International Relations Module

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS
MASTERS OF ARTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND

DIPLOMACY
UNIT CODE: MHU 5114
UNIT TITLE: INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS
1
International Relations
Contact Hours: 42
Prerequisites: None
Purpose
To equip students with skills and concepts to understand and explain the dynamics involved in
world politics and international affairs.
Expected Learning Outcomes

By the end of the module, the students are expected to be able to;
i) Unravel the complex and often invisible network of factors in the relations among the different
units in the international system.
ii) Be able to explain events in the international scene with the aid of the various theories of
international relations: realism, idealism, marxism among others
iii) Examine the impact of contemporary globalization in international relations
iv) Explain the roles categories of international actors in international affairs
Module Content
From time immemorial, nation states, individuals and other entities have interacted and affected
one another. This module examines the major theories that explain why states behave the way
they do: Marxism, Realism and Idealism. The levels of analysis – variables that should be
considered in the analysis of global phenomena such as the Cold War constitutes part of the
menu for this module. The module critically interrogates the causes of the Cold War, its features
and explains why it unexpectedly ended in 1989. One of the reasons for the increased subject
matter of international relations is the rise of new actors on the international scene. Apart from
the state, the module looks at the activities of different categories of international actors.
2
Module Outline
Week 1 & 2
SECTION ONE: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: AN INTRODUCTION
 Definition of International Relations

 Domestic Policy/Politics
 Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Analysis
 Intermestic Policy
 National Interest and Foreign Policy
 The Subject Matter of International Relations
 Reasons for Expansion of the Subject Matter of IR
 International Relations Scholarship from Political Perspective
 History of International Relations
Week 3
SECTION TWO: POWER AND INSTRUMENTS OF FOREIGN POLICY AND IR
 Foreign Policy and Power

 Hard and Soft Power
 Diplomacy
 Economic Instruments
 Subversion
 Military Instruments
 Cultural Instruments
Week 4 & 5
SECTION THREE: LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND GEOPOLITICS
 Idiosyncratic level of analysis
 Bureaucratic Politics
 Governmental Politics
 Societal level of analysis
 Geopolitics
 Systemic level of analysis
Week 6
SECTION FOUR: THE REALIST THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
 Introduction to Realpolitik
 Antecedents of Realism
 Modern and Neo-Realists
 Assumptions of Realism
 Neo and Classical Realism
 Appraisal of Realism
3
Week 7
SECTION FIVE: THE LIBERAL THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
 Antecedents of Idealism
 Assumptions of Liberalism
 Relevance of Idealism
 Critique of Liberalism
Week 8 & 9
SECTION SIX: MARXIST THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
 Karl Marx
 Assumptions of Marxism
 Relevance of Marxism
 Labour Movements
 Socialist Government
 Critique of Marxism
 Neo Marxist Theories
 The World Capitalist of Economy
 Dependency Theory
Week 10 & 11
SECTION SEVEN: INTERNATIONAL ACTORS AND INTERNATIONAL REGIMES
 Definition and Categories of International Actors
 The State and the Treaty of Westphalia
 Intergovernmental Organizations
 Multinational Corporations
 Churches and Individuals
 International non-Governmental Organization
 International Regimes and Realism
 Marxism and International Regimes
 International Regimes and Idealism
 Impacts of International Regimes
Week 12
SECTION EIGHT: THE COLD WAR
 Understanding the Cold War
 Features of the Cold War
 The Cold War Military Alliances
 Hot Peace
 The Cuban Missile Crisis
 Reasons for the End of the Cold War
 The Post Cold War Era
4
Week 13
SECTION NINE: MORALITY AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
 Realism and Morality
 Liberalism and Morality
 Marxism and Morality
 Moral Dilemmas of Diplomats
 Why Morality Matters more in Domestic Politics
Course Assessment
 Examination - 70%
 Continuous Assessment Test (CATS) - 20%
 Assignments - 10%
 Total - 100%
SAMPLE EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
REFERENCES
5
Table of Content
SECTION ONE: Introduction to International Relations…………………………………….9
1.1 Definition of International Relations………………………………………………………….9
1.1.1 International………………………………………………………………………………………..9
1.1.2 National…………………………………………………………………………………………..9
1.1.3 Relations………………………………………………………………………………………...10
1.1.4 System…………………………………………………………………………………….……..10
1.2 Domestic Policy/Politics…………………………………………………………………...11
1.3 Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Analysis………………………………………………11
1.4 Intermestic Policy………………………………………………………………………….12
1.5 National Interest and Foreign Policy……………………………………………………...13
1.6 The Subject Matter of International Relations……………………………………………13
1.7 Reasons for Expansion of the Subject Matter of IR………………………………………14
1.7.1 The rise of transnational issues………………………………………………………………14
1.7.2 New actors in the international scene………………………………………………………15
1.7.3 Globalization……………………………………………………………………………………15
1.8 International Relations Scholarship from Political Perspective………………………….15
1.9 History of International Relations…………………………………………………………16
SECTION TWO: Goals, Power and Instruments of Foreign Policy & IR………………….17
2.0Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...17
2.1 Foreign Policy and Power……………………………………………………………………18
2.2 Hard and Soft Power…………………………………………………………………………18
2.3 Instruments of Foreign Policy and IR………………………………………………………..19
2.4 Diplomacy……………………………………………………………………………………19
2.5 Economic Instruments……………………………………………………………………….20
2.6 Subversion……………………………………………………………………………………21
2.7 Military Instruments………………………………………………………………………….22
2.8 Cultural Instruments………………………………………………………………………….23
2.9 Section Summary…………………………………………………………………………......24
6
SECTION THREE: Levels of Analysis and Geopolitics………………………………….….26
3.0Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….…..26
3.1 What are Levels of Analysis?………………………………………………………………..27
3.2 Idiosyncratic Level of Analysis…………………………………………………………...…28
3.3 Bureaucratic Politics………………………………………………………………………....28
3.4 Governmental Politics…………………………………………………………………….….29
3.4.1 Type of Situations………………………………………..…………………………….…………30
3.4.2 Types of Policy…………………………………………………………………………….……..30
3.5 Societal Level of Analysis…………………………………………………………………...32
3.5.1 Geopolitics…………………………………………………………………………………33
3.6 Systemic Level of Analysis………………………………………………………………….33
3.7 Section Summary…………………………………………………………………………….35
SECTION FOUR: The Realist Theory of International Relations………………………….36

4.0Introduction to Realpolitik……………………………………………………………………36
4.1 Antecedents of Realism……………………………………………………………………...37
4.2 Modern and Neo-Realists……………………………………………………………………37
4.3 Assumptions of Realism……………………………………………………………………..37
4.3.1 Pessimism of Human Nature……………………………………………………………………37
4.3.2 National Interest………………………………………………………………………...38
4.3.3 International Anarchy…………………………………………………………………...38
4.3.4 Priority of Power……………………………………………………………….……….39
4.3.5 Priority of the State…………………………………………………………...................39
4.3.6 Consequential Ethics………………………………………………………………. …39
4.3.7 The Structure of the International System………………………………………………40
4.3.8 Public Opinion…………………………………………………………………………..40
4.4 Structural Realism……………………………………………………………………………40
4.5 Appraisal of Realism…………………………………………………………………………41
4.6 Section Summary…………………………………………………………………………….41
SECTION FIVE: The Liberal Theory of International Relations…………………………..43

5.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..43
7
5.1 Antecedents of Idealism……………………………………………………………………...44
5.2 Assumptions of Idealism……………………………………………………………………..44
5.2.1 Optimism of Human Nature……………………………………………………………..44
5.2.2 Priority of Law and International Institutions…………………………………………..44
5.2.3 Morality of Means and Ends…………………………………………………………….45
5.2.4 Universal/Collective Interest……………………………………………………………45
5.2.5 The State as the Unit of Analysis………………………………………………………...45
5.3 The Efficacy of Diplomacy…………………………………………………………………..46
5.4 Relevance of Idealism………………………………………………………………………..46
5.5 Critique of Liberalism………………………………………………………………………..46
5.6 Section Summary…………………………………………………………………………….47
SECTION SIX: The Marxist Theory of International Relations……………………………48

6.0Introduction……………………………………………………………………………..…….48
6.1 Karl Marx…………………………………………………………………………………….49
6.2 Assumptions of Marxism…………………………………………………………………….49
6.2.1 Economic Determinism………………………………………………………………….49
6.2.2 Classism…………………………………………………………………………………49
6.2.3 Class Interest…………………………………………………………………………….50
6.3 Relevance of Marxism……………………………………………………………………….50
6.4 Labor Movements……………………………………………………………………………51
6.5 Socialist Governments……………………………………………………………………….52
6.6 Critique of Marxism………………………………………………………………………….52
6.7 Neo-Marxist Theories………………………………………………………………………..52
6.7.1 World System Theory……………………………………………………………………...53
6.7.2 Assumptions of World’s Capitalist Economy……………………………………………...53
6.8 Dependency Theory………………………………………………………………………….54
6.9 Sovereignty and Foreign Policy……………………………………………………………...54
6.10 Section Summary……………………………………………………………...……………55
SECTION SEVEN: International Actors and Regimes…………………………………...…56

7.0 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………..56
8
7.1 Definition and Categories of International Actors…………………………………………...56
7.1.1 The State and the Treaty of Westphalia…………………………………………….…..57
7.1.2 Intergovernmental Organizations………………………………………………….……58
7.1.3 Multinational Corporations……………………………………………………………..60
7.1.3.1 MNCs – the most Controversial Non-State Actors……………………….………….61
7.1.4 Churches and Individuals………………………………………………………………..62
7.1.5 International non-Governmental Organization…………………………………………63
7.2 International Regimes……………………………………………………………………..64
7.2.1 Definition and Understanding…………………………………………………………..64
7.2.2 International Actors and Regimes………………………………………………………65
7.2.3 International Regimes and Realism…………………………………………………….66
7.2.4 Marxism and International Regimes……………………………………………………66
7.2.5 International Regimes and Idealism…………………………………………………….67
7.3 Impacts of International Regimes…………………………………………………………67
7.4 Section Summary………………………………………………………………………….67
SECTION EIGHT: The Cold War………………………………………………………….69

8.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..69
8.1 Understanding the Cold War…………………………………...……………………………69
8.2 Features of the Cold War…………………………………………………………………….70
8.2.1 Nuclearalization……………………………………………………………………………70
8.2.2 Ideology Addictives………………………………………………………………………..71
8.3 The Cold War Military Alliances……………………………………………...…………….72
8.4 Hot Peace…………………………………………………………………………………….73
8.5 The Cuban Missile Crisis………………………………………………………….…………73
8.6 Reasons for the End of the Cold War………………………………………………….…….74
8.6.1 The Standard Account……………………………………………………………………….…..74
8.6.2 The Realist Account………………………………………………………………………………74
8.6.3 The Diplomatic Account…………………………………………………………………………75
8.6.4 The Marxist Account…………………………………………………….……………………….75
8.7 The post-Cold War Era………………………………………………….…………………………75
8.8 Section Summary………………………………………………………………………………………76
9
SECTION NINE: Morality and International Politics………………………………………77
9.0 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….77
9.1 Realism and Morality………………………………………………………………………..77
9.2 Liberalism and Morality……………………………………………………………………..78
9.3 Marxism and Morality……………………………………………………………………….78
9.4 Moral Dilemmas of Diplomats………………………………………………………………79
9.5 Why Morality matters more in Domestic Politics…………………………………………...79
9.6 Section Summary………………………………………………………………………….…80
Sample Examination Questions………………………………………………………………….81

Selected Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………83
10
SECTION ONE
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: AN INTRODUCTION
Section Objectives
By the end of this section, the learner should be able to:
a. Define international relations

b. Explain why the menu of international relations is expanding
c. Discuss the history of international relations
1.0 Introduction
This introductory section examines the meaning and scope of international relations as an
academic discipline and practice. International relations is defined from a myriad angles. The
reasons for the expansion of the subject matter of international relations and key concepts such
as intermestic politics and foreign policy are also discussed.
1.1 Definition of International Relations
International relations refers to the ways states, groups of people, organizations and individuals
interact with and affect one another in the international scene. It is also the study of the political
and social interaction of state, non-state actors, and individuals. Traditionally, the scope of
international relations was limited to the ways states related and affected one another. However,
in contemporary times, due to many factors, the menu of international relations now examines
the role of non-state actors on the global stage. At its most fundamental level, IR deals with the
interactions between the countries of the world, which are the most basic building blocks of the
international system. Three key elements worthy of attention are: international, relations, and
systems.
1.1.1 International
The prefix inter (international) distinguishes it from the study of history, politics, economics and
the like. IR studies relations and interactions between states of the world. But it is impossible to
ignore domestic issues since most of the decisions arrived at the international level are made by
national policy makers. International relations interrogate the activities of actors on the global or
international stage.
11
1.1.2 National
The word national in the term “international relations” defines the basic units of study in IR. The
state is the leading actor in international relations and principally it is how states interact with
one another. The states still remain the primary actors although not the most dominant on the
international stage.
1.1.3 Relations
The word relations imply a couple of things. Firstly it suggests that international relations is
characterized by a series of interactions among states and other actors. Relations could be
political, military, economic, social, and cultural. Thus, international relations is often used
simultaneously with world politics and international politics. Using them interchangeably will
not be a problem if one realizes that international relations is not only about political interchange
even if it is the most prominent and most consequential aspect in IR.
1.1.4 System
Systems are found in many areas: biology, chemistry and the ecosystem. Firstly, a system refers
to a number of distinct, interdependent units whose interactions affect one another. When states
impose environmental regulations on automobile emissions, it affects other countries like the
United States, Japan and Germany who manufacture automobiles. Secondly, a system is an
orderly regularity and predictability to the interactions between units. Things do not just happen
randomly or haphazardly in the international system, rather through customs, treaties and
conventions. The absence of a Leviathan or international government does not mean there is no
order in the system.
Thirdly, a system exists within the context of a broader environment that is dynamic and itself
forces the units to adapt and change. The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union reshaped the international system and probably led to a New World Order. Change
gives IR a vibrant dynamism and interest. Thus, IR can be defined as a study of how people and
governments in different countries deal with one another. The principal units are states but they
are not the only actors. It deals with a broad range of interactions. The most prominent of the
interactions are political issues. Because IR is carried out within a global society that is
12
informally regulated by norms, rules, and institutions scholars then refer to the global
environment as an international system.
In 1936, Harold Dwight Lasswell defined politics as ‘Who Gets What, When and How’. Thus
international politics is the study of who gets what, when, and how in matters external to states
or in matters crossing national boundaries. The who of international relations are primarily
states or the countries of the world. However, other non-state actors have now appeared on the
international stage. The goals of actors are the what of international relations: political,
economic, social, or cultural kind. The when in IR can range from continuous activity of states
providing for security of their populations to the episodic activity of a private international
organization. The how refers to the instruments used by actors to achieve their goals. A wide
range of instruments are military force, diplomacy and economic power.
1.2 Domestic Policy/Politics
Domestic policy is a subject matter of public policy. It entails laws, administrative decisions,
government programs which are directly related to the internal issues and activity of a state.
Domestic policy covers a wide range of areas: disaster management, business, education, energy,
health care, law enforcement, money and taxes, natural resources, social welfare, and personal
rights and freedoms. The domestic policy issues are similar irrespective of the geographical
location of the state. A nation's form of government largely determines how its domestic policy
is formed and implemented. In authoritarian political systems, the exclusive club of the ruling
class pursues its domestic policy goals without input or consent of the people being governed. In
democratic societies, the voice of the people (public opinion) reflects in the domestic policies.
1.3 Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Analysis
Foreign policy is the externalization of domestic policies. In other words, it involves the policies
informing the behavior of states in the external milieu or beyond territorial borders. The goal of
foreign policy is to promote the interests of a single political community or state in world politics
by influencing the behavior of other units in the international system. Foreign policy is an
extension of domestic policy. Foreign policy is the substance of diplomacy and is used by states
to achieve their interests in international politics.
13
The study of foreign policy is known as foreign policy analysis. Foreign policy analysis is the
study of the conduct and practice of relations between different actors, primarily states, in the
international system. At the heart of the field is an investigation into decision making, the
individual decision-makers, processes and conditions that affect foreign policy and the outcomes
of these decisions. By virtue of this approach, foreign policy analysis is necessarily concerned
with the boundaries between the external environment and the internal or domestic environment,
with its variety of sub-national sources of influence.
The hallmark of international relations is its multifactoriality, multidisciplinarity and

interdisciplinarity. Insights from disciplines such as psychology, sociology, anthropology are
important in the process of analyzing global politics. Of all disciplines of International Relations,
FPA is the most radically integrative theoretical enterprise. International anarchy makes security
the paramount foreign policy concern of states.
1.4 Intermestic Policy
The opposite of foreign policy is public or domestic policy. The hiatus/gap between foreign
policy and domestic policy is increasingly becoming blurred in recent times. Domestic policies
inform the foreign policies of states. The rapid nature of contemporary globalization has
rendered the traditional distinction between foreign and domestic politics obsolete. Intermestic
policy is the entanglement or combination of domestic and foreign policy. The multiple network
of linkages between societies which is one hallmark of interdependence (globalization) means
that there is a less clear distinction between domestic and international agendas. Groups within
states are constantly affected by events on the international stage, so their concerns tend to force
themselves onto the foreign policies of their states (Hocking & Smith, 1995:134-136). Local
agenda of sub national actors become internationalized while as part of the same process, the
international agenda becomes localized, reflecting the interests and concerns of “sub national”
actors.
1.5 National Interest and Foreign Policy
The term “national interest” is particularly vague and has been perennially subjected to abuses
and misunderstanding by politicians and foreign policy analysts. The assumption that a particular
foreign policy is in the national interest of a state imparts/confers a degree of authority and
legitimacy to that policy. National interest is customarily linked with policies of those officially
14
responsible for the conduct of foreign policy. Interestingly, the national interest is what decision-
makers at the highest levels of government say it is. The realists posit that states behave the way
they do because of national interest. However, in the absence of proper segments of democracy,
the link between foreign policy and the national interest cannot be known. This does not mean
that non-democratic countries lack national interests – merely that we cannot know what it is if it
is not defined by democratic procedures.
National interest remains a central preoccupation of foreign policy decision-makers and a

reference point for interpreting the actions of states. Hans Morgenthau equates national interest
with power and, as such, both the proper object of a state’s foreign policy and the best measure
of its capacity to achieve its aims. What constitutes national interest, how it is determined and
ultimately implemented are crucial to understanding the foreign policy choices and responses
pursued by states. For hardcore realists like Morgenthau and Kennan, the anarchic nature of the
international system is the most important guide to foreign policy formulation. In spite of the
problem of determining exactly the basis of national interest, it is clear that virtually all states
subscribe by necessity to maintaining territorial integrity and economic prosperity as central
preoccupations of the government of the day in their international dealings.
1.6 The Subject Matter of International Relations
The subject matter of any discipline refers to what is contained in its menu or what it studies.
Diplomacy, trade negotiation, cultural exchanges, polarity, war and military alliances constitute
the subject matter of IR. IR has traditionally emphasized the state and individual levels to be the
key areas for understanding the nature of the international system. At the same time, since
globalization has transformed the international system, making interconnectivity outside of
traditional state-to-state conduct more likely, IR has had to expand its own outlook to account for
an increasingly diverse range of non-state actors such as global environmental activists or
multinational corporations.
1.7 Reasons for Expansion of the Subject Matter of IR
In recent times, the menu of international relations is expanding rapidly because of the rise of
transnational actors, the increase consciousness global/transnational issues and the impact of
contemporary globalization.
15
1.7.1 The Rise of transnational or trans-state and new issues
Transnational issues transcend the state boundaries in ways individual states have little control
over. Air pollution, environmental degradation, rise in population in one country inevitably
affects other states in ways such as migration. The subject matter of international relations has
become extraordinarily diverse and no human endeavor is now excluded from the international
agenda and the flexibility of special missions is an enormous asset. Such transnational issues call
for cooperation between and among states since they are of common global concern. Terrorism
and the refugee problem in the Horn of Africa have become international issues discussed on the
world stage. The plurality of new issues on the global stage such as oil politics, global warming
and terrorism also accounts for the expansion of the subject matter of IR.
1.7.2 New Actors in the International Scene
A key reason for the increase menu of IR is the growth of the number and kinds of individuals
and groups taking part in interactional relations. Previously only states were the main actors.
Today they share the stage with a good number of sub-national and supranational actors. Many
of the non-state actors have crop up with their own unique issues and obsessions on the global
stage. There is a school of thought which now holds that multinational corporations are the
dominant actors in the international scene. During the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, about 15,000
members of NGOs played an active role in the discussions. Amnesty International is
investigating the respect of human rights issues in various countries in the world. The reports of
Transparency International are considered by the IMF when dishing out loans and grants to
states.
1.7.3 Globalization
Globalization is impacting on the nature of international relations. In the Lexus and the Olive
Tree, Thomas Friedman argues that globalization is not just a phenomenon and not just a passing
trend. Globalization is the integration of capital, technology, and information across national
borders, in a way that is creating a single global market and, to some degree, a global village. As
the world gets smaller (one global economy) the traditional distinction between domestic and
foreign policy is increasingly becoming obsolete.
16
The environment of complex interdependency effectively diminishes the scope of state action in
foreign policy making to that of a manager of a diversity of forces inside the domestic sphere,
including government, and outside the boundaries of the state. International relations in the post-
Cold War era are being formulated and conducted in a capitalistic world influenced by
globalization. An increasingly globalized international environment provides leaders with a new
set of institutional actors that they need to consider. With increasing globalization, international
relations will be critical in sorting out the interactions among the international, domestic, and
individual levels of analysis and their effect on policy
1.8 International Relations Scholarship from Political Perspective
IR is a library of subjects studied from a particular angle. However, the main focus of IR
scholarship is international politics. IR relies on several academic disciplines such as economics,
sociology and history among others. The political science perspective of IR emphasizes political,
institutional and governmental dimensions of global relations. Unlike other social sciences
disciplines, IR scholars use knowledge from other disciplines to focus on the politics of the
relevant subject matter.
1.9 History of International Relations
International relations as a practice is very ancient since states and different groups have always
interacted with one another down the ages. International relations has been practices in different
forms as long as independent political groups have interacted and affected one another. In the
History of the Peloponnesian War (430 B.C), the Athenian historian, Thucydides chronicled the
conflictual and cooperative relations between the Greek city-states. Thus, as a practice,
International Relations is age-old but relatively recent as an academic discipline. American
political science became an academic discipline in the University of Chicago in the 1880
facilitated by scholars such as Woodrow Wilson. Political scientists specializing in IR appeared
in the US within WWI and the formation of the League of Nations. Most of its early journals
were about foreign policy.
Section Summary
17
Traditionally, IR dealt with inter-state relations. However, IR now studies the interactions of
states, non-state actors and individuals. The relations could be cooperative or conflictual.
International relations has been studied in some form or another for as long as independent
political groups have come upon and had to interact with one another. The subject matter of
international relations is expanding because of the emergence of new and transnational issues on
the global stage, globalization and the entrance of non-state actors in world politics.
Revision Questions
1. What is International Relations?

2. Why is the subject matter of IR expanding rapidly in the twenty first century?
3. ‘International Relations as an academic discipline is relatively recent but age-old as a
practice’ Discuss
References for further Reading
Griffiths M, O’Callaghan T, & Roach S., (2002). International Relations: The Key Concepts.
New York: Routledge. Pp. vii-xiii
Brian Hocking & Michael Smith (1990). Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.
New York: Pearson Education. Pp. 1-24
18
SECTION TWO
GOALS, POWER AND INSTRUMENTS OF FOREIGN POLICY AND
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Learning Objectives
 Discuss and evaluate the key elements of soft and hard power
 Evaluate the utility and effectiveness of the instruments of interstate relations.
2.0 Introduction
The ultimate yardstick for determining a successful foreign policy is a state’s ability to assert
itself and promote its interests with consistency within the international system. Crucial to this
success is an understanding of power, its sources and an assessment of the means needed to
achieve the goals of the state. Equally important is an ability to forge these dimensions into a
coherent foreign policy appropriate to the state in question, its particular material conditions as
well as its position within the international system.
This section examines the means and instruments states use to achieve their foreign policy
objectives and influence the behavior of other units in the international system. Foreign Policies
must identify the means and instruments for their implementation. Unlike the foreign policies of
states at the core of the world’s global economy, the foreign policy of countries in the Third
World/periphery is weak, reactive and ineffective because they lack instruments for enforcement.
2.1 Foreign Policy and Power

It is a fundamental assumption of the realists that the very anarchical nature of the international
system (without any recognized central authority/Leviathan) compels states to pursue a relentless
quest for security and wealth. A “security dilemma” prevails, whereby efforts by one state such
as Iran or North Korea to increase its sense of security through arms acquisition/building missiles
or other defensive measures merely inspire other states to adopt similar strategies, and ironically
perpetuates a general sense of insecurity among all states. In this contentious setting, the
centrality of power – especially manifested as military power – is seen to be the most important
factor in determining a state’s ability to sustain a successful foreign policy.
19
Power is defined as the ability of a state to cause another take action which it would otherwise
not pursue. Christopher Hill suggests that there are three ways of interpreting the role of power
in international relations: as an end in itself, as a means to an end and as a context within which
states operate. There are two basic ways that this can be achieved: through direct action (force or
coercion or hard power) or through indirect action (soft power/influence or persuasion).
2.2 Hard and Soft Power

The concept of soft and hard power is the brainchild of Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye. Hard
power is pursued via inducements ‘carrots’ or via sanctions and threats “sticks”. Coercion
involves compelling the target state through overt threat or outright intervention into its vital
affairs. This could include military demonstration, such as the mobilizing of troops, or actual
military strikes, invasion, military bases and the like. It may also involve vital economic targets,
such as cutting off oil supplies or a trade embargo, which have the effect of strangling the target
state’s economy.
Joseph Nye defines soft power as “the arts of getting others to want what you want” (2007:62).
Elements of Nye’s definition of soft power, resonates in Vance Packard’s understanding of
leadership as ‘the art of getting others to want to do something that you believe should be done’
(Lewis, 2007:4). The promotion of values through governmental and non-governmental actors is
one of the “soft power” tools which can help states shape a target country’s foreign policy aims.
According to Nye, the recipes of soft power include: attraction of ideas and the art of packaging
political agenda in ways that shape the preferences of others as the constructivists hold. The art
of shaping the preferences of others is based on resources such as culture, ideology and
institutions.
Persuasion is more nuanced in that it involves compelling the target state through diplomatic
means, appeals to rationality or universal principles and other sources of influence. These could
include appeals to cultural affinity or historical partnerships, with the Anglo-American ‘special
relationship’ being one of the most enduring. Joseph Nye characterizes this ability of a state to
induce others to adopt its own foreign policy preferences as “soft power”, while coercive means
‘hard power’.
20
Hard and soft powers are distinct but not unrelated. While hard power twists the arms and legs,
soft power seduces the minds, hearts of people and states. The moral authority of the Pope and
the international prestige of the papacy are essential resources of the soft power of the Vatican.
The Pope uses her soft power as the highest moral authority on earth to influence the behavior of
other units in the international system. According to Nye; “the soft power of the Vatican did not
wane as the size of the Papal States diminished in the nineteenth century” (2007:63}. The
efficacy of soft power does not diminish because it is less transferable, intangible and less
coercive. In the words of Bismarck, the intangibles (soft power) the imponderabilia “often have
more influence in politics than gold or military force.” In recent times, the government of Obama
is talking of smart power, which is a combination of hard and soft power.
2.3 Instruments of Foreign Policy and International Relations

The best formulated foreign policies of states are irrelevant without a clear identification of the
tools for implementation. The traditional instruments employed by states in their inter-relations
are diplomacy, economic, subversion and military elements. Each has its strengths and
weaknesses in relation to a given issue and it is a state’s ability to capitalize on these diverse sets
of instruments that determines whether it has a successful foreign policy or not.
2.4 Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the prime currency in international relations and occupies the bulk of activity
between states. It consists of formal and informal discussions aimed at resolving matters between
actors on the international stage. These talks, negotiations or mediation can take place at a
bilateral level (between two states) or multilateral level (involving a number of states). Usually,
officially recognized diplomats trained in the intricacies of international protocol conduct such
discussions. Alliances with like-minded states, or at least states that share a common perception
of threat, and trade relations with preferred states are common topics on diplomatic tables. More
often than not, the work of diplomats revolves around mundane day-to-day tasks of maintaining
positive relations between states, attending to the concerns of its citizens abroad and protocol-
related issues.
In instances where one state’s behavior causes persistent concern or alarm, diplomatic actions –
ranging from formal protest notes or declaring an envoy persona non-grata could be issued to
21
express a state’s rancor. Diplomacy is an aged old institution with a legacy as the second oldest
institution after prostitution. Secretive agreements tying states to the defense of one another
formed the backbone of European diplomacy up to the First World War.
In the twentieth century, the rise of democracies, the media and international institutions such as
the League of Nations and its successor, the United Nations, has brought about a shift towards a
more public form of diplomacy ranging from summit, virtual, shuttle diplomacy and open
diplomacy among others. Diplomatic patronage to governments in the developing world was one
of the instruments used by the United States during the Cold War. According to the liberal theory
of international relations, diplomacy is the most important instrument of foreign policy.
Diplomacy is sometimes understood as continuation of war by other means.
2.5 Economic Instruments

Customarily, economic instruments are used by states when standard diplomatic practices are
deemed ineffective in achieving their foreign policies. The economic instruments of wealthy
countries are conspicuously effective. They include: economic sanctions, such as imposing trade
restrictions against a target state. With few exceptions, sanctions are only really effective if
implemented by a collectivity of states and rigorously enforced by all of them.
It is often said that the importance of sanctions lies more in its symbolic value as a sign of
displeasure with a particular state than its actual effect upon that state. Foreign aid is one of the
most important economic instruments of foreign policy. This explains why Anne Begstein
entitled her book ‘Aid as an Instrument of Foreign Policy’ and the reputed Zambian, Dambiso
Moyo after some extensive research called foreign aid to Africa ‘Dead Aid’.
The United States of America is the most influential international actor today because of her
economic prowess. Aid makes the recipient dependent on the donor and the old adage says
“he/she who pays the piper calls the tune.” Most forms of foreign aid aims at achieving the
national interest of the donor state. The realists hold that humanitarian aid carries clandestine
goals of promoting the foreign policy of donor states. Foreign aid gives the donor some leverage
and leverage is power.
22
Trade Boycotts and Favors such as Most Favored Nations and Favorable Trade Agreements,
Friendship Treaty, Preferential Trade Agreements, African Growth Opportunity Acts {AGOA}
and Foreign Economic Assistance are economic instruments. Economic diplomacy and
economic aid could be used as punitive methods to punish or to reward. According to Marxism,
the economic instruments are the most important in foreign policy.
2.6 Subversion
Subversion is favored by leaders for its purported ability to offer a state a tactical advantage over
other states. The gathering of intelligence and its analysis by specialists trained in assessing
designs and capabilities of other states can provide insight into alternative courses of action to be
pursued by an opponent and a willingness to pursue these actions. Subversion is associated with
espionage – the promulgation of covert operations aimed at destabilizing an opponent. Grey and
black propaganda (the former partially based on truth, the latter an outright fabrication) against
the target state or its leader, providing covert financial or military support to opposition
movements, and even political assassinations, all form part of the economy of espionage.
All sovereign states spy on one another for security reasons. The founder of Wikileaks, Julian
Assange has been living in the embassy of Ecuador in London because of publicizing some
classified information of the United States. At the time of writing this module, former US
intelligent officer, Snowden has been granted asylum in Russia because of revealing US behavior
of spying on other states.
2.7 Military Instruments

Military instruments remain the ultimate expression of a state’s willingness to pursue its foreign
policy. For the renowned strategist, Karl von Clausewitz, the use of the military was ‘politics
pursued by other means’. States employ their military principally in times of crisis to defend
their interests, be they territorial, resources or citizens, or in support of foreign policy aims such
as acquiring new territory, gaining access to strategic resources or upholding international
principle.
The military indicates the strength of a state’s commitment to a security alliance through the
presence of permanent military bases or the sending of a naval fleet to a region in dispute.
23
Equally, public displays of technological prowess such as the launching of ballistic missiles or
the testing of nuclear weapons by North Korea and the like can be important signals to potential
adversaries and friends alike. With modern military technology outside of the reach of most
states, global force projection is increasingly limited to merely a handful of states, with the
United States as the foremost military power today (Alden, 2011).
Until the end of the Cold War, the military was seen to be the most obvious measure of a state’s
power, but subsequently many International Relations scholars have argued that other
instruments such as economic strengths are equally significant indicators. This gave impetus to
proponents of ‘soft power’ instruments, who argued that their approach was more suited to the
changing international environment. More still, states are coming to the realization that the role
of force is expensive and costly.
According to Stanley Hoffman, the positive correlation between military strength and effective
foreign policy is loosened. Peacekeeping forces, usually under the auspices of an international
organization like the United Nations, are a more recent innovation of the classic military tool and
some states include a specially trained battalion on hand for such missions. War, according to
Clausewitz, is the continuation of politics and diplomacy by other means. Superiority in arms can
lead a foreign policy stance of gunboat diplomacy, where one can press for one’s own advantage
more aggressively than otherwise. British historian, A.J.P Taylor defined a great power as one
able to prevail in war. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization {NATO} and the Warsaw Pact
were important military alliances established by the Unites States and the Soviet Union during
the Cold War. According to the realists, military force is the instruments that really matters. The
realists say power is might and might is right.
2.8 Cultural Instruments
The cultural instruments are elements of soft power. Some of the cultural instruments include the
media, scholarships, cultural exchanges, music, trade unions and the like. During the Cold War
both superpowers used the media to spread their ideologies and propaganda. while the United
States used Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, BBC and France Radio International to
disseminate her capitalist agenda, her counterpart, the USSR made use of Radio Moscow.
24
Scholarships are also important cultural instruments. The Soviet Union offered Patrice
Lumumba scholarships to students from developing nations to study in Eastern Europe.
Lumumba was the Prime Minister of the Republic of Congo in 1960 and he was later
assassinated that year because of his pro-Soviet stance. The United States is still dishing out
Fulbright scholarships and other categories of scholarships to foreign states. Such scholarships
are meant to instill US values to the recipients during their studies. Cultural exchanges such as
visits of Kenyan farmers and students from Kenya to the US also constitute cultural instruments.
This explains why the United States established the International Visitor Program.
The cultural instruments have a direct impact on people. It is people to people diplomacy. It is
very effective because unlike the military and economic instruments, it twists the minds of
people. It changes the orientation and world view of persons. For instance, one of the main books
of Gorbachev that precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union was entitled Demokratization.
Among others, it was informed by the experiences of Gorbachev’s henchman, Alexander
Yakolev, who saw elements of democracy during a student exchange program in the United
States in 1950s. Music diplomacy is an important cultural element. The United States has been
investing on exporting music by her artists to the rest of the world. This explains why famous US
artists like Michael Jackson are known throughout the world and young persons are keen on
dancing like US artists.
Government agencies that promote the society’s cultural values through, for example,
educational exchanges and scholarships to élites or prospective élites, are ways of shaping the
aims and choices pursued by foreign policy actors in another country. States also fund non-
governmental actors such as artists with an explicit values promotion agenda: human rights
groups, trade union support or electoral assistance. The strength of this approach is that domestic
actors within a particular target country embrace the underlying values of another country and
then this becomes the basis for foreign policy choice that, perhaps unconsciously, conforms to
the interests of the promoter state. According to the constructivists, the cultural instrument is the
one that matters.
2.9 Section Summary
Since the end of the Cold War, the international system is termed to be unipolar, that is,
characterized by one superpower. The United States is said to be the only superpower because
25
she has very effective economic, diplomatic, military and cultural instruments to influence other
international actors. The Vatican is a moral superpower of the world because of the soft power of
the Pope, which gives him leverage over other units.
As Winston Churchill famously said, “it is better to jaw–jaw than it is to war–war.” Thus, despite
the assumptions of anarchy and the accompanying ‘security dilemma’ facing states, the impulse
towards diplomatic solutions in foreign policy remain paramount. Calibrated use of foreign
policy instruments in the service of national interest is the most effective means of ensuring that
a state’s vital security and economic concerns are preserved. In this context, accurately assessing
the capacity and will of other states becomes a crucial preoccupation of foreign policy makers as
they seek to formulate and implement a successful foreign policy.
Revision Questions
1. What is the difference between soft and hard power?
2. Identify some of the cultural, economic, military and diplomatic instruments states use in
their activities in the international system.
3. Is the United States considered the only superpower in the world because of her effective
instruments of foreign policies
4. Can China be considered a superpower even though her cultural instruments are not
very effective?
References for Further Reading

Morgenthau, H. Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace (New York: Alfred
Knopf, 1950). Chapter 9
Clarke, M. and B. White Understanding foreign policy: the foreign policy systems approach.
(Aldershot: Edward Elgar, 1989) Chapter 7.
Hermann, M. T. Preston, B. Korany and T. Shaw, ‘Who leads matters: the effect of powerful
individuals’, International Studies Review 3(2) 2001, pp.83–132.
Joseph Nye (2009). Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and

History. Boston: Elm Street Publishing Services. P. 39-45
26
SECTION THREE
LEVELS OF ANALYSIS AND GEOPOLITICS
Section Objectives
1. Identify the levels of analysis postulated by James Rosenau
2. Explain the impact of the variables of the levels of analysis in international relations
3. Assess the role of geo-politics in interstate relations
3.0 Introduction
This section examines the concept of levels of analysis. In particular, it discusses the various
variables of the philosophies of analysis advanced by Rosenau. A notable element also discussed
is geopolitics which is the study of how geographical features impacts on interstate relations.
3.1 What is Levels of Analysis?

In his seminal paper, “The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations’, 1961, J.D.
Singer, pioneered the discourse on levels of analysis when he postulated the state and the
international system as units of analysis (Goldstein et.al, 2006:133). Singer pointed out that ‘in
any area of scholarly inquiry, there are always several ways in which the phenomena under study
may be sorted and arranged for purposes of systemic analysis’ (1961:71).
James Rosenau built on the foundation of Singer when in 1966, he published his five-
dimensional levels of analysis in his scholarly article ‘Pre-theories and Theories of Foreign
Policy’. Among the philosophies of analysis he advanced are: the idiosyncratic and role levels,
governmental politics, the societal level and the international system. Later that year, Rosenau
systematized his levels of analysis in his famous magnum opus, The Scientific Study of Foreign
Policy.
Charles Kegley defines levels of analysis as “the different aspects of and agents in international
affairs that may be stressed in interpreting and explaining global phenomena” (2004:14). Levels
of analysis refers to the units which researchers, students of international relations, historians,
biographers and hagiographers attach variables to phenomena in order to comprehensively
27
explain and predict them. It is now broadly accepted that different levels of analysis inputs into
the decision process, and institutional as well as cultural and societal factors converge to shape
foreign policy output.
3.2 Idiosyncratic/Individual Level of Analysis

According to Rosenau, an individual variable is “any aspect of an actor which characterized him
prior to his assumption of policy making responsibilities and which did not necessarily
characterize any other person who might have occupied, through election, appointment, or other
means, the same position” (1971:161). The individual level of analysis is build on the
assumption that individual leaders make foreign policy decisions and different leaders will make
different foreign policy decisions given the same situation because of unique idiosyncrasies
(Rouke, 1997:127). Rosenau argues that in the exercise of the role occupied by an individual,
there is always an allowance or leeway for individual expression, discretion and interpretation of
events made possible by the uniqueness of different personalities and other singular variables
(1971:160).
Ralph Waldo states that: “individuals are the movers of history and there is properly no history,
only biography” (Kegley, 2006:86). This explains why certain doctrines are linked to leaders of
states at particular eras: the Nixon doctrine, Bush doctrine, Truman doctrine, the travelling
papacy of John Paul II and Obamanomics (a buzzword that describes the economic philosophy
of U.S President Barack Obama).
Some of idiosyncratic variables are: age, personal experience, health, world view
(weltangschüüng), past history, ego and ambition, political history, education, temperament,
ideology and morality, personalizing tendencies and personal policy beliefs among others
(Rouke, 1997:131). In examining the role of the Prisoner’s Dilemma factor in the outbreak of the
Peloponnesian War according to the history of Thucydides, Joseph Nye Jr. concludes that:
“human decisions mattered. Accidents and personalities make a difference even if they work
within limits set by the larger structure....” (2007:19).
For instance, one cannot explain the unprecedented collapse of the Soviet Union and the Cold
War without examining the youthful adventures of President Mikhail Gorbachev. More still, it
28
will be extremely difficult to analyze the distinctive nature of Papal Diplomacy (1978-2005)
without making allusions to the idiosyncratic variables of Pope John Paul II. This explains why
John Tanyi carried out an extensive research to ascertain the role of Pope John Paul II
idiosyncratic variables: nationality, age, worldview and pre-papal experience in his conduct of
Vatican’s diplomacy during his papacy.
Traditionally Foreign Policy Analysis was concerned with the role of decision-makers in making
foreign policies of states. Perhaps a better question is when do leaders matter? Not every foreign
policy decision carries the imprint of the leader’s distinctive personal characteristics and
perceptions. Another vital question that foreign policy analysts could ask is ‘which leaders
matter?’ Government personnel other than the top leader may leave more of an impression on
certain foreign policy decisions. It also matters if a leader is interested in foreign policy or not.
The crisis situation is also another important variable. If the crisis is so extreme that a country’s
survival is at stake, a leader may try to keep his/her psychological predispositions in check in
order to avoid making any unnecessary mistakes.
Margaret Hermann talked of diplomatic training of a leader. Untrained leaders most likely rely
on their personal worldviews in any foreign policy response. Trained leaders will most likely
subordinate their personal traits to the diplomatic requirements of the situation. The idiosyncratic
variables of leaders in developing countries are pronounced on the foreign policies of their
various countries than those in the developed countries/democracies. Many developing countries
have personalized political systems in which institutions such as the national assembly do not
play an active role in foreign policy decisions. Most of them are rubber-stamped institutions.
3.3 Bureaucratic Politics

Bureaucratic politics is built on the assumption that leaders make foreign policy decisions but it
is the bureaucracies that execute and implements the decisions. Foreign policies are formulated
within the confines of certain state institutions. Max Weber appraised the role of the bureaucracy
when he wrote “in a modern state the actual ruler is necessarily and unavoidably the
bureaucracy, since power is exercised neither through parliamentary speeches nor monarchical
enunciations but through the routines of administrations” (1978:1393). Leaders decide what is to
be done, bureaucracies decide how to do it. Bureaucracies are often concerned with their varied
29
interests and survivability. Such interests need to be taken into consideration in the examination
of foreign policies of states. Generally, bureaucracies and institutions in developed democracies
play a crucial role in the design and implementation of foreign policies than in personalized
political systems, dictatorships and military juntas and the like.
President Woodrow Wilson in his famous Fourteen Point Speech called for the formation of an
international organization for the maintenance of world’s peace. The end result was the League
of Nations. However, the United States did not join the League because the Senate vetoed the
idea of her joining the organization. Bureaucratic inertia must be taken into consideration when
explaining the activity of states in the international milieu. Francis Rourke says ‘bureaucracies at
rest tend to stay at rest, and bureaucracies in motion tend to stay in motion’ (1972:40-50).
According to Graham Allison an analysis of foreign policies of states starts with these
bureaucracies that formulates and implement them. This approach to understanding foreign
policy therefore emphasizes the interplay between leaders, bureaucratic actors, and
organizational culture and, to an extent, political actors outside of the formal apparatus of the
state. No matter how influential or mercenary, a single leader cannot make and implement
foreign policy. Some of the decisions are always made in a group setting. Most high-level
foreign policy decisions are made in small groups of approximately fifteen persons.
3.4 Governmental Politics
The nature and type of the political system is very important in explaining interstate relations.
States customarily have open/democratic or closed political systems/authoritarian. Open political
systems are democracies while closed systems are often characterized as dictatorships and
military juntas and the like. Open political systems are accountable to their people perhaps
because of elections. In open political systems, the public has a say in the domestic and foreign
policy issues. Public opinion gets to the government through various interest groups.
In closed political systems (One party political system, military juntas and monarchies), public
opinion does not translate so much in the foreign policy issues. The state is considered a black
box which must not be opened to public scrutiny. The ordinary people are expected to be more
preoccupied with common bread and butter issues and not very delicate and sensitive issues like
30
national security. Demonstrations and revolts are not tolerated in closed political systems. This
explains why the Chinese government barbarically cracked down and killed many students on
June 4, 1989, for organizing a public protest in Tiananmen. Popular dissent is not tolerated in
closed political systems.
The foreign policies of military and personalized political regimes are diversionary in nature
because of illegitimate leadership and conscious attempts to divert domestic heat. When
analyzing foreign policy of states, it is important to identify whether the country is democratic or
not. The domestic political system affects the activities of states.
3.4.1 Type of Situation/Crisis Situation
The type of situation is an important variable of governmental politics. Even in very advanced
democracies, public opinion is not often sought for during dire crisis situations. Decision makers
may be overwhelmed with the gravity of the situation and urgent decisions have to be made. For
instance, because of the mass killing of people in Tana Delta in 2012, President Kibaki deployed
the military to the region without seeking approval of the Kenyan parliament. During the Cuban
Missile Crisis of October 1962, President J.F Kennedy involved only the chiefs and top officials
of the CIA to decipher the course of action for the United States. During non-crisis situations,
inputs from the general public may be considered especially in democracies.
3.4.2 Types of Policy
Generally, decision makers have more leeway in deciding foreign policy matters than domestic
matters. However the gap between domestic and foreign policies is rendered irrelevant by the
forces of globalization. Citizens customarily want to participate more in domestic policies. When
British premier, John Major sent British troops to Bosnia in the 1990s, there was little dissent or
even interest from the public. However the 1996 Beef War was a very topical issue among the
British population. The European Union put a ban on the importation of beef from Britain
because some of it contained a germ (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) that could cause the
mad-cow disease (Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease), public opinion became very audible. The so-called
Beef War led to a lot of opposition in the UK. The European Union asked for the slaughtering of
some 4 million infected cows, the cost covered by the farmers and the treasury. Many called for
Britain to cut off from Europe.
31
3.5 The Societal Level of Analysis
The nature of the society is an important component in the analysis of the foreign policy of
states. National identity and culture shape foreign policy decision making. Samuel Huntington
predicted that a clash of civilizations will be the fundamental cause of the next major world war.
Some of the societal variables include the particulars of geography, political history/culture of
states, ethnic compositions and national traits among others. The diplomatic influence of Japan
in Asia is negative because of the sexual atrocities the Japanese committed in Vietnam.
Since the establishment of the Jewish State in Palestine, the US foreign policy has been pro-
Israel because of the Jewish influential lobby group in the United States. Many of the Jews are
influential business men and women, members of the Senate and Congress with huge resources
and they customarily finance presidential electoral campaigns. Kenya’s foreign policy will
always factor in the interest of Somalia because of the big Somali population in Kenya.
In diplomacy, national traits oftentimes find expression in the image of the foreign policies of
states. From an official gazette of the Beijing government, her first foreign policy principle is
‘Maintaining Independence, Self-Reliance and National Sovereignty’ (China, 1993:3). This
Chinese first foreign principle is intricately linked to traits of her political culture and history,
namely: Sinocentrism, insistent sovereignty and a sense of being beset by foreign powers. The
Chinese have a prickly insistence on self-reliance and sovereignty because of their Sinocentric
notion, in which they view themselves as the political and cultural center of the world.
Indeed, the Chinese word for country is Zhong Guo which means ‘middle place’ (Rouke,
1997:96). Historically, the Chinese empire was built on their supposedly cultural superiority over
her neighbors. Writing on America’s European NATO allies in the early 1960s, Henry Kissinger
noted that nations are not abstract entities. A nation’s aspirations (sense of identity and
memories) are not merely a ‘morbid obsession with the past. They constitute the essence of
nationhood’ (Otte, 2001:184). In his study of the Vienna System, Kissinger observed ‘history is
the memory of states’. Poland’s national traits also found expression in John Paul’s Ostpolitik.
3.5.1 Geopolitics
The term “geopolitics” was coined in 1899 by a Rudolf Kjellen, a Swedish political scientist.
Geopolitics is a serious field of inquiry and it studies the influence of geographical factors on
32
state behavior - location, climate, natural resources, population, and physical terrain determine a
state’s foreign policy options and its position in the hierarchy of states.
The various dimensions of geopolitics coalesce around the significance of the location of states
on the world map. The particulars of geography customarily impact on interstate relations.
Geography may be a liability or asset in foreign policy. Some of the geographical variables
include: location, landlockedness, geographical terrain, population, size of the country, ethnicity.
Geographical variables give some countries leverage or reduce their leverage over their
neighbors. Leverage is a source of power.
Access to ports, waterways and strategic land features impacts on foreign policy decisions. Many
landlocked countries fall prey to their neighbors with coastline, who then may exert
disproportionate influence (leverage) over their economy. A state that is landlocked between two
other states is likely to have very different foreign policy objectives from one that is surrounded
by sea or other natural barriers. Uganda’s foreign policy is customarily pro-Kenya because she is
landlocked and depends on Kenyan’s ports for importation and exportation of her goods. Lesotho
could not join other African countries to criticize Apartheid government in South Africa in 1980s
because she is landlocked and depends on South Africa for ports services. Access to the sea is an
important facet of geopolitics.
The mountainous terrain of Afghanistan is a consideration in her foreign policy. She cannot
easily be attacked by foreign powers because of her difficult and complicated terrain. That is
why the Soviet Union was defeated and had to pull out of Afghanistan in 1979. Egypt’s decision
to join the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa {COMESA} was among others
based on geographical reasons. The Nile passes via the COMESA zone. Geography has always
played an important role in human affairs. It has shaped the identity, character, and history of
nation-states. According to geopolitical analysts, there exists an important connection between
location, wealth and power. States that are located in areas with a temperate climate tend to be
economically and militarily more powerful than other states. States located around the equator or
in the frigid areas of the planet tend to be economically underdeveloped and continually at the
mercy of the environment. Climate also impacts on the ability of a state to prosecute a war.
Climate affects terrain and this has an impact on warfare.
33
Deserts, jungles, and mountain ranges require special training and equipment, and can either
benefit an army or be the cause spectacular military defeats. Thus, the location of a country has
strategic implications. Not only would the foreign policy objectives of each state vary according
to their position along the river system, but it would also lead to very different strategic
responses in the event of a military crisis. The main assumption of geopolitical analysis is a
belief that states’ economic and military capability, their position in the hierarchy of states, and
how they relate to their neighbors are the consequence of geographical factors.
In international relations, geography is destiny. However, it will be very reductionistic to explain

a state’s behavior via a single factor. Geopolitics is only one of them. Some scholars argue that
in the twenty-first century, geopolitics is obsolete, superseded by “chronopolitics” or
“geoeconomics” - the strategic value of the “non-place” of speed has been supplanted that of
place as electronic communications and accelerated modes of transport have compressed time
and space (Griffiths & O’Callaghan, 2002:124).
3.6 The International System/Systemic Level

The international system is arguably the highest level of abstraction in the study of international
politics. The realists argue that states do not make foreign policies but the nature and structure of
the international system dictates the nature of their foreign policies. Foreign policy output is
thrown into the international system. Among the systemic variables are polarity, war,
globalization and the like. A unipolar world is one characterized by one superpower while a
bipolar world has two superpowers as was the case during the Cold War.
Multipolarity refers to a state of affairs characterized by many poles of power. Two categories of
variables in foreign policy analysis are systemic and domestic variables. In examining the
foreign policy of states, it is important to know how the external environment impacts on policy
makers. What the foreign policy decision makers see in the environment will also inform the
choice of the instrument they will make use of. The Cold War state of affairs dictated the foreign
policies of states. States either subscribed to capitalism or communist ideologies.
The Cold War presented tactful leaders in Africa with some rare leverage over powerful states.
Tactful leaders like Abdel Nasser of Egypt were able to ‘prostitute’ on both blocks and gained
scholarships and loans for their countries from both the United States and the Soviet Union. It
34
was because of the Cold War that countries such as Finland and Yugoslavia led the formation of
the Non Aligned Movement (NAM). Members of the NAM were ideally neutral but in reality,
they leaned toward one of the main camps.
The United States foreign policies traditionally oscillated between isolationism and
interventionism because of the nature of the international system informed by the famous
farewell speech of President Washington of 1796 and the Monroe Doctrine of 1832. George
Washington warned the United States not to go in search of monsters but to concentrate on her
backyard, a claim reiterated by President Monroe. The external environment according to
Washington would corrupt the puritanical Americans. This explains why the U.S never took part
in the scramble and colonization of Africa. The U.S because of her isolationist tendency never
joined the League of Nations although the idea of its formation came from President Woodrow
Wilson of the U.S. She is still not a signatory of the International Criminal Court. However, U.S
foreign policy has always oscillated between isolationism and interventionism. Before World
War I, the United States had only intervened in Haiti 1896 and Hawaii 1903.
During the Cold War, the U.S supreme foreign policy was Containment (containing the spread of
Communism). The United States went to the extent of going to bed with friendly despots such as
Mobutu Sese Seko and Daniel Arap Moi because of containing the spread of the communist
ideologies. Democracy was not a top U.S priority during the Cold War. When the War ended,
democracy became the top U.S foreign policy and many states in the developing world were thus
obliged to lunch multiparty politics in the early 1990s. The U.S stopped engaging with
undemocratic countries and even let go of her friendly tyrants such as Mobutu Sese Seko and
Manuel Noriega of Panama. Liberal democracy promotes U.S business abroad. Thus, the foreign
policies of states may change because of the nature of the international system.
From the Second World War, U.S foreign policy has been oscillating between multilateralism
and unilateralism. The foreign policy depends on the outlook of the international system.
Multilateral conferences like the United Nations were formed in the U.S and major offices are in
the U.S however, she has also chosen not to ratify international regimes like the International
Criminal Court.
3.7 Section Summary
35
Levels of analysis refers to variables which political scientists make use of in explaining global
phenomena. David Singer pioneered the discussions of levels of analysis in 1961. However,
James Rosenau systematized the concept of levels of analysis in his 1966 major work The
Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. Rosenau advanced fives philosophies of analysis namely:
individual levels of analysis, bureaucratic politics, governmental politics, the societal levels of
analysis and the international system.
Review Questions
1. What are levels of analysis?
2. List the five levels of analysis developed by James Rosenau in his Scientific Study of
Foreign Policy
3. Does the structure of the international system determine the behavior of states?
4. Discuss some geopolitical variables that are important in the analysis of the foreign
policies of states?

Francis Rourke (1978). Bureaucracy and Foreign Policy. Baltimore: Hopkins University Press.
Pp. 40-51
Halperin Morton, Priscilla Clapp and Arnold Kanter {2006}. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign
Policy {second edi}. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution Press
James Rosenau (1966). The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York
36
SECTION FOUR
THE REALIST THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (REALISM)
Section Objectives
1. Discuss the theoretical foundations of realism
2. Explain the influence of realism in interstate relations
3. Examine the strength and weaknesses of the realist theory of international relations
4.0 Introduction to Realpolitik

In his reputed book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 1962, Thomas Kuhn, argued that new
theories emerge to cure the anomalies inherent in existing ones. Realism and Idealism are the
traditional theories of International Relations. Realism strongly emerged in the 1930s to cure the
weaknesses of Idealism which had been postulated in the aftermath of World War I. This section
examines the antecedents, assumptions, relevance and weaknesses of realism in international
politics. Leaders make use these theories without being aware or stating that they are making use
of them. It is scholars and analysts of international relations who identify the impact of the
theories in the decision making of scholars. The theories are used interchangeably by leaders
depending on the issues. Joseph Nye Jr. once wrote:
When I was working in Washington and helping formulate American foreign policies as an assistant secretary in the
State Department and the Pentagon, I found myself borrowing elements from all three types of thinking: realism,
liberalism, and constructivism. I found all of them helpful, though in different ways and in different
circumstances…..John Maynard Keynes once put it, practical men who consider themselves above theory are
usually listening to some dead scribbler from the past whose name they have long forgotten {Keynes:1936:383}.
4.1 Antecedents of Realism
Realism is the most influential theory of international relations epitomized by the writings of
Hans Morgenthau (the father of modern realism). Although realism as a theory is said to have
emerged in the 1930s as a reaction to idealism, there are numerous elements/antecedents of
realism in the writings of ancients and medieval scholars and politicians. There are elements of
realism in The Art of War (a Chinese military treatise) written by Tzu Suu about 2500 years ago.
37
The Athenian historian, Thucydides is considered a realist because of some assumptions of
realpolitik contained in his famous History of the Peloponnesian War 420 BC. Machiavelli’s
political treatise The Prince has become a companion for politicians today. Some of the
principles in The Prince are widely quoted today such as ‘the end justifies the means’, ‘leaders
should endeavor to be feared rather than loved’, ‘leaders should honor their words only when it
does not place them at a disadvantage and that they should appear to have many virtuous
qualities even when they do not’.
4.2 Modern and Neo-Realists

Among modern and neo-realists are Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 1651, Reinhold Niebuhr Moral
Man and Immoral Society 1932. EH Carr’s The Twenty Years’ Crisis (1919-1939): An
Introduction to the Study of International Relations (1946). Hans Morgenthau’s Politics among
Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (1948). Morgenthau also wrote Scientific Man vs
Power Politics in 1946. George Kennan who coined the word Containment and Robert
McNamara who popularized the phrase Mutually Assured Destruction in the height of the Cold
War are modern realists. Henry Kissinger famous for his shuttle diplomacy is a hardcore realist.
Neo-realists include Kenneth Waltz’s Theory of International Politics (1979) and John
Mearsheimer among others.
4.3 Assumptions of Realism

There are a number of fundamental assumptions informing the realist school of thought.
4.3.1 Pessimism of Human Nature
Realists such as Thomas Hobbes hold that human nature is corrupt, brutish and uncouth. Life is
all about survival for the fittest. Man is deceitful, sadist and takes pleasure and delight in the
suffering of his fellow man. Since man is a microcosm of the macrocosm which is the state,
when translated, the state is also bad, deceitful and seeks to harm and abuse other states. Perhaps
this is why Mwalimu Julius Nyerere once told Sir Charles Jonjo that Kenya is ‘a man’s eat man’s
society’.
4.3.2 National Interest
The realists assume that states behave the way they do because of national interest. National is
the guiding foreign policy determinant. States do not always desire to cooperate and even when
38
they cooperate it is because of their own interests. When those interests are not met, states stop
cooperating and pull out of international organizations. This explains why Germany left the
League of Nations in 1933 since she was keen on rearmament against the dictates of the League.
According to the realists, states exhibit double standards in their activities in the international
scene because of national interests. Calculations of national interest are self-evident and can be
rationally arrived at through a careful analysis of material conditions of states as well as the
particulars of a given foreign policy dilemma confronting states. Hence Tanzania decided to
withdraw from COMESA and joined SADC because of national interest. Inconsistencies are
inevitable in interstate relations because national interests. Morgenthau taught that “national
interest is indeed the last word in world politics.” Nations ignore national interest only at the risk
of destruction.
4.3.3 International Anarchy
The realists assert that the anarchic nature of the international system is the most important guide
to interpreting states’ behavior. The pursuit of security and efforts to enhance material wealth
place states in competition with other states, limiting the scope for cooperation to a series of
selective, self-interested strategies. The international system according to the realists is
anarchical because there is no legitimate world government or leader.
The international system is a self-help body where states are fighting for their survival. Relations
among and between states are conflictual since states are perpetually competing for scarce
resources, quest for security and power. International relations take place within an anarchic
system where sovereign states compete and cooperate with other international actors. However,
Morgenthau did put some trust in diplomacy as an alternative to war.
4.3.4 Priority of Power
The centrality of power (manifested as military power) – is seen to be the key determinant of a
state’s ability and leverage in interstate relations. Thus, realism is also known as power politics
or realpolitik. According to the realists, power is might and might is right. Power occupies a
central place in the realists understanding of foreign policy. This explains why Hans Morgenthau
entitled his book “Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace” (1948). Nations
39
will behave the way they do because of quest for power. The realists also believe in hard power
through propaganda, war, threats and sanctions.
4.3.5 Priority of the State
Realism is a state centric theory because of its assumption that states are the
chief/primary/fundamental actor or unit of analysis in global politics. However, neo-realists such
as Kenneth Waltz are now acknowledging the growing importance of non-state actors in
international relations especially in this era of rapid globalization. Even though some non-state
actors like multinationals command more economic resources than states, the realists still
consider the state as the primary actor on the international stage. The realists hold that only states
have foreign policies although some non-state actors are now eating on the sovereignty of states.
The realistic perspective assumes that states are and will continue to be in the foreseeable future,
the dominant actors in world affairs. Although the state is the unit of analysis in realism, in
practice, only big states and those at the core matters in international politics. All states are equal
but some are more equal than others.
4.3.6 Consequential Ethics
Realists assume that the foreign policies of states should be judged by its
consequences/outcomes and not by the motives and means. Thus it has been critiqued as being
amoral theory because of its emphasis on the ends or outcomes. Realists hold that morality does
not really matter in interstate relations. Morgenthau acknowledged that realism is aware of the
moral significance of political action. A prominent realist Machiavelli acknowledged that the end
justifies the means. Following Aristotle, Morgenthau argued that prudence – the weighing of
competing alternative courses of action is the supreme moral virtue. The realists will even argue
that states give out humanitarian aid because of reputational pressure or are merely pretending to
look good and moral. Moral considerations compromise issues of national interest according to
this school of thought.
4.3.7 The Structure of the International System
According to the realists, individual states do not make foreign policies but the structure and
nature of the international system dictates and informs the foreign policy options for states. The
realists argue that in this age of unipolarity where the United States is the sole superpower and
40
hegemon, states don’t have any choice but to lean towards the United States. According to the
realists, during the Cold War, states either subscribed to the capitalist and communist ideologies
of the two superpowers. The Non-Aligned Movement was formed because of the Cold War
(nature of the international system). Scholars need to investigate the influences of the structure of
the international system and the relative power of states in order to understand the outcomes of
foreign policy decisions.
4.3.8 Public Opinion
According to the realists, high politics matters and should not be subjected to public opinion.
They hold that high politics is very important to be democratized. The publics should concentrate
on bread and butter issues since they don’t have enough information of issues of high politics
such as security and war. To the realists, foreign policy is masculine and not feminine. The state
is a black box which must not be opened to the general public.
4.4 Structural Realism
Neo-realists and structural realists such as Kenneth Waltz made significant adjustment to
traditional realism. Most of his views were expressed in his book Theory of International Politics
(1979). Waltz sees the structure of the world as the principal determinant of foreign policy
outcomes. The structure is based on the configuration of power distributed among the major
states. The structural realists hold that the structure of the international system determines the
behavior or policies of states.
While Waltz sees the structure as operating under anarchy, states can still make rational choices
about their interests within a framework of incentives and constraints imposed by world
structure. Waltz also holds that states may sometimes choose to bargain than to fight. The
incessant drive for power is not always the main concern for states even if they fight for reasons
of self- preservation. Cooperation for neo-realists mean relative gains based on the amount of
power a state possesses. The structural realists also acknowledge that morality plays some role in
interstate relations although not an overriding role.
41
4.5 Appraisal of Realism
Realism became prominent in the 1930s after the League of Nations failed to prevent the
outbreak of World War II. Among the theories of international relations, realism offers the most
realistic explanation of the behavior of states in the external milieu. Realism will satisfactorily
explain that states such as North Korea and Iran are building military arsenals because of the
anarchic nature of the international system and the security dilemma caused by the absence of a
legitimate world government. It is realism that can explain the double standards portrayed by the
United States in dealing with states in the developing world. Realism will explain that the United
States successfully bullied and threatened sovereign states who flirted with the idea of offering
asylum to former US spy Snowden because of her military and economic might.
However, the realist approach is also limited and cannot really offer satisfactory explanations to
certain behaviors and actions of states. Realists cannot explain why leaders in the Soviet Union
willingly gave up power in Eastern Europe and voluntarily dissolved the Soviet Union. They
cannot explain the existence of the European Union and the African Union since they postulate
that states do not cooperate. Morality matters in the foreign policy formulation of states although
hardcore realists hold a contrary view. The realists fall short in thinking that domestic variables
and the idiosyncratic variables of leaders do not play a role in the foreign policies of states. They
put emphasis on abstracts like state and the international system.
4.6 Section Summary
Realism is the most influential theory of international relations. The writings of Hans
Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz epitomized the assumptions of classical and neo-realism.
Although realism offers a convincing explanation of the behavior of states, its falls shorts on
certain issues. Realism cannot accurately explain the growing prominence of multilateral
diplomacy in the 21st century.
42
Review Questions
1. Who is considered the father of modern realism?
2. What are the major assumptions of the realist theory of international relations?
3. Make an appraisal of realism as a theory of international politics
James Dougherty and Robert Pfaltzgraff (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations:
A Comprehensive Survey. New York: Priscilla McGeehon. P. 63-103
Nye Joseph {2009). Understanding International Politics: An Introduction to Theory and
History. New York: Pearson Longman. P.13-32
John Maynard Keynes, (1936). The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.
London: Macmillan
43
SECTION FIVE
THE LIBERAL THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (LIBERALISM)
Learning Objectives
1. Discuss the main assumptions of idealism
2. Make a critique of the liberalist understanding of interstate relations
3. Carry out a comparative analysis of the realism and liberalism
5.0 Introduction
The idealist school of thought (idealism) is also referred to as utopianism, liberalism and
globalism or institutionalism in some circles. Idealism was the first major theory of international
relations. The school blossomed after World War I. The theory sought to address the root causes
of the devastated World War I and to create an environment safe for peace and democracy.
President Woodrow Wilson of the United States is considered the father of modern idealism.
In the last point of his Fourteen Point Speech, Wilson called for the establishment of an
international organization that could provide the forum where states would gather around the
table and iron out their differences instead of resorting to arm conflicts. The theory was fiercely
criticized after the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. In this section, the antecedents of
idealism, major assumptions and appraisal of the theory would be examined. Liberalism still
remains an important theory that scholars and decision makers make use of in explaining the
activities of states in the international system.
5.1 Antecedents of Idealism
Idealism as a theory of international relations became very prominent after the end of the World
War I. However, elements of idealism are found in the writings and actions of many persons
predating 1919. In some circles, Jesus Christ is considered an idealist because of some of his
actions and wise counsel: love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you, love your
neighbors as you love yourself.
Alighieri Dante (1265-1321), the fourteenth century Italian author, in his essay Of Monarchy
argued that a unified world government is the best way to promote peace. The call for a unified
44
government is one of the tenets of idealism. Immanuel Kant repeated the call for a world
government in On Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1776) by suggesting that
international peace and justice could be most effectively promoted by the creation of a world
federal state. Hugo Grotius focused on “what ought to be” and hope to banish the role of power
by channeling international affairs through the League of Nations. Other proponents include
Norman Angel, Michael Doyle, Robert Keohane and Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter’s emphasis on
human rights in the 1970s renewed the idealistic vision of international peace.
5.2 Assumptions of Idealism
5.2.1 Optimism of Human Nature
The idealists assume that everything God made was/is good. Human beings are motivated by
moral aspirations and the common good for all mankind and not driven by self-interest. People
are good but become corrupted by the political and social structures (nature vs. nurture debate).
Woodrow Wilson believed that the balance of power world order had to be replaced by more
humane global structures based on international organizations, law and democratic regimes and
no secret alliances. It is the environment that makes people evil and not nature. If the
environment is changed, war will be eliminated, “lions and cats” will live together and Daniel
will get a respite in the Lion’s den. Thus, the goal of foreign policies of states is the common
good of mankind. Human beings and states are good and will always seek cooperative
interactions with others. The international community is a community of interest which
transcends national borders. This explains why the realists are also referred to as optimists.
5.2.2 Priority of law and international institutions
Whereas realists believe that international peace and global cooperation are by-products of
interstate power relations, idealists assume that international organizations can contribute greatly
to global order, global economic prosperity and resolution of disputes. This explains why it was
the father of modern idealism, Woodrow Wilson who in his Speech during the Paris Peace
Conference proposed the formation of the League of Nations.
International Organizations preserve world peace and make the world safe for democracy.
Countries should be guided by international law. The liberalists believe in institutionalism and
interdependence of states. Idealists such as Michael Brown are firm adherents of the Democratic
45
Peace Proposition (DPP) which states that “liberal democracies do not go to war with each
other.” Perhaps it is for this reason that at the end of the Cold War, liberal democracy became top
on the United States foreign policy. Thus, idealism is sometimes referred to as liberal
institutionalism.
5.2.3 Morality of Means and Ends
The idealists argue that morality and moral considerations {priority of moral purposes}
oftentimes influence the behavior of states in the external milieu. The major function of morality
is to provide a vision for a better world by inspiring and guiding human actions. They emphasize
morality of means and ends in foreign policy and not solo ethics of ends as preached by the
realists. The idealists hold that states relate with others because of moral considerations and
moral acts such as humanitarian aid are informed by humanitarian imperatives of states.
5.2.4 Universal/Collective Interest
Unlike the realists who postulate that the foreign policies of states are informed by national
interests, the liberalists hold that universal Interest is the guiding principle of the external
behavior of states. They assume that states join international organizations because of the interest
of the whole human race and not national interest. This explains why they called for collective
security in the League of Nations where an attack on a member was considered an attack to all
the members. States are keepers of each other they hold. It is for this reason that the liberalists
are also called Universalists. Because Of their optimism in the common good of humanity, E.H
Carl in his magnum opus, The Twenty Years’ Crisis referred to them as idealists.
5.2.5 The State as the Unit of Analysis
The idealists hold that states are the primary level of analysis although they may sometimes cede
part of their sovereignty to international organization and regional organizations. This explains
why certain decisions of the European Union are considered the foreign policies of the member
states. Although the idealists postulate that the state is the primary actor in the international
system, they also acknowledge that other non-state actors are now influencing events on the
global stage.
5.3 The Efficacy of Diplomacy
46
According to the idealists, diplomacy is the most important instrument of foreign policy.
Diplomacy is seen by them as a continuation of war by other means. The idealists hold that states
are cooperative and always willing to sit around the table and resolve their differences amicably.
The growing importance of multilateral diplomacy epitomized by the General Assembly of the
United Nations is a testament to that fact. The idealists are also called Globaloney because of
their belief in globalization. The idealist hold that people are becoming citizens of the world due
to the interconnectivity of networks brought about by globalization. Globalization is rendering
national borders obsolete thereby making people citizens of the world.
5.4 Relevance of Idealism
Institutions like the United Nations play a great role in fostering international cooperation. States
are sending peacekeeping missions to different trouble spots under the auspices of the United
Nations. Multilateral diplomacy has in the twenty first century become the leading form of
diplomacy and states meet and carry out peace negotiation relating to different issues.
Organizations are playing a leading role in the maintenance of peace and stability in the world.
The United Nations General Council is the legitimate body charged with the maintenance of
international peace and security. The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)
played a significant role in ending the Yom Kippur War of 1973. The idealists foresaw the
impact of Globalization which is playing a major role in world politics.
5.5 Critique of Liberalism
Liberalism has come under scathing attacks as being too optimistic and out of touch with reality.
The liberalists see the world the way it ought to be and not the way it is. This explains why they
are called utopians or idealists by some schools of thought. The liberalists could not explain why
the League of Nations failed to prevent the outbreak of World War II and why states go to war
even though they are members of the United Nations. They cannot explain the power politics in
the Security Council and why the Council cannot pass a resolution on the Syrian crisis. The
Security Council is still occupied by traditional power states and victors of the Second World
War and not the rising economically powerful states like Japan, India, Germany and Brazil.
Yes states cooperate through international organizations but collective/universal interest does not
have precedence over national interest of states. The liberalists cannot explain why President
Woodrow Wilson of the United States proposed the establishment of the League of Nations but
47
the U.S. did not join the League. Idealism cannot explain why the United States funds the
International Criminal Courts but is not a member. Although realism and liberalism are the
traditional theories of international relations, both of them have their loopholes and do not
present a satisfactory explanation of the whole idea of international politics.
5.6 Section Summary
Idealism is a traditional theory of international relations which became popularized after the end
of World War I. President Woodrow Wilson is considered the father of Idealism. The theory
faced scathing attacks after the world powers failed to stop Hitler from terrorizing most of
Europe leading to the outbreak of World War Two. Liberalism still remains a very relevant
theory in international relations although not as influential as realism.
Revision Questions
1. What the assumptions of idealism?

2. Make a critique of Idealism
3. ‘Foreign policy decisions reflect interplay between idealism and realism’. Discuss
Chris Brown, (1992). International Relations Theory: New Normative Approaches. New York:
Columbia University Press. Pp.159-165, 182-188
United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations, Transnational Corporations in World

Development: Third Survey. New York: United Nations. Pp.46-50
48
SECTION SIX
THE MARXIST THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS (MARXISM)
Section Objectives
1. Discuss the main assumptions of Marxism
2. Assess the relevance of Marxism in international relations
3. Examine the contributions of neo-Marxist theories in analyzing interstate relations
6.0 Introduction
The Marxist approaches in international relations are referred to as the radical theories because
they depart from the norm/conventional or the traditionally approaches. They challenge
conventional wisdom of explaining interstate relations and offer a radical perspective in
understanding international relations. The Marxist theories are associated with the doctrines of
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. There is a difference between Marxist scholars and Karl Marx.
Marxist scholars used the ideas of Marx to develop Marxism. The ideologies of Marx have
oftentimes been misused by individuals and states such as the Soviet Union. Apart from main
stream Marxism, there are neo-Marxist theories: Dependency Theory and World Capitalist
Economy. In this section, the assumptions and relevance of Marxism are discussed. Neo-Marxist
approaches are also examined.
6.1 Karl Marx
Marx was born into a middle class family in Germany {1818-1883}. In his early years, he read
the works of G.W.F Hegel. Marx wrote a couple of books namely: the Communist Manifesto
(1948), Das Kapital (1867-1894) and the Eighth Bremier. In 1843 Marx moved to France where
he began writing radical articles for some newspapers. It was in France that he met Friedrich
Engels, who would become his lifelong friend and collaborator.
Marx was a philosopher, social scientist, historian and revolutionary and without doubts the most
influential socialist thinker of the 19th century. Although he was largely ignored by scholars
during his lifetime, his social, economic and political ideas gained rapid interest after his death.
Until recently almost half the population of the world lived under regimes that ascribed to
Marxist ideologists especially in Eastern Europe. However the original ideas of Marx have been
49
modified and contextualized by different political systems and leaders. Marx did extensive
research on capitalism and sought to expose the flaws in it.
6.2 Assumptions of Marxism
6.2.1 Economic Determinism
Marxist scholars hold that the economy determines all aspects of behavior in the society. The
social, economic and cultural life of states is determined by the economy. Economic variables
are those that matter in foreign policy decision making. Economy is the totality of the production
system. Religion gives false consciousness to the ordinary people who are misused by the
Bourgeoisies. It is the opium of the people. Ethnicity does not matter. The economic stature of a
country is important in analyzing her foreign policies.
6.2.2 Classism
Unlike in Idealism and Realism, Class is the unit of analysis for Marxism. A class is a group of
people occupying a particular or same position in the process of production. The Marxists hold
that human societies progress through class struggle: conflict between the ownership class that
controls production and a proletariat that provides the labour for production. Marx called
capitalism the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie," believing it is run by the wealthy classes for
their own benefit; and he predicted that, like previous socioeconomic systems, capitalism
produced internal tensions which would lead to its self-destruction and replacement by a new
system called socialism.
Marx argued that under socialism, the society would be governed by the working class in what
he called the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, the "workers' state" or "workers' democracy" He
believed that socialism would eventually be replaced by a stateless, classless society called
communism. The dominant class owns the means of production: land, capital and factories. The
subordinate class provides the labor. The dominant class which makes the rules is called the
Bourgeoisie while the subordinate class is called proletariat which Marx termed ‘a sack of
potatoes’ and ‘peasants’ in his the Eighth Bremmier.
6.2.3 Class Interest
50
According to Marx, a state is a committee of the Bourgeoisies managing the affairs of the
society. The society in Marxism is the economy. The economy is managed for the interest of the
committee. Thus, when a state expands and defines her interests in relation with another state, it
is the class expanding her class interest. Classes interact with one another. The classes and in
particular the Bourgeoisie class determines the foreign policies of States.
In his Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote that Class interest is the raison d’être why classes relate
with one another. For Marxism, the behavior of the state reflects the interest of the class. The
interest of the state is the interest of the class. In Marxist analysis, the rich Jewish lobby groups
in the United States lobby for their interest and not the interest of the State of Israel. For
Marxism, classes everywhere in the world are similar. The interest of the dominant class in
Kenya is similar to the interest of the dominant class in France. Thus, foreign policies of states
are not supposed to clash.
6.3 Relevance of Marxism
The demise of communism actually diminished the influence and presence of Marxism in the
world. Francis Fukuyama in the End of History and the Last Man (1992) fiercely argued that
history ended with the triumph of capitalism over communism. But the end of the Cold War did
not completely eliminate Marxism as an important source of thinking in international relations.
Marxism is still widely used by scholars to explain and predict the behavior of states.
Kevin Danaher analyzed Jimmy Carter’s Foreign Policy towards Apartheid South Africa in his
Political Economy of US Foreign Policy towards South Africa. In 1977 Carter campaigned on a
moralist platform and promised to end Apartheid in South Africa. Danaher found that the
Carter’s administration was dominated by people who had direct or indirect interests in many
companies in South Africa. According to Danaher, the anti-apartheid promises of the Carter’s
administration were more of rhetoric than action. Danaher concluded that Carter did not fulfill
his promise of being tough on South Africa because of the interest of his henchmen and women
who owned shares in companies in South Africa. President Jimmy Carter appointed Andrew
Yang as United States representative to the United Nations so as to help put stringent measures
by UN on South Africa. Andrew Yang had shares in some companies in South Africa and
instead advised the UN not to put sanctions on South Africa. Samora Machel reportedly told
Yang off during a United Nations meeting because of Yang’s pro-apartheid stance.
51
6.4 Labor Movements
The increase of labor movements and unions in the world is a testament of the relevance of
Marxism in today’s world. The unions lobby for the interests of their workers. The Solidarity
Movement under the leadership of Lech Walesa played an instrumental role in the collapse of the
Soviet Union in Eastern Europe. The labors unions in Kenya under COTU, the teachers unions
KNUT and KUPETS are very vocal in their quest for pushing for the rights of their members as
Marx predicted. One of Marx’s favorite maxim was ‘workers of the world unite’.
6.5 Socialist Governments
Marxism may have failed as a political program in Eastern Europe and the world but still very
alive and useful as a theory. In recent times, there has been a resurgence of Communism. The
Duma in China is still being controlled by the Communists. The Socialist Party in France won
the elections that brought Francoise Holland to power. The socialist party in Poland is still very
influential. The rise of Hugo Chavez, the former socialist populist leader of Venezuela illustrates
the continued importance of Marxist concepts for opposing global capitalism and western
imperialism. Even capitalist states like United States are still pushing for some degree of state
control of some sectors of the economy.
Democracy is not necessarily the only way to development. Communist states are making big
strides in development. The growth of the Chinese economy is an apt example. Marxism
explains that globalization is a continuum of domination of the marginalized by the Bourgeoisie.
Conclusively, as long as capitalism remains dominant, so too will Marxism continue to be an
influential school of ideas for opposing the effects of global capitalism.
6.6 Critique of Marxism
Although Marxism remains an important approach in the analysis of interstate relations, it is not
without loopholes and anomalies. The Marxists ignore certain non-economic variables like
religion, ethnicity and the state in their analysis of world politics. They limit the formulation of
foreign policy of states to economic factors. Marxism appears to ignore responsibility of
leadership and individuals who formulate foreign policies of states. Foreign policy decisions are
made by individuals and so the role of the individuals cannot be ignored. Foreign policy
52
decisions could be influenced by the idiosyncratic variables of the leader, and the type of
leadership could have a bearing on the foreign policy of states. Policy makers or leaders do not
deliberately say they are using liberalism/Marxism in their policy formulations. It is scholars and
theorists who identify their application and try to explain the policies of leaders with the help of
the theories.
6.7 NEO-MARXIST THEORIES
6.7.1 THE WORLD SYSTEM THEORY/ WORLD CAPITALIST ECONOMY
The World System Theory was developed by Immanuel Wallenstein. Wallenstein envisaged the
world as one global economy (borderless) where states are either at the core or periphery of the
system. Western states are said to be at the core while their counterparts in the developing world
occupy the periphery of the world’s economy. Semi-peripheral states are those emerging from
the periphery or states which previously were at the core but are now diminishing in economic
importance. Some of the new emerging economies include Brazil, India, Singapore and South
Africa. Western countries facing serious economic problems and have been relying on financial
bail outs from the International Monetary Fund and rich nations like the United States, France
and Germany are also now occupying the semi-periphery region of the world’s economy and
include: Greece, Ireland and Portugal. The foreign policies of states at the core are more
influential than those at periphery because the former have the instruments to implement their
foreign policies. Peripherilization means Marginalization
6.7.2 Some Assumptions of the World’s Capitalist Economy
Unlike states at the periphery, those at the core decide the prices and types of goods and services
in the international market. A country needs to be at the core in order to have a big influence in
the global economy. The United States’ foreign policy is more influential than others because it
is at the core of the world’s economy and has the necessary instruments to make her foreign
policies effective and efficient. States at the periphery do not really matter and their foreign
policies do not matter as well. The New International Economic Order (NIEO) was a strategy of
those in the periphery to overturn the status quo. International organizations which are controlled
by states at the core are instruments of foreign policy of states at the core.
53
G77, the Non-aligned Movement, regional integrations and organizations, New Partnership for
Africa’s Development {NEPAD} and African Growth Opportunity Act {AGOA} are
instruments of countries at the periphery to make their voice heard and overturn their
predicament in the world global economy. Regional organizations of states at the periphery are
not very effective and influential like those at the Core. For instance, the European Union has a
stronger influence in world’s politics than the African Union. Multinational corporations are very
often used as instruments of foreign policies of their home governments.
6.8 DEPENDENCY THEORY
Dependency theory originated largely from Latin America in the 1950s. Among its foremost
proponents are Andre Gunder Frank, Raul Prebistch, Walter Rodney and Fernando Cardoso.
Anyang Nyong’o, Ali Mazrui and Samir Amin are among the dependency theorists from Africa.
Dependency theory explains the predicament of countries in the Third World. Walter Rodney’s
book How Europe Underdeveloped Africa explained the predicament of states in the developing
world. Dependency theory was initially postulated as a reaction to Modernization Theory which
posits that countries of the Third World have to cooperate with those in the First World for
technical knowledge and instruments for development.
Dependency theory states that foreign policies of states in the Third World are dependent on the
external behavior of states at the core. Dependency is defined as the growth and expansion of
one economy is conditioned by the growth and expansion of another economy. Foreign policy
formulation and implementation of states at the core differs markedly from the policies of those
at the periphery. They hold that contrary to the promises of Modernization Theory, the
interaction between states at the core and periphery will not necessarily lead to development.
Modernization theory was developed by some European and American social scientists to
explain the process of transformation from traditional to modern societies. Among the scholars
was Walt Whitman Rostow who explained the five stages of growth in his book The Stages of
Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto (1960).
6.9 Sovereignty and Foreign Policy
The dependent countries do not boost of the Westphalian sovereignty because they do not
usually initiate actions without external pressure. They sometimes sell/cede their sovereignty or
54
their sovereignty is trampled upon by the states at the core. The foreign policy of states at the
periphery is always reactive and not proactive. The foreign policy of states at the periphery is
also not effective because they lack effective instruments for enforcing their foreign policies.
A Dependent country may even sacrifice her national security and sovereignty to serve the
interest of a state at the core. For instance, Senegal sacrificed her soldiers to fight alongside the
soldiers of the United States in the Iraqi war in 1991. In 1982, the annual General Assembly of
the Organization of African Unity did not take place in Libya because the United States warned
African governments not to attend since they were not in good terms with Colonel Gadhafi.
Many countries in Africa and in the Third World only opened diplomatic relations with China
after 1979 when the United States formally established relations with mainland China. Thus,
their decision to establish diplomatic ties with the China was reactive and not proactive and
dependent on the initiative of the United States. The class which makes foreign policy in
dependent states is weak because it is made up of Comprados Bourgeoisies. Although they are
Bourgeoisies, the Comprados serve the interests of the international Bourgeoisies. President
Manuel Noriega of Panama was an example of the comprador Bourgeoisie who served the
interests of the influential Bourgeoisies in the West.
6.10 Section Summary
Marxism is a radical theory of international relations based on the doctrines, ideas and ideologies
of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marxism explains interstate relations in terms of economic
factors. The Communist regimes in the world are informed by Marxism and the end of the Cold
War in 1989 was a big blow to Marxism since it signified the triumph of Capitalism over
Marxism (Francis Fukuyama). In recent times, there has been a resurgence of Marxism with
socialist governments winning elections around the world. The neo-Marxist theories are the
world capitalist economy and the dependency theory.
Revision Questions
1 What are the main assumptions of Marxism?
2 Is Marxism still relevant after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Cold War?
55
3 What are the notable similarities and dissimilarities between the radical and the traditional
approaches of international relations?

James Dougherty and Robert Pfaltzgraff (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations:
A Comprehensive Survey. New York: Priscilla McGeehon. Pp. 416-484
Martin Griffiths et al (2008), International Relations. The Key Concepts. 2nd edition. Routledge.
Taylor and Francis Group. New York. Pp. 71-72, 196-198
56
SECTION SEVEN
INTERNATIONAL ACTORS AND INTERNATIONAL REGIMES
Section Objectives
a. Define international actors and regimes

b. Describe the activities of different international actors and regimes
c. Examine the role of international actors and regimes in international politics
7.0 Introduction
This section looks at the roles of international regimes and actors in world politics. It examines
the different categories of international actors and regimes and their impacts in international
relations. The Marxist, Realist and Idealist perspectives of international regimes are also
discussed below.
7.1 Definition and Categories of International Actors
An international actor (IA) is a unit with some degree of autonomy, resources and sufficient
amount of power to influence the behavior of other units in the International System. It could
also be seen as any organized unit that commands the identification, interest, loyalty of
individuals and affects interstate relations. An IA enjoys some degree of autonomy to achieve its
interests, objectives and purposes. The presence or absence of an international actor makes a
difference in the international system. For instance, after 25 years since the demise of the Cold
War and the Soviet Union, the absence of the United Socialist Soviet Republic is still being felt.
The absence of USSR has even changed the political frameworks of some countries into
capitalism and changed the nature of polarity in the international system. Traditionally,
states were the major and primary actors on the world’s stage. However, they now share
the stage with non-state actors.
Among the scholars who examined the role of non-state actors in the international scene was Inis
Claude. In his master piece Swords Into Plowshares (1956), Claude examined the role of the
United Nations and the international organization movement and raised the question of whether
international organizations would draw functions and authority away from states. Robert
Keohane and Joseph Nye drew attention to non-state actors in their work Transnational
Relations and World Politics. In 1970s, Keohane and Nye wrote Power and Interdependence
57
where they argue that there is a growing array of new issues, unsolvable by force that were
challenging states and required the cooperation of non-state actors. Some non-state actors like
ethnic groups, sometimes rival states for the loyalty of people and international organizations
oftentimes encroach on services once provided by states. Among the different categories of
international actors are: the State, Intergovernmental Organizations, International non-
Governmental Organizations, Multinational Organizations and individuals.
7.1.1 The State and the Treaty of Westphalia (1648)
One of the major legacies of the Peace of Westphalia was the emergence of nation states. The
Peace of Westphalia (1648) marked the end of the Thirty Years’ religious War (1618-1648) in
Europe. Religion was an element in the rise of the state system. Before 1648, the international
system was characterized by feudal systems, Christendom, the Republic Christiana and empires
such as the Frankish Empire of Charlemagne. The Treaty of Westphalia (1648) signaled the end
of Christendom. It established the normative structure or constitution of modern world politics.
The end of the Commonwealth of Nations also marked the end of the role of the Pope as the
unifying unit in Christian Europe. According to Conrad Eckhardt, the Treaty of Westphalia
marked the secularization of politics because the Catholic and Protestant Princes ignored the
protest of the Pope against the treaties of Munster and Osnabruck, which subsequently surfaced
as fundamental laws of Europe (Araujo & Lucal, 1994:39).
With the Treaty of Westphalia, the Holy See assumed a new role from being the leader of the
republica Christiana to that of the highest moral authority in the world, practicing neutrality and
more pacifism in international affairs. Upon the Westphalian settlement in 1648, Pope Innocent
rubbished it as ‘null, reprobate and devoid of meaning for all time’ (Baylis et.al, 2008:23). One
can surmise that the Pope’s blatant attack on the Peace of Westphalia was for the very reason
that it curtailed some of the authority and power enjoyed by Pope in Christendom.
Statehood appeals to many nations and groups of people and they are prepared to shed blood for
the sake of achieving it. The bloody independence wars in Africa in the 1950s and 1960s such as
the Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya is a testament of that fact. Thus, Charles Tilly stated that ‘states
are war-makers and wars are state-makers’. The state is the primary international actor. In years
past, the state was the main actor on the global stage and according to the realists, it is the unit of
analysis in international politics.
58
The word state is derived from the Latin status which means ‘position’ or ‘stand’ of a ruler. A
state has no concrete existence since it is a legal abstraction with institutions (the government) to
control a territory area and the people who reside in that territory. A state represents the interests
of its people on the international scene. The government is an agent of the state. The state
undertakes certain commitments through a government and people. The key elements in a
modern state are people, territory and government to rule over the people.
The state is the primary unit because throughout history, it is the unit that offers protection and
security to human beings. States according to the realists are the ‘ultimate points of reference’.
To the realists, other non-state actors operate on the global stage for the convenience of states.
States need organizations to smooth their numerous contacts brought about by modern
circumstances and communication. Sovereignty is an attribute of states. Sovereignty is one of the
main legacies of the Peace of Westphalia. The concept of Sovereignty in Westphalia was
expressed through two main principles: ‘the king is emperor in his own land’ (rex in regno suo
est imperator) and ‘the religion of the king is the religion of the land’ (cuis regio eius religio).
The realist, Hedley Bull, made a distinction between internal and external sovereignty. Internal
sovereignty entails the supremacy of the state over all other authorities within the territory and
population. External sovereignty refers to the independence of a government to act without
external interference. According to the Westphalian notion of sovereignty, no authority exists to
order the state how to act: there is no actor with the legitimate authority to tell a state what to do.
However, states de facto and de jure cede some of their sovereignty to organizations upon
ratifying treaties. In modern times, sovereignty is legitimized by the people.
In accordance with the principles of sovereignty and international law, all states are juridically
equal as seen in the General Assembly of the United Nations. A truism in world politics is that
nothing is distributed equally on the face of the globe – not people, talents, resources, not climate
or geographical features. In recent decades, the number of states has rapidly increased. In 1945,
51 states ratified the Treaty establishing the United Nations Organization. However there are
now more than 200 states in the world.
7.1.2 Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO)
An international organization is an institution with membership drawn from two or more

countries. Examples of IGOs are the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the
59
African Union and the European Union. States representatives at IGOs represent the interests of
their sending states. However, IGOs also have permanent staffs at their headquarters whose
primary loyalty and interest is to the IGO and not their states of origin and the Secretary General
is a case in point. The UN Secretary General is an international civil servant and puts the interest
of the organization first before his country of origin. Arkady Shevchenko, from the Soviet
Union was the undersecretary General for political and Security Council Affairs in the heights of
the Cold War. In April 1978, he disobeyed instructions to return to Moscow by the Soviet Union
on the grounds that the Soviet Union had ‘no right to give such instructions to an official of the
UN Secretariat’.
A major advantage of an IGO is that it can structure communication and cooperation among
member-states on a continuing basis as they deal with common needs. If problems and needs did
not extend past the borders and jurisdictions of states, IGOs would never have come into
existence. Ultimate authority rests with the member-states of any IGO because they supply the
money and other resources for the organization. IGOs diminish the state’s status from dominant
to primary actor.
States sometimes depend on IGOs for assistance and favours, and IGOs can take initiatives that
shape the policies of states. IGOs could be categorized according to scope of functions and
membership. Universal/general political organizations perform political, economic,
developmental, military, socio-cultural and other functions. They are universal because of their
open scope of membership. Examples include the UN, AU, NATO and the Organization of
American States and Interpol (the International Criminal Police Organization). Limited or
functional IGOs perform more specific functions. Many of them are linked with the United
Nations. Examples include the IMF, ILO and the World Bank among others. In other words, they
are international regimes.
IGOs are international actors because of their roles in international affairs. The UN Security
Council is charged with the mandate of maintaining international peace and security. When
states sometimes find themselves in economic mess, they turn to organizations like the IMF and
the World Bank for bail out. States cedes some of their sovereignty to organizations by ratifying
treaties and as such enable the IGOs work efficiently. The Security Council of the UN has the
powers to defer the cases facing President Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto at the ICC. Many
decisions reached by IGOs influence the foreign policies of states.
60
Supranational IGOs have the power to make decisions that are binding on their members even if
some members disagree. International organizations merely reflect the power of states, such as
when the winners of the Second World War became the veto-casting permanent members of the
UN Security Council. IGOs can punish and sanction states. IGOs provide the platform where
weak and strong states converge and discuss issues of global importance. In the mid twentieth
century, the strong states decided and weak ones acquiesced in policy decisions.
7.1.3 Multinational Corporations
According to Martin Griffiths and Steven Roach, the term ‘multinational corporation’ is
conspicuously misleading. First, it implies a level of internationalization of management and
stock ownership that does not exist. Secondly, the activities of MNCs take place within the
territorial borders of sovereign states and not between nations. A better satisfactory designation
would probably be ‘global business enterprise’ (2002:209). MNCs are business organizations
that extend sales activities into several countries.
Interpenetration is a distinct quality of multinational corporations. It is used to describe the tying

together of groups and enterprises across national boundaries, so that it becomes impossible to
identify a product or an enterprise as belonging to any given national society (Hocking & Smith,
1995:99). Most of the early ‘mercantile multinationals’ were British, Dutch or French in origin.
Among the first MNCs were the British East Indies Company and Hudson Bay Company of the
eighteenth century. Thus, it is not entirely true that is a feature of the period since World War II.
A multinational is a business enterprise with headquarters in one country called the home
country and subsidiaries in many host countries. Multinationals see the world as a single
economic entity. Examples are The Royal Dutch Shell, Toyota (Japan), Total (France), Java, the
United Fruits Company and the like. Multinationals transfer resources and technology from one
part of the globe to another. Three quarter of world trade is conducted via multi-national
corporations. Financial multi-nationals like Barclays transfer money from one part to another.
The Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 laid the foundation for an international economic order.
Multinationals distribute resources in the world and some of them are more powerful than states
since their profits very often surpass the total budgets of states. The changing nature of
multinationals has had important effects on the ‘landscape’ of world politics. Robert Gilpin in
the 1970s argued that
61
‘whether one is talking about the merchant adventurers of the sixteenth century, nineteenth century
finance capitalists, or twentieth century multinational corporations, transnational actors have been able to
play an important role in world affairs because it has been in the interest of the predominant power for
them to do so….from this perspective the multinational corporation exists as a transnational actor because
it is consistent with the political interest of the world’s dominant power, the United States’ (1971:54).
7.1.3.1 MNCs - the most Controversial Non-State Actors
Multinationals are the most controversial non-state actors. In the 1970s, Raymond Vernon
acknowledged the growing power of MNC in his book Sovereignty at Bay. He criticized the
MNCs for penetrating and exploiting weak states of the Third World. Some scholars argue that
MNCs constitute ‘new sovereigns’ by challenging the ability of the state to provide economic
sovereignty and security, they attack the control exercised by states over economic planning and
programming and they erode the ability to preserve national security insofar as that takes on an
economic expression. It is a documented fact that in Europe and elsewhere, MNCs engage in
complex negotiations to gain access to protected national markets, to continue the distribution of
petroleum products or to supply equipment to clients (Hocking & Smith, 1995:111).
In the eyes of many critics they are predators, accused of toppling elected governments,
exploiting underdeveloped countries, engaging in illegal activities and ignoring human rights and
willfully damaging the environment. It is also documented that MNCs are predators taking
advantage of host countries. Some say MNCs mine irreplaceable natural resources, siphon
capital out of the host countries, hire skilled persons away from other local businesses. Critics
also argue that MNCs co-opt and collude host elites to exploit their citizens by turning them into
compradors, allies that help exploit their own countries.
MNCs are somewhat autonomous have a great deal of influence on economic policies and on the
lives and livelihoods of citizens in different national societies. Someone commented that ‘this
distinctive behavior stems from the fact that MNCs directly control the deployment of resources
in two or more countries and the distribution of the resulting output generated between these
countries’ (Dunning, 1981:7).
The United Fruit Company in 1954 played a role in the overthrow of the Arbenz government in
Guatemala. The Guatemalan Agrarian Revolution of June 1954 expropriated and distributed to
the peasants unused farmlands owned by the UFC. The UFC asked the US governments of Harry
62
Truman (1945-53) and Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61) to take diplomatic, economic and military
action against President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. The CIA sponsored a coup known as
PBSUCCESS leading to the resignation of Arbenz on June 27, 1954.
The International Telegraph and Telephone and Copper Anaconda played a role in the coup
against the Marxist regime of Allende Salvador of Chile in 1973. The Royal Dutch Shell was one
of very few MNCs to remain in South Africa during the apartheid years, despite calls from the
international community for them to vacate. There is a school of thought which now argue that
multinationals are leading the race for the Scramble for Africa. They are also seen as instruments
of foreign policy by their home governments. They sometimes ask their home governments to
demand for policy changes in many host countries.
Down the years, multinationals like Oil Libya and General Motors have been influencing
elections in many countries. On the positive side, multinationals provide employment,
professional training, health care, and educational opportunities for their employees. MNCs
introduce technology, encourage economic growth and interdependency, promote human rights,
protect the environment and promote a cosmopolitan world.
7.1.4 Churches and Individuals
Just like sovereign states, Churches share the loyalty of many persons of the world. For instance,
the Roman Catholic Church has about 1.3billion followers spread across the globe who look up
to the Pope for direction and guidance on spiritual and other matters. The Roman Catholic
Church is an influential international actor. During the Conference on Population and
development in Cairo in 1994, the Clinton’s administration was conspicuously humiliated when
the Vatican delegation successfully opposed the inclusion of the U.S delegation language on
abortion.
The Roman Catholic Church (the Holy See) is the oldest existing diplomatic entity. The first
bilateral diplomatic exchange was sanctioned between the Holy See and the State of Venice in
1450. The Pope sends and receives ambassadors like any other secular head of state. Upon his
death in 2005, top diplomats such as Mikhail Gorbachev, Helmut Kohl and Henry Kissinger
proclaimed Pope John Paul II as the most influential world leader in the second half of the
twentieth century. Pope John Paul played a magnanimous role in the demise of Eastern European
Communism among others. Other individual notable actors include Nelson Mandela, Mother
63
Theresa of Calcultta, Martin Luther King and the like. Through the microelectronic revolution,
individuals are now influencing the policies of states.
7.1.5 International non-Governmental Organization (INGOs)
INGOs have proliferated faster than any other actor since the Second World War. Citizen
concerns over the environment, human rights, disarmament and many other issues are now
lobbied for by INGOs. One of the reasons for the expand menu of international relations is the
emergence of INGOs on the global stage now lobbying on behalf of private citizens. These
private organizations in pushing for results, simultaneously approach their national governments
and multiple forums of IGOs as found in the UN System. INGOs base their membership on
groups and individuals acting in a private capacity. Examples include the International Political
Science Association (IPSA), the International Committee of the Red Cross (founded by Jean
Henri Dunant who won the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1910), Salvation Army and the
International Chamber of Commerce.
In many cases, INGOs work together with states on the world stage and oftentimes exert
considerable pressure on states. INGOs gain prominence and structure from the weakening of
states; yet, paradoxically, they need strong states to carry out their agendas. Amnesty
International has a ‘consultative status’ within the United Nations and its reports do influence the
many political decisions on the world stage. For instance on October 16th, 2013, Amnesty
International published a report that Qatar may not be the ideal country to host the World Cup on
2022 because of the gross human rights violations of immigrant workers. It led to huge outcry
from the international community and a lot of pressure has been put on the Qatarist government
to make policies aimed at respecting and protecting the rights of workers.
7.2 INTERNATIONAL REGIMES
7.2.1 Definition and Understanding
International regimes became prominent after World War Two because of the limitations of
international institutions and international law. Although the concept of regimes and functional
IGOs share some commonalities, the two are distinguishable. The word ‘regime’ is derived from
the French régime which means a set of conditions, largely political in nature. Politically, a
regime is any form of government: rules that regulates a government operations and interactions
64
with the citizens. The word regime nowadays has a negative connotation and it is used to
describe authoritarian and dictatorial government like the “Assad’s regime”. Regimes are sets of
rules, norms, policies and decision making procedures that actors converge around and use. They
are rules, norms, policies that international actors’ expectations converge around. Aaron Yan
talked of International regimes as principles and norms around which expectations of actors
converge.
Stephen Krasner define international regimes as ‘sets of implicit or explicit principles, norms,
rules and decision-making procedures around which actors’ expectations converge in a given
area of international relations. Principles are beliefs of fact, causation and rectitude. Norms are
standards of behavior defined in terms of rights and obligations. Rules are specific prescriptions
for action. Decision-making procedures are prevailing practices for making and implementing
collective choice’ (Krasner, 1982:185). Rules are clear and usually written guides for conduct
while norms are general expectations concerning behavior (behavioral expectations). Policies are
statement of intent and they are protocol or principle that guides decisions. Policies are
frameworks of guidelines that determine the behavior of a unit on a specific issue. The guidelines
aimed at achieving an objective. A rule may compel or prohibit certain actions, whereas a policy
merely guides actions in order to achieve good outcomes.
International regimes go beyond the conventional components of the international arena to

include beliefs, decision-making and behavior. Regimes bring together a set of components and
forces to build the ‘institutional behavior’ or ‘international behavior’. In short, regimes are a
rational collective response to the problems on the international agenda.
Jack Donnelly defined regimes as norms and decision-making procedures accepted by

international actors to regulate an issue area’ (Donelly, 1986:599-642). Donnelly identified four
types of norms: authoritative international norms, international standards with self-selected
national exemptions, international guidelines and national standards. He identified six types of
decision-making procedure: authoritative international decision-making, international
monitoring, international policy coordination, international information exchange, international
promotion or assistance and national decision-making (Hocking & Smith, 1995:305).
International regimes are international regulatory agencies. International Regimes are mostly
formal and nest within the institutional framework of an IGO. Regimes could be hegemonic or
65
cooperative. A Hegemonic regime is a dominant state imposing rules and norms such as when
the United States controlled trade terms and currency exchanges after the Second World War. In
the nineteenth century the world commercial and monetary order depended centrally upon the
position of the United Kingdom until its dominance was challenged in the early twentieth
century. Cooperative regimes occur when states voluntarily agree to rules and norms. Many
regimes today are cooperative even if the influence of states varies within the regimes. For
instance, France has more influence within the regime protecting the Mediterranean Sea than any
other state on the rim of this sea.
The growing interdependence in international politics places a premium on cooperation. While

complete harmony is unexpected in regimes, the reduction of conflict is an essential function of
regime operations. Regimes have developed in many issue-areas, including the proliferation of
nuclear weapons, human rights. The cost of avoiding international regimes is too expensive. The
issues regulated by regimes are based on certain goods and services which ought to be managed
in a cooperative manner. The Law of the Sea governs international waters. The IMF deals with
financial stability in the world. The ICC prosecutes crimes against humanity, war crimes and
genocides. UNEP specifically deals with the management of the environment. The civil Aviation
Organization manages international air transport. The International Atomic Energy Organization
governs issues around the atomic energy. The formation of the International Labor Organization
could be seen as the genesis of international regimes. However, international regimes must not
be institutions. The Vienna Convention of Diplomatic Relations (1961) is a Treaty that governs
the conduct of interstate diplomacy. The 1970s was the golden age for international regimes.
7.2.2 International Actors and International Regimes
International Actors like the UN deals with political, economic, social and military matters
involving states in the world. Whereas each international regime governs just a particular issue
of common global concern. Thus, all international regimes are international actors but not all
international actors are international regimes. All international actors must not be international
regimes because some actors are engaged in more than one activity in the international system
and that is not a characteristic of international regimes.
66
7.2.3 International Regimes and Realism
There are some conflicts between international regimes and realism. International regimes are
formed because of universal interests since they govern issues of common global concern. The
realists preach that national interest is the currency of international politics. The realists reject the
potency of international law whereas international regimes form the basis of international law.
States voluntarily cede some of their sovereignty to international regimes whereas the realists
argue that states cannot cede their sovereignty to institutions and regimes. Realists argue that
international regimes are instruments of dominant states and simply represents the power politics
of states of the day. The realists criticize regimes for being corroded by power politics.
7.2.4 Marxism and International Regimes
According to the Marxists, international regimes do not help bring peace but conflict. They are
channels of exploitation by the Bourgeoisies. According to the Marxist, the ICC is used to punish
erratic and rogues states at the periphery of the global economy. The laws advanced by regimes
serve the interests of the classes at the core. For instance, under GATT, subsidies are removed in
the Third World but not in developed nations. Countries at the periphery are manipulated in
international regimes. The French have refused to remove subsidies for their farmers. Rules
governing international regimes are Western. A diplomatic regime is not complete without wine.
The international system is Westphalian and international regimes tend to buttress the
Westphalian mentality.
7.2.5 International Regimes and Idealism
International regimes are informed by the idealist theory of international relations since they also
uphold the same values: universal interests and international law. The idealists hold that
international regimes are an intermediary to global governance and help to bring peace and
cooperation in the management of global issues.
7.3 Impacts of International Regimes
International regimes affect IR since they provide the framework for cooperation. They can also
punish erratic behaviors of states and as such undermine the sovereignty of states. Regimes are
67
international actors because they have their own decision making machinery. They are
instruments of peace and justice in the global system. The World Trade Organization aims to
bring about a fair and just trading system and to stop unscrupulous trade behaviors like begger-
thy neighbor policies. International Regimes deepen the free-market economy. They play a role
in globalization – rests on harmonization policies. International regimes are the cornerstones of
the governance architecture of globalization. Globalisation is universalization of capitalism.
7.4 Section Summary
International actors are units with some degree of autonomy, resources, influence and power in
the international system. They also command the loyalty of some people. There are various
categories of international actors. Traditionally, the state was the primary and dominant actor in
international politics. However, in recent times, the dominance of the state in international
politics is being challenged by the activities of multinational corporations who command vast
pulls of financial and material resources. International regimes are rules, policies, norms and
principles around which actors’ expectations converge. Unlike some international actors, each
international regime regulates only one issue of global concern.
Revision Questions
1. Define the term ‘international actor’?

2. What distinguishes an international actor from regime?
3. Examine the roles played by different international actors and regimes in international
politics
Stephen Krasner, (1982). ‘Structural causes and regime consequences: regimes as intervening
variables’, International Organization, 36(2).
Keohane Robert & Nye Jr. Joseph (1989). Power and Interdependence: World Politics in
Transition. Boston: Little Brown (chapter 3).
Hocking Brian & Smith Michael (1995). Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.
London: Pearson Education. Pp.287-30
68
SECTION EIGHT
THE COLD WAR
Section Objectives
a. Explain the meaning of the term ‘Cold War’
b. Identify the main features of the Cold War
c. Discuss the impact of the Cold War in international relations
8.0 Introduction
This section examines the one of the most conspicuous features of international politics in the
twentieth century. It looks at the meaning, main features and reasons why the Cold War ended in
1989. The section also discusses the impact of the Cold War in world affairs even after its
demise.
8.1 Understanding the Cold War
The term Cold War is oxymoronic since wars are conventionally hot, overt and antagonistic. The
word “Cold War” denotes the presence of factors that allegedly restrained the confrontation and
prevented a ‘hot’ war. It is defined as a cold war because it was a fought without real overt
conflict between the two protagonists. The term Cold War was invented by George Orwell
remembered for his novel Animal Farm. At the end of World War II, English author and
journalist George Orwell used cold war, as a general term, in his essay "You and the Atomic
Bomb", published October 19, 1945, in the British newspaper Tribune. The Cold War started in
1947 and came to an unprecedented end in 1989. It was an epoch or period of extreme mutual
hostility and fears between two protagonists.
The Cold War was “Western democratic capitalism or social democracy versus Communist
totalitarianism....” (Waters, 2009:62). Calvocoressi Peter recorded that the term ‘Cold War’ was
invented to describe a state of affairs. “The principal ingredient in this state of affairs was the
mutual hostility and fears of the protagonists” (2008:3). It was a nuclear, ideological, economic,
political and cultural battle for world power without any overt war or ‘hot war’.
The Cold War was characterized by empire building. While the United States sought to make the
world Pax Americana, the Soviet Union was determined to build a Pax Sovietica (a world under
the influence of the Union). The Cold War did not necessarily result to an overt conflict between
69
the superpowers because of the fear of mutually assured destruction (MAD). It is alleged that the
two giants had enough nuclear arsenals to destroy either camps in the event of overt war. That
notwithstanding, the superpowers clashed in peripheral states such as the Democratic Republic
of Congo, Vietnam, Korea and Cuba.
The Cold War presented some tactful leaders in Africa some rare leverage over powerful states.
Tactful leaders like Abdel Nasser of Egypt were able to “prostitute” in both blocks and gained
scholarships for the Egyptians from the United States and the Soviet Union. During the Cold
War some countries ideally wanted to be neutral and not belong in any of the major camps. This
led to the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) in Belgrade in 1961. Notable
members were Tanzania, Finland and Switzerland. In reality they could not remain neutral and
had to lean towards either of the superpowers.
8.2 Features of the Cold War
According to Peter Calvocoressi the Cold War was ‘a power struggle of a familiar kind between
mutually distrustful antagonists with envenoming ideological addictives, but it had also two
distinguishing features, both of them profoundly misleading’ (2001:xiii). It was a supremacy
battle between two superpowers although in reality, the United States was superior to the USSR
in material resources, in governmental and administrative skills, in education and invention inter
alia. Ideology and nuclearilization were the two conspicuous features of the Cold War.
8.2.1 Nuclearalization
The Cold War was a nuclear battle. Both superpowers spent lots of time and resources building
sophisticated and dangerous nuclear arsenals. Each side had a nuclear deterrent that deterred an
attack by the other side, on the basis that such an attack would lead to total the destruction of the
attacker - the doctrine of mutually assured destruction or MAD. The superpowers also supplied
nuclear weapons to their respective friendly allies especially those at the periphery. Dictators in
Africa such as Mobutu Sese Seko remained in power for decades and crushed all attempted
opposition with the aid of his nuclear armament acquiesced from the United States and the
Soviet Union. During the Cold War, Mobutu was the biggest beneficiary of U.S military aid in
Africa.
70
8.2.2 Ideology Addictives
The Cold was an ideological battle between the superpowers. The main ideologies promoted by
the U.S and U.S.S.R were communism and capitalism respectively. Capitalism believes in
individualism and as such the individual freedom is set above the societal freedom. The rich may
grow richer while the poor remain poor in capitalist environments. Another important feature of
capitalism is liberal democracy characterized by multi-party politics and elections. In capitalist
systems, prices of commodities are determined by the market forces of demand and supply.
Globalization is defined in some quarters as the universalization of capitalism.
Socialism or Communism preaches the precedence of the societal freedom over individual
freedom. Socialism believes in state controlled economy (developmental states) where prices and
investments are planned by the state. It also proclaims democratic centralism or one party system
of government. The superpowers used a plethora of cultural instruments to spread their
ideologies. Among them was the granting of scholarships. The United States of America offered
scholarships to allies known as the FULBRIGHT Scholarships while the Soviet scholarships was
entitled the Patrice Lumumba scholarship.
Cultural exchanges, exchange programs and international visitors programs were also
instruments used by the superpowers. The United States used Radio Free Europe, Voice of
America and the British Broadcasting Corporation to spread her ideology while the Soviet Union
made use of Radio Moscow. In an attempt to spread their ideologies, the superpowers sponsored
military coups to overthrow regimes not professing their respective ideologies. In 1973, the
Communist regime of Allende Salvador was overthrown via a military coup sponsored by the
U.S, the International Telephone and Telegraph and the Anaconda Copper.
The main U.S foreign policy during the Cold War was containment – containing the spread of
communism. Both superpowers invested a lot in propaganda to cajole states in the world to
subscribe to their idiosyncratic ideologies.
8.3 The Cold War Military Alliances
Both superpowers established military alliances with their allies and satellites to sustain the war.
The U.S and the U.S.S.R formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the
Warsaw Pact respectively. Twenty five years since the Cold War ended, NATO is still in
71
existence and continually re-inventing itself and carrying out operations in places like Kosovo,
the former Yugoslavia and Libya in events where the U.N Security Council is unable to invoke
chapter seven of its charter. Ironically, Russia - the legitimate heir to the Soviet Union has been
prostituting with the idea of the joining NATO and has attended some of its meetings in
Brussels. Apart from its premier mandate to demolish the Soviet Union and contain the spread of
Communism, NATO was also an outward and visible sign of American involvement in Europe.
NATO was born on April 4, 1949, during the blockade of Berlin.
From inception, it had twelve members who professed the principle of collective security where
an armed attack on any of the members was de-facto an attack on all of them. The area covered
by the treaty was defined as the territories of any signatory in Europe or North America, Algeria
and islands, vessels or aircraft of any signatory in the Atlantic north of the tropic of Cancer; the
treaty would also be brought into operation by an attack on the occupation forces of any
signatory in Europe (Calvocoressi, 2001:19).
The Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation, and Mutual Assistance famously knows as the Warsaw
Pact, was a mutual defense treaty between eight communist States of Central and Eastern Europe
in existence during the Cold War. The founding treaty was established under the initiative of the
Soviet Union and signed on 14 May 1955, in Warsaw. The Warsaw Pact was the legitimate
military alliance for the Soviet Union and her allies during the Cold War.
The Pact dissolved after the end of the Cold War. On 25 February 1991, the Warsaw Pact was
declared disbanded at a meeting of defense and foreign ministers from Pact countries meeting in
Hungary. On 1 July 1991, in Prague, the Czechoslovak President Václav Havel formally ended
the 1955 Warsaw Treaty Organization of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance and so
dissolved the Warsaw Treaty after 36 years of military alliance with the USSR. The treaty was
de facto disbanded in December 1989 during the violent revolution in Romania that toppled the
communist regime of Nicolae Ceausescu.
8.4 Hot Peace
In the words of Henry Kissinger, the Cold War was an epoch of ‘hot peace’. The exact opposite
of “hot peace” is “cold peace”. The latter is defined as a state of relative peace between two
countries which is marked by the enforcement of a peace treaty ending the state of war while the
72
government or populace of at least one of the parties to the treaty continues to domestically treat
the treaty with vocal disgust. Boutros-Ghali termed the Camp David Accords of September 17,
1978 and the Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty (1979) and the aftermath of the Egyptian-Israeli
relations as succinct examples of cold peace.
Being a predominantly Islamic state, Egypt in principle respects the terms of the 1979 treaty, but
a glaring lack of Egyptian support for the treaty is due in part to pan-ethnic and religious
fundamentalist sympathies in Egypt for Palestinian and other Arab Muslim militancy against
Israel. Israel is a Jewish-majority state currently in conflict over the territory of Israel and the
Palestinian territories, as well as Egyptian nationalist sentiment against Israel dating back to
before Israel's independence in 1948.
8.5 The Cuban Missile Crisis (October 1962)
In October 1962, the world was at a brink of a nuclear war. It was the closest point both
superpowers almost engaged one another in an overt conflict during the Cold War. What led to
the Crisis? President John Kennedy was more riled by the revolutionary Fidel Castro of the
Caribbean than his predecessor Eisenhower. Not surprising then, in April 1961, Kennedy
sponsored an abortive attempt by refugees to invade Cuba and overthrow Castro in what came to
be known as the Bay of Pigs incident. Cuba was ally of the Soviet Union and after the Bay of
Pigs, Nikita Khrushchev took an audacious throw by converting Cuba into a Russian base
directly threatening the United States with nuclear missiles. From 1962, Russia successively
dispatched weapons ranging from: nuclear bombers, short-range frog missiles and ground-to-
ground missiles to Cuba.
The immediate cause of the CMC came on October 14, 1962, when a United States Air Force U-
2 plane captured photographic proof of Soviet missiles bases under construction in Cuba facing
Florida. After some assurances from Khrushchev that the Soviet Union was not constructing
offensive weapons peace was brokered. Added to that, the United States also put an embargo:
within 800 miles of Cuba westward bound vessels might be stopped and searched. U.N Secretary
General, U Thant and Pope John XXIII played key roles in negotiating peace between
Khrushchev, Castro and the Kennedy.
8.6 Reasons for the End of the Cold War
73
The Cold War came to an abrupt end in 1989. There are myriad schools of thought accounting
for the demise of Eastern European Communism and the Cold War.
8.6.1 The Standard Account
The Standard Account holds that Gorbachev did it. Gorbachev became the youngest leader of the
Politburo (1985) since Stalin was elected the Communist chief in 1922. His openness, rashness
and attempts to save Communism with a human face accidentally sowed seeds for its collapse. In
his lecture in Krakow on June 2, 1990, Casaroli described Gorbachev as “someone who ran to
the rescue to repair by democratic means the mortal wounds on the socio-political, moral, and
economic levels inflicted on peoples during the long dictatorship” (1990:6-7).
Gorbachev’s rapport with Pope John Paul which led to his historic visit to the Vatican on
December 1, 1989 was a significant step in the realization of religious freedom in Eastern
Europe. Gorbachev made history when he became the first Communist leader to visit the Vatican
since the meeting between Tsar Nicholas and Pope Gregory XVI in 1845. Idiosyncratically,
Gorbachev although not a practicing Christian at the time (1985-1991), was the only Communist
leader baptized in the Orthodox Church in Russia as a young boy. All his predecessors were
professed atheists. Gorbachev once confessed to Casaroli that he and his foreign minister,
Eduard Shevardnadze, had been baptized and that his parents had kept an icon behind the
obligatory photo of Lenin in his childhood home (Weigel, 2010:177).
8.6.2 The Realist Account
The Realist Account postulates that Ronald Reagan of the US was the main instigator. He is
credited for containing Communism. His propaganda to take the nuclear war to space at the
expense of the Soviet Union which had been stretched beyond capacity, his various disarmament
efforts with Gorbachev and the controversial highly spoken Holy Alliance make him a credible
instigator of the revolution of 1989.
8.6.3 The Diplomatic Account
The Diplomatic Account postulates that the Helsinki Final Act of August 1, 1975 did it.
According to this school, the Helsinki Accord set the ball rolling for the death of Yalta imperial
system. Weigel argued that the famous ‘Basket Three’ of the Final Act contained a set of human
right provisions which was a challenge to the Communist rule in Eastern Europe.
74
8.6.4 The Marxist Account
The Marxist Account argued that economics was the main instigator. The Soviet Union had to
collapse because it had been stretched beyond capacity. The Soviet Union was already collapsing
because of lack of economic sustenance (1992:18-32).
8.7 The post-Cold War Era
In his master piece The End of History and the Last Man, the Japanese-American political
scientist, Yoshihiro Francis Fukuyama, argued that history ended with the unanticipated end of
the Cold War. The destiny or the end of history was the triumph of liberal democracy and
capitalism over Communism, authoritarianism, Fascism and the like. Fukuyama wrote: “more
than that, however, I argued that liberal democracy may constitute the ‘end point of mankind’s
ideological evolution’ and the final form of human government,’ and as such constituted the ‘end
of history” (1992: xi). In Fukuyama’s analysis, the end of history does not denote an end of
historical occurrences in world history, but that liberal democracy is the destined satisfying
political ideology and the final point and form of the evolutionary process of systems of
government (signal an end to humanity’s sociocultural evolution).
The most visible expression of liberal democracy is globalization, a major feature of the post-
Cold War era. Thomas Friedman acknowledged that contemporary globalization is faster,
further, farther. Globalization marked the victory of the market (forces) over states. It is the
integration of markets, economies and states due to the development in information and
communication technology. It is sometimes expressed by adages such as making the world a
global village or the Cocacolazation of McDonaldization of the world.
However, capitalism has not completely triumphed after 1989 and there are still socialist
governments in France, Venezuela, China, North Korea, China inter alia. With the repeated
global recessions, capitalist societies like the United States are adopting socialist principles. For
instance the government in Washington bought shares in General Motors. The end of the Cold
War brought to an end Eastern European Communism and not global communism.
At the end of the Cold War, President Bush proclaimed a new world order with the United States
as the sole superpower (unipolar world) unlike the bi-polar Cold War era. During the Cold War,
the main foreign policy of the United States was Containment (containing the spread of
75
communism in the world). At the end of the Cold War the U.S main foreign policy goal became
liberal democracy and that explains why many countries in the world and especially Africa
launched multiparty politics (1990-1992).
8.8 Section Summary
The Cold War was a period of extreme hostilities between the East (Soviet Union) vs. the West
(the United States). It was an ideological as well as a nuclear battle without real overt conflict
between the main protagonists. The Cold War came to an end in 1989 because the Soviet Union
could no longer sustain the détente. The Cold War state of affairs still has a profound impact on
World’s politics twenty years after its demise. It has changed the polarity of the world from the
Cold War bipolar world to a unipolar globe with the United States as the only superpower.
Revision Questions
1.What were the dominant features of the Cold War?
2.Explain the term Cold War
3.State four reasons which led to the end of the Cold War
Calvocoressi Peter (2001). World Politics 1945-2000. Dehli: Dorling Kindersley. Pp.3-71
76
SECTION NINE
MORALITY AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Learning Objectives
1. Examine the role of morality interstate relations
2. Discuss the moral dilemmas faced by diplomats in the design and implementation of
foreign policies of states
3. Explain why morality plays a greater role in domestic politics than in foreign policy
9.0 Introduction
The phrase “ethics of diplomacy” or “ethics in foreign policy” is considered oxymoronic by
some schools of thought because of the dirty reputation of traditional diplomacy and double
standards in foreign policy formulation and implementation. Ethics in diplomacy is defined as
the relevance of moral concerns in determining the policies applied by nation-states in their
reciprocal relations, with a view to the repercussions of diplomatic action on the lives of concrete
individuals {Roberto Toscano, 2001:53}. Theories of international relations preach different
tenets regarding the role of morality or ethics in world politics. Diplomats who are also charged
with the implementation of foreign policies of their sending states are sometimes caught in moral
dilemmas. This section examines the role of morality in international politics from different
angles informed by the various theories of international relations. It also examines the reasons
why morality matters more in domestic politics than in international politics.
9.1 Realism and Morality

Traditionally, classical realists argue that morality does not matter in the activities of states in the
international scene. National interest is the defining factor of foreign policy. They hold that the
national interests of states should not be sacrificed/ jeopardized because of moral considerations.
The realists posit that states pretend to be good because of reputational pressure, public and
world opinions and not moral obligations and imperatives. Because of the anarchical nature of
the international system, states do not pay attention to moral consequences but interests. They
explain that the double standards exhibited by states in their behavior in the international scene
are a testament to the fact that morality is not a preoccupation of states.
States according to the realists do not love each other but accommodate because of interests.
States short change each other in this billiard board careening system. This explains why a
77
famous British politician once said ‘Britain has no permanent friends or permanent enemies but
permanent interests’. Neo-realists such as Kenneth Waltz postulate that morality plays some role
in international relations. Realists believe in the morality of ends and not morality of means. In
line with the counsel of Machiavelli, the realists preach that the end justifies the means.
Machiavelli warned rulers not to keep to their promises at the expense of the national interest of
states. Realism has been termed an amoral theory because it does not really give morality any
prominence in international relations.
9.2 Liberalism and Morality
The idealists hold that morality matters in interstate relations. They argue that states give out
humanitarian aid because of moral imperatives and not national interests. States according to the
idealists are sometimes constraint in their foreign policies by moral imperatives. The idealists are
optimistic of human nature and say man is essentially good but become evil because of the
environment {nature and nurture debates}. When translated to the macro level, the idealists say
since a state is a community of persons who are born good, the state is good and that goodness
can be translated in their relations with other units in the international system.
Pope John Paul II was the most influential world leader in the second half of the twentieth
century because of his moral influence (God’s representative on earth). World leaders sought
every opportunity to share the podium with Pope John Paul II or President Nelson Mandela
because they are moral icons. The liberalists will explain that Tanzania has a good image in
international politics because of the high moral standings of her founding president, Mwalimu
Julius Nyerere - a truly moral person whose course for beatification and sainthood is on the way.
9.3 Marxism and Morality

According to the Marxists, morality does not play a role in the foreign policies of states. Foreign
policies are formulated by the Bourgeoisie class for their interests. In his analysis of the United
States foreign policy towards South Africa during the regime of President Jimmy Carter (1977-
1981), Kevin Danaher acknowledged that class interests of the members of Carter’s
administration prevailed over the moral campaign promises of the President in his fight against
apartheid. The Marxists say religion is the ‘opium of the people’ use to keep the proletariat at
78
bay with the false hope that they will enjoy in heaven. Many Marxists states even prohibit
religious practices and that explains the atheistic nature of Soviet Communist regimes. Religion
according to the Marxist has no place in the relations of states. The prime currency in
international relations according to the Marxist is the class interest of the Bourgeoisie class.
9.4 Moral Dilemmas of Diplomats
In real life, policy makers face moral dilemmas in situations where the complete truth may not sit
well with their country’s interests. The truth may sometimes be compromised and economized
by diplomats and decision makers because of certain interests. What are the fruits of untruthful
demarche? About two millennium ago, the Indian sage Manu’s advise to diplomats read as
follows: ‘speak the truth but not the unpleasant; speak the pleasant but not the untruth’.
According to diplomacy guru, Harold Nicolson, many diplomats in the world are trapped in
complicated moral dilemmas because of conflicting loyalties. Loyalties to his/her sovereign
government, loyalty to the foreign office of the sending State, loyalty to his own staff, loyalty to
the diplomatic corps of the capital where he resides, loyalty to the government he/she is
accredited to inter alia. Such loyalties are about other concurrent interests which must not be
contrary to national interests.
9.5 Why Morality matters more in Domestic Politics
Morality inevitably plays a role in the foreign policies of states although not of the same
magnitude as in domestic policies and politics. Joseph Nye in his Understanding International
Conflicts, explored four main reasons why ethics and morality plays a lesser role in international
politics than in domestic politics. Among them is the weak international consensus on values.
There are cultural and religious variations as to what really constitutes justice of some acts. What
is amoral in one particular culture may be neutral in another. Secondly, states are abstractions
and not individuals who have moral obligations. A state is a legal abstraction with no concrete
existence.
Thirdly, the complexity of causation makes it difficult to measure the morality of states. It is hard
to know the consequences of actions in international politics because of the complex and
unpredictable nature of issues and units in the system. Finally, institutions of international
society are weak and the disjunction between order and justice is greater in international politics
79
than in domestic politics. International law hasn’t got the mechanisms for enforcement and states
sometimes do not border to act morally in their foreign policies because they cannot be punished.
The International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statutes of 1998 lacks instruments for
enforcing the verdicts and decisions of the tribunal. Omar Bashir of the Sudan has been indicted
for crimes against humanity and war crimes by the ICC but has not yet been arrested even after
the Court issued an arrest warrant.
9.6 Section Summary
The role of morality in international politics in greatly contested by different schools of thoughts
in international relations. Realism, the most influential theory of international politics holds that
morality does not and should not matter in interstate relations. On the contrary, the idealists are
of the opinion that morality plays a role in world politics. Morality plays a more prominent role
in domestic politics than in international politics because of the anarchical nature of the
international system.
Revision Questions
1. Discuss the Marxist and Realists view of morality in international politics?
2. Why are diplomats constantly caught up in moral dilemmas in the execution of the
foreign policies of their states?
3. Examine the reasons why morality has more impact in domestic politics than in the
relations among international actors
Dougherty James & Robert Pfaltzgraff (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations:
A Comprehensive Survey. Tokyo: Addison Wesley Longman. P.73-75
Roberto Toscano {2001}. ‘The Ethics of Modern Diplomacy’. In: Jean-Marc Coicaud and
Daniel Warner Ethics and International Affairs: Extent and Limits. New York: United
Nations Press University.
80
FINAL EXAMINATION
INSTRUCTIONS
Answer Question One and two others
Question One
a. Explain why the subject matter of international relations has been expanding at an
alarming rate (10marks)
b. ‘International relations as an academic discipline is relatively recent but remains an
ancient practice’. Discuss (10marks)
c. Does morality play any role in the way states interact with one another on the global
stage? (10marks)
Question Two
Identify and discuss four idiosyncratic variables of President Uhuru Kenyatta that may influence
the behavior of Kenya on the global stage (20marks).
Question Three
‘The behavior of Kenya on the international scene reflects the main assumptions of realism and
idealism’ Discuss (20marks)
Question Four
a. Examine the main features of the Cold War (10marks)
b. Through the lens of the societal levels of analysis and geopolitics, explain why Uganda
should always seek cordial relations with Kenya (10marks)
Question Five
a. Describe the main characteristics of four categories of international actors (10marks)
b. Critically discuss the role of international regimes in the economy of global governance
(10marks)
81
FINAL EXAMINATION
Instructions
Answer Question One and two others
Question One
a. What is international relations? (5marks)
b. Explain why the subject matter of international relations has been expanding after the end
of the Cold War (10marks)
c. ‘Leaders do not make foreign policy decisions of states but the nature of the international
system dictate their behavior in the international scene’ Discuss. (15marks)
Question Two
Is Marxism still relevant as a theory and political agenda after the end of the Cold War and
disintegration of the Soviet Union? (20marks)
Question Three
a. Are nation-states still the most dominant and primary actors on the world’s stage?
(10marks)
b. Examine three variables of the bureaucratic level of analysis that a student of
international relations should take into consideration in analyzing global politics
(10marks)
Question Four
a. Why is peace in the Horn of Africa of paramount importance to Kenya? (10marks)
b. Critically examine the ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power employed by the government of Kenya in
her relations with other units in international politics (10marks)
Question Five
Is the International Criminal Court a creation by Western governments to humiliate and punish
African leaders? (20marks)
82
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clarke, M. and B {1989}. White (eds) Understanding foreign policy: the foreign policy systems
approach. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Calvocoressi Peter (2001). World Politics 1945-2000. Dehli: Dorling Kindersley
Dougherty James & Robert Pfaltzgraff (2001). Contending Theories of International Relations:
A Comprehensive Survey. Tokyo: Addison Wesley Longman
Hill, C {2003}. The changing politics of foreign policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Hocking Brian & Smith Michael (1995). Politics: An Introduction to International Relations.
London: Pearson Education. Pp.287-309
Lobell, S., N. Prisman, J. Taliaferro (eds) {2009}. Neoclassical realism, the state and
foreign policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Neack, L., J. Hey and P. Heaney (eds) {1995}. Foreign policy analysis: continuity and change in
its second generation. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall
Neack, L {2002}. The New Foreign Policy: US and Comparative Foreign Policy in the 21st
Century. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Nye Joseph {2009). Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and
History. New York: Pearson Longman.
Smith, S., A. Hadfield and T. Dunne (eds) {2008}. Foreign policy: theories, actors, cases.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Webber, M. and M. Smith {2002}. Foreign policy in a transformed world. Harlow:
Prentice Hall.
Brown, C {2001}. ‘Ethics, interests and foreign policy’, in K. Smith and M. Light (eds)
Ethics and foreign policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Morgenthau, H {1950}. Politics among nations: the struggle for power and peace. New
York: Alfred Knopf.
Martin Griffiths, Terry O’Collaghan, and Steven Roach {2008}. International Relations: The
Key Concepts. London: Routledge.
Baylis, J. & Smith, S. & Owens, P.(2008). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction
to International Relations 4e. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Rosenau, N..J (1971). The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York: Collier Macmillan
83

International Relations Module

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Relations Module

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

MASTERS OF ARTS IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND

UNIT CODE: MHU 5114

UNIT TITLE: INTRODUCTION AND ISSUES OF INTERNATIONAL

Expected Learning Outcomes

SECTION ONE: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: AN INTRODUCTION

 Definition of International Relations

SECTION TWO: POWER AND INSTRUMENTS OF FOREIGN POLICY AND IR

 Foreign Policy and Power

SAMPLE EXAMINATION QUESTIONS

SECTION FOUR: The Realist Theory of International Relations………………………….36

SECTION FIVE: The Liberal Theory of International Relations…………………………..43

SECTION SIX: The Marxist Theory of International Relations……………………………48

SECTION SEVEN: International Actors and Regimes…………………………………...…56

SECTION EIGHT: The Cold War………………………………………………………….69

Sample Examination Questions………………………………………………………………….81

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: AN INTRODUCTION

By the end of this section, the learner should be able to:

a. Define international relations

1.1 Definition of International Relations

1.2 Domestic Policy/Politics

1.3 Foreign Policy and Foreign Policy Analysis

The hallmark of international relations is its multifactoriality, multidisciplinarity and

1.4 Intermestic Policy

1.5 National Interest and Foreign Policy

National interest remains a central preoccupation of foreign policy decision-makers and a

1.6 The Subject Matter of International Relations

1.7 Reasons for Expansion of the Subject Matter of IR

1.7.2 New Actors in the International Scene

1.8 International Relations Scholarship from Political Perspective

1.9 History of International Relations

1. What is International Relations?

References for further Reading

2.1 Foreign Policy and Power

2.2 Hard and Soft Power

2.3 Instruments of Foreign Policy and International Relations

2.5 Economic Instruments

2.7 Military Instruments

2.8 Cultural Instruments

2.9 Section Summary

References for Further Reading

Joseph Nye (2009). Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and

3.1 What is Levels of Analysis?

3.2 Idiosyncratic/Individual Level of Analysis

3.3 Bureaucratic Politics

3.4 Governmental Politics

3.4.1 Type of Situation/Crisis Situation

3.4.2 Types of Policy

In international relations, geography is destiny. However, it will be very reductionistic to explain

3.6 The International System/Systemic Level

3.7 Section Summary

References for further Reading

4.0 Introduction to Realpolitik

4.1 Antecedents of Realism

4.2 Modern and Neo-Realists

4.3 Assumptions of Realism

4.3.2 National Interest

4.3.3 International Anarchy

4.3.4 Priority of Power

4.3.5 Priority of the State

4.3.6 Consequential Ethics

4.3.7 The Structure of the International System

4.3.8 Public Opinion