, is one of the most important books coming out at the end of the Cold War.
Modernization Theory:
o Politics are at the basis of economic order, and not vice versa.
Huntington - The hypothesis:
World politics is entering a new phase, and intellectuals have not hesitated to proliferate visions of what it will
be - the end of history, the return of traditional rivalries between nation states, and the decline of the nation.
Islam-expert Bernard Lewis (The roots of Muslim Rage, 1990)
Reaction to Francis Fukuyama’s The End of History (1989 + 1992)
Renewed interest since 11 September 2001
Kishore Mahbubani: The New Asian Hemisphere (2008)
o ‘Different Mindsets’, but common ‘March to Modernity’ (WTO)
Basic elements Huntington-thesis:
The fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic. The
great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will
remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between
nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines
between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.
Princes, Nations, Ideologies, Civilizations:
o For a century and a half after the emergence of the modern international system with the Peace of
Westphalia, the conflicts of the Western world were largely among princes, attempting to expand their
bureaucracies, and overall power.
In the process, they created nation states.
o Beginning with French Revolution, the principal lines of conflict were between nations rather than
princes:
There was a rise of nationalism and building of nation-states.
o Then, as a result of the Russian Revolution and the reaction against it, the conflict of nations yielded to
the conflict of ideologies, first among communism, fascism-Nazism and liberal democracy, and then
between communism and liberal democracy:
, During the Cold War, moreover, there was a fight between two superpowers, each defining its
identity in terms of its ideology:
– Capitalism versus Communism.
The end of the Cold War, some dangerous misconceptions:
o One World: Euphoria and Harmony
o 184 states, more or less: sheer chaos?!
o Previously to the Cold War, most of the conflicts were within the Western civilization.
o With the end of the Cold War, international politics moves out of its Western phase, and its center piece
becomes the interaction between the West and non-Western civilizations and among non-Western
civilizations.
Conflict between civilizations will be the latest phase in the evolution of conflict in the modern
Seven or eight civilizations:
o Civilization identity will be increasingly important in the future, and the world will be shaped in large
measure by the interactions among seven or eight major civilizations:
These include:
1. Western
2. Confucian
3. Japanese
4. Islamic
5. Hindu
6. Slavic-Orthodox
7. Latin American
8. Possibly African civilization.
The most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these civilizations
from one another.
What is a civilization?
A civilization is a cultural entity:
o Villages, regions, ethnic groups, nationalities, religious groups, all have distinct cultures at different
levels of cultural heterogeneity.
A civilization is the highest cultural grouping of people and the broadest level of cultural identity people have
short of that which distinguishes humans from other species
o It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs,
institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people:
People have levels of identity: a resident of Rome may define himself with varying degrees of
intensity as a Roman, an Italian, a Catholic, a Christian, a European, a Westerner.
– The civilization to which he belongs is the broadest level of identification with which he
intensely identifies.
People can and do redefine their identities and, as a result, the composition and boundaries of civilizations
change:
o Civilizations are dynamic.
Civilizations blend and overlap, and may include sub civilizations.
Reasons Huntington for the clash of civilizations:
, Differences between civilizations:
o Civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, Ianguage, culture, tradition and, most
important, religion.
o The people of different civilizations have different views on the relations between God and man, the
individual and the group, the citizen and the state, parents and children, husband and wife, as well as
differing views of the relative importance of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality
and hierarchy.
o Differences do not necessarily mean conflict, and conflict does not necessarily mean violence. Over the
centuries, however, differences among civilizations have generated the most prolonged and the most
violent conflicts.
A smaller world results in an increase of civilizational consciousness:
o The interactions between peoples of different civilizations are increasing; these increasing interactions
intensify civilization consciousness and awareness of differences between civilizations and
commonalities within civilizations.
‘La Revanche de Dieu’:
o The processes of economic modernization and social change throughout the world are separating
people from longstanding local identities:
They also weaken the nation state as a source of identity.
In much of the world religion has moved in to fill this gap, often in the form of movements that
are labeled "fundamentalist."
– Such movements are found in Western Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism,
as well as in Islam.
o The revival of religion, "la revanche de Dieu," as Gilles Kepel labeled it, provides a basis for identity and
commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations
‘Dual role of the West’:
o The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West.
On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power.
At the same time, however, and perhaps as a result, a return to the roots phenomenon is
occurring among non-Western civilizations.
o A West at the peak of its power confronts non-Wests that increasingly have the desire, the will and the
resources to shape the world in non-Western way
o A de Westernization and indigenization of elites is occurring in many non-Western countries at the same
time that Western, usually American, cultures, styles and habits become more popular among the mass
of the people.
Cultural differences are much more difficult to neutralise:
o Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and
resolved than political and economic ones.
o In class and ideological conflicts, the key question was "Which side are you on?" and people could and
did choose sides and change sides.
In conflicts between civilizations, the question is "What are you?" That is a given that cannot be
changed.
Economic regionalism is increasing:
o The importance of regional economic blocs is likely to continue to increase in the future.
On the one hand, successful economic regionalism will rein force civilization-consciousness.
, On the other hand, economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common
civilization.
o If cultural commonality is a prerequisite for economic integration, the principal East Asian economic bloc
of the future is likely to be centered on China.
o Culture and religion also form the basis of the Economic Cooperation Organization, which brings
together ten non-Arab Muslim countries: Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan.
The clash of civilizations thus occurs at two levels:
At the micro level, adjacent groups along the fault lines between civilizations struggle, often violently, over
the control of territory and each other.
At the macro-level, states from different civilizations compete for relative military and economic power,
struggle over the control of international institutions and third parties, and competitively promote their
particular political and religious values.
Recommendations given by Huntington:
Global politics is multipolar and ‘multi-civilizational’ (for first time in history):
o So, the Western civilization is not regarded as superior by Huntington.
o He is a realist in this view, realizing that global politics are multipolar and multi-civilizational, and that
the West is not superior and should not impose all western values on everybody.
Shift in balance of power among civilizations:
o Asiatic civilizations gain strength
o Demographic explosion in the Islamic world:
Many Arab countries, in addition to the oil exporters, are reaching levels of economic and social
development where autocratic forms of government become inappropriate and efforts to
introduce democracy become stronger.
Spectacular population growth in Arab countries, particularly in North Africa, has led to
increased migration to Western Europe. The movement within Western Europe toward
minimizing internal boundaries has sharpened political sensitivities with respect to this
development.
o For the prevention of a clash of civilizations, there must be a balance of power.
The emergence of a ‘civilization-based world order’:
o The interactions between civilizations vary greatly in the extent to which they are likely to be
characterized by violence. Economic competition clearly predominates between the American and
European sub civilizations of the West and between both of them and Japan. On the Eurasian continent,
however, the proliferation of ethnic conflict, epitomized at the extreme in "ethnic cleansing," has not
been totally random. It has been most frequent and most violent between groups belonging to different
civilizations.
The Western illusion of universalism:
o Differences in power and struggles for military, economic and institutional power are thus one source of
conflict between the West and other civilizations. Differences in culture, that is basic values and beliefs,
are a second source of conflict. V. S. Naipaul has argued that Western civilization is the "universal
civilization" that "fits all men." At a superficial level much of Western culture has indeed permeated the
, rest of the world. At a more basic level, however, Western concepts differ fundamentally from those
prevalent in other civilizations.
o The very notion that there could be a "universal civilization" is a Western idea, directly at odds with the
particularism of most Asian societies and their emphasis on what distinguishes one people from
another.
How to prevent a ‘Global War of Civilizations’?
o The central axis of world politics in the future is likely to be, in Kishore Mahbubani’s phrase, the conflict
between "the West and the Rest" and the responses of non-Western civilizations to Western power and
values.
o Those responses generally take one or a combination of three forms:
At one extreme, non-Western states can, like Burma and North Korea, attempt to pursue a
course of isolation, to insulate their societies from penetration or "corruption" by the West, and,
in effect, to opt out of participation in the Western-dominated global community.
A second alternative, the equivalent of "band-wagoning" in international relations theory, is to
attempt to join the West and accept its values and institutions.:
The third alternative is to attempt to "balance" the West by developing economic and military
power and cooperating with other non-Western societies against the West, while preserving
indigenous values and institutions; in short, to modernize but not to Westernize:
– Centrally important to the development of counter-West military capabilities is the
sustained expansion of Chinas military power and its means to create military power.
o Implications for the West:
In the short term it is clearly in the interest of the West to promote greater cooperation and
unity within its own civilization:
– Particularly between its European and North American components; to incorporate into
the West societies in Eastern Europe and Latin America whose cultures are close to
those of the West; to promote and maintain cooperative relations with Russia and
Japan; to prevent escalation of local inter-civilization conflicts into major inter-
civilization wars; etc.
In the longer-term other measures would be called for. Western civilization is both Western and
modern. Non-Western civilizations have attempted to become modern without becoming
Western:
– Non-Western civilizations will continue to attempt to acquire the wealth, technology,
skills, machines and weapons that are part of being modern. They will also attempt to
reconcile this modernity with their traditional culture and values. Their economic and
military strength relative to the West will increase.
– Hence the West will increasingly have to accommodate these non-Western modern
civilizations whose power approaches that of the West but whose values and interests
differ significantly from those of the West.
– This will require the West to maintain the economic and military power necessary to
protect its interests in relation to these civilizations. It will also, however, require the
West to develop a more profound understanding of the basic religious and philosophical
assumptions underlying other civilizations and the ways in which people in those
civilizations see their interests.
– It will require an effort to identify elements of commonality between Western and other
civilizations. For the relevant future, there will be no universal civilization, but instead a
, world of different civilizations, each of which will have to learn to coexist with the
others.
Critics of Huntington:
1. State is the most important actor:
o Thinking of civilizations as a category, it is way too big and generic. A civilization cannot thus be regarded
as an actor.
o Critics believe the state is the most important actor, rather than the civilization.
o E.g. Civilizations lack armies, and thinking that there is a clash of civilizations undermines the real fact
that we are still living in a world in which independent states dominate, especially militarily.
2. The power of economic and socio-political modernisation (versus Huntington’s civilization-determinism):
o With the spread of modernization, more commonalities arise, with the rest of the world adopting
several western aspects.
o It is not only about economics, but also about the socio-political aspects, holding that societies
themselves change, our own lives converge.
3. Role of elites and middle classes:
o The role of elites has grown significantly.
4. Identities are socially constructed:
o All communities are constructed by the people that belong to them. When you share ideas with
someone, you develop a sense of community with those people.
o But this means that societies can also be deconstructed, identities can and will change
Civilizational division of the world is therefore incorrect.
5. Superiority / supremacy Western civilization:
o Some argue that underlying the principle of the clash of civilizations is a hidden support and argument
for the superiority or supremacy of the Western Civilization.
6. Thought provoking idea but empirically unsound!
o Other argue that this clash of civilizations is anyway empirically unsound, meaning that there is no real
increase in conflict between civilizations. To this, there is also added the fact that Huntington himself
said that the conflict within civilizations is of less intensity, which works against empirical proof.
Lecture 2: International Relations as Academic Discipline/
Theories of IR (I)
1. (State)power and IR
Power in IR - International power:
Who Governs (Robert Dahl)?
o Who governs domestically?
President, prime minister, etc.
o International level:
Nobody, no single government possible because of the key anarchy at the international level.
Essential characteristic of international relations: Anarchy.
, o Everybody is after their own interest, so impossible for one power Anarchy
o Sigmund Freud has a pessimistic view on the possibility of world governance. He argues that the anarchy
will lead to constant warfare between independent state.
o How can we avoid conflict, make sure we have stability in a world governed by anarchy? (one of the
most important questions in IR)
Globalisation: stateless market!
o Live in a world of globalization: no borders for economic markets, empire for capital
o World beyond limits in terms of economics But is this enough of a reason to sustain stability?
Power and sovereignty
o Realism and Neorealism supporters argue that a peaceful solution through economic integration is not
permanent and somewhat impossible due to the fact that each state deals with power and sovereignty.
o States have basic functions, such as maintain territorial integrity, protect their own country.
o Moreover, they have self-determination and thus avoid outside control of their own policies.
o They must ensure protection own population and territory against (immanent, real or constructed)
extern threats.
o There are two reasons that make it unlikely that economic interdependence will make security possible
in an anarchical world:
There is a world of many states, not equal, some more powerful than others. States have to
keep their military capabilities in place to anticipate eventual military attacks.
Power transition theory: states losing power, as others gain. E.g. The rise of China and decline
of the US will not only cause trade wars but could also cause military wars. Power that is losing
in this power transition is most of the times the cause of warfare.
It is all about security and power: If you want to protect you territory, welfare, people,
etc. u have to increase your military power.
Definition security-dilemma:
Security dilemma:
o ‘A structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs… tend,
regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity for others as each interprets its own measures as
defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening’ (John H. Herz)
In order to protect your own people and territory, coupled with self-determination, a state must protect itself
from the outside threats. So, they raise their spending on defence capabilities. But other states may see this as a
threat and aggression and would not care about the underlying intention. Thus, there would bring other states
to do the same through a simple action-reaction movement. Every state will keep on increasing their military
defence capabilities.
o What happens if one country spends more on defense? Security dilemma pops up.
o NATO
Security and power = two sides of the same coin
Steven Lukes’s three dimensions of power:
Power as measurement (input/output):
o Quantitative, power seen as material capabilities.
The art of non-decision-making:
o Agenda setting aspect of the policy making cycle.
Power as ‘false consciousness’:
, o Power as manipulation, indoctrination.
Definition power (The ‘new’ Lukes):
An exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests
o Power is a capacity, not necessarily the exercise of that capacity
o You can be powerful by satisfying and advancing others’ interests
o Power as domination is only one form of power
o The importance of hegemony (consensus):
Leadership on the basis of mutual consensus and material capabilities. E.g. If country A can
guarantee security for several other countries, there is going to be cooperation.
Military power – kind of umbrella protection:
o Mostly free-riding:
US biggest power, the others just live from its spending.
US promising future prosperity, based on free trade, monetary stability, etc.:
o Hegemonic stability guaranteed after Cold War based on the economic possibilities of the US.
o How to avoid permanent war?
Part of the answer: leadership, hegemonic power.
We live in a world of capital business, rather than states. Act of full consciousness? (Lukes)
IR trying to create consensus on the base of commonalities:
o Imagined communities = always constructed:
But always the possibility of deconstruction. Rational choice.
2. Origin and genesis (phases, debates, theories) of an academic discipline
Why do we need theory?
“Theory helps us to see the wood for the trees. Good theories select out certain factors as the most important
or relevant if one is interested in providing an explanation of an event. Without such a sifting process no
effective observation can take place. The observer would be buried under a pile of detail and be unable to weigh
the influence of different factors in explaining an event. Theories are of value precisely because they structure
observation” (Stoker, 1995).
You need a somewhat structured way of looking at reality, and for that you need theory.
Criteria for good theory:
o Coherence: It should be consistent, free of internal contradictions.
o Clarity of exposition: It should be formulated in a clear and lucid manner.
o Unbiased: It should not be based on purely subjective valuations. No theory is value-free, but the theory
should strive to be candid about its normative premises and values.
o Scope: It should be relevant for a large umber of important issues.
o Depth: It should be able to explain and understand as much as possible of the phenomenon that it
purports to tackle. It should be as complete as possible.
Two different philosophical categories:
Idealism: Holds that reality can’t be seen independent of our thinking about it; it only exists insofar as we have
ideas about it. A civilization is thus not just out there, it is socially constructed. Reality is itself constructed, but it
can also be deconstructed.
