Dr. Mahdi Abdul Hadi, Head of PASSIA, Jerusalem

It is with great pleasure that I welcome you to the PASSIA program on Training and Education in International Affairs, which this time deals with the subject of The United States and Canada: Political Systems, Policy-Making and the Middle East. The timing is opportune, not only due to the role of the two states in the Middle East peace process but also in light of the current Gulf crisis.

The question I would like to put before you in this context is can we study the policies of the US and Canada scientifically without concentrating only on their relationship with the State of Israel? My answer is yes, we can and we should, for there are different major establishments in these states that all play a role when it comes to assessing their respective national strategic interests and sharing the responsibility of decision-making. In the US, for example, the various components of the political system are the White House, the Congress, the State Department, the security and military apparatuses, and the economic and financial establishments, in addition to the media and educational and scientific institutions. Clearly, one of the responsibilities of the US President in making political decisions is to balance the positions and interests of these various bodies.

Coming to the current crisis in Iraq, we are all aware that the issue is not limited to international sanctions but extends to the ongoing threat of a second Gulf war. Whilst bearing in mind this environment of war, it is possible to imagine several hypothetical scenarios. I now intend to present the four scenarios that I consider the most credible.

The first scenario evolves from the current contact between the UN and the Iraqi Government and involves continuous efforts toward a diplomatic solution, which began with UN General Secretary Kofi Anan sending a high-level UN delegation to Baghdad to negotiate on the implementation of the UNSCOP mission. The Iraqi Government was receptive to the delegation’s mission and made an official statement in which it said that it would open the eight controversial locations for the UNSCOP inspection team, whose head, Mr. Butler, said that his delegation was aware of the sensitivity on the part of the Iraqis concerning their sovereignty over these locations. Russia’s promotion of a diplomatic solution to the Iraqi crisis and its opposition to any military attack against Iraq was also expressed by other UN Security Council members with the exception of US and Britain. In the region, King Hussein urged Mr. Kofi Anan to go to Baghdad and talk to Saddam Hussein directly. The majority of other Arab leaders voiced similar sentiments, being aware that they will be unable to contain the anger of the Arab masses much longer. In Palestine, people took to the streets to protest the US stand, despite a PA decree forbidding such public demonstrations. At the same time, the American public expressed its disapproval of a military strike against Iraq, which was clearly reflected in the media and in numerous statements.

The bottom line is that Mr. Anan’s visit to Baghdad will take place as soon as possible and he will be able to convince Saddam Hussein to allow the UNSCOP delegation to carry out their investigations in full in return for a plan to lift the sanctions on Iraq under the banner of ‘Food for oil’. Although this would represent a major victory for the UN, it would also lead to the legitimization and strengthening of the Iraqi regime.

The second scenario involves a limited American military strike that aims to totally cripple the Iraqi military institution. This is the preferred course of action of the US administration, which would have the full support of Israel, assuming that Iraq does not meet the UN conditions. Such a limited military strike would guarantee that the UNSCOP mission would continue without further hindrance and more than satisfy the Kuwaitis and Saudis, although it could result in the division of Iraq into a Kurdish, Shi’ite and Sunni state. Such a division, which may be considered an exaggerated hypothetical conclusion, would pose a serious threat to regional security. Syria and Turkey in particular would oppose by any means the possible establishment of a Kurdish state.

Another possible outcome of such a limited military strike is the emergence of a new Iraqi leadership, be it through a coup d'état or the disappearance of Saddam Hussein.

The third scenario is the Israeli option. The Israeli right-wing government headed by Mr. Netanyahu has been trying its utmost to change the Oslo environment of peace in the region into an environment of war and confrontation. In the previous Gulf Crisis in the early 1990s, the Shamir government was contained by the US administration, but this time around the Washington-Tel Aviv relationship is taking very different directions and the vast differences between Netanyahu and Clinton and Shamir and Bush are becoming all the more apparent.

The Israeli option is to attack Iraq from Israeli and Turkish military bases. Israel continues to use the pretext that it is living in constant fear of a second round of scud attacks against its territory and the threat of an attack with biochemical weapons. Israel conveniently disregards its peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan and appears to underestimate the anger of the Arab masses and its implications for the entire region. This particular scenario should be taken very seriously, taking into consideration that Israel represents a strong military power in the region. Nevertheless, it is pending on the failure of the diplomatic solution as well as a possible limited military strike on the part of Washington.

The fourth scenario involves another all-out war against Iraq. The likelihood of such a war taking place and its imminence are clear in the recent statement of Crown Prince Hassan, which reads as follows: “It is a matter of hours. It is not a matter or days, it is not a matter of weeks, it is not a matter of months; it is a matter of hours....This is a very serious and dangerous situation.” The Crown Prince adds that those concerned should work very fast for a diplomatic solution, especially by encouraging the UN General Secretary to go quickly to Baghdad and prevent the situation from deteriorating even further.

As we witness the increased deployment of US and European troops in the region, lending even greater credibility to the growing concerns over the threat of a military strike against Baghdad, there is widespread recognition of the fact that none of the regional powers are in a position to challenge the US. Nevertheless, since the majority of the members of the international community have voiced the opinion that a military strike is undesirable, one of the three previous hypothetical scenarios is more likely to materialize into real action on the ground.

In conclusion, envisioning various scenarios while taking into consideration the given balance of power and the components influencing decision-making is one of the ways to understand international politics. In the case of the US policy towards the Middle East it can be said that it has been more or less consistent throughout the changing administrations, having been based on the American interests in the region, namely the oil factor, certain alliances (first and foremost with Israel), and related strategic implications. The current US-Iraqi crisis is but further proof that it is these same American interests which inevitably determine much of what goes on in our region, both in times of peace and times of war.

Dr. Rosemary Hollis

This lecture draws specifically on the work of International Relations Theorists published in a volume of International Politics and Globalization, edited by Steve Smith and John Baylis.

Faced with an immensely complex world, we have to sort out what are important and what are unimportant facts if we are to make sense of things. Analysis requires that we have a theoretical framework to determine which pieces of information we need most and which we can discard. Our theoretical approach, or paradigm, will guide what we look for and shape our perceptions of the world, whether we are aware of this or not.

Political scientists and others engaged in the study of international affairs may make theory sound grand and complicated. They are simply trying to articulate the assumptions underlying different approaches to international relations and organize them into coherent schools of thought. What you may think is common sense, the International Relations Theorist would identify as your personal theoretical approach, which may or may not resemble one of the schools of thought developed by the academic theorists. It could incorporate elements of different theories.

In any case, theoretical frameworks are not optional. They are necessary. We need tools of analysis and it is useful to be explicit about our in-built theoretical approaches and to benefit from the work of political scientists who have worked out the different strands.

Here we shall look at the three branches of theory that have come to dominate the study of international relations in the West. The three are: Realism, Liberalism and World-System Theory.

Realism identifies states as the main actors on the world stage. They have sovereignty that cannot be overridden by any supra-state or international body. It sees states as engaged in a quest for or struggle for power, which will in turn produce a prevailing balance of power. Military force represents an important facet of power. The balance of power in the Cold War era was dictated by the rivalry between the two superpowers, the US and the Soviet Union. States maneuver and bargain in accordance with the international system dictated by the prevailing balance of power. In any case, they act in the name of something called the national interest.

Liberalism is sometimes called Pluralism. At one extreme it may take the form of Idealism, but in any case the Liberalism school embodies a belief in progress, which is one of the facets of this approach that contrasts with Realism. States are not the only actors on the world stage: others such as NGOs and multinational corporations feature too, depending on the ‘issue area’ under consideration. Thus, there is no such thing as the national interest. To a Liberal, what the Realist calls the national interest is simply the outcome of bureaucratic bargaining at the domestic level. Cooperation is possible and desirable between the various actors in the world and order results from international agreements between different actors at different levels and in regard to different issues. This school, therefore, highlights the phenomenon of interdependence between states and peoples within the international economy and the global ecology or environment.

World-System Theory is also known as Structuralism or Neo-Marxism. According to this theoretical framework, world politics take place within the context of world capitalism. Within this global economic system the most important actors are not states but classes and the system is characterized by class conflicts. In the global economy World-System Theorists discern a core, a semi-periphery and a periphery. Within the semi-periphery and the periphery areas there are cores that are linked into the capitalist world economy. What matters here is the degree of economic autonomy enjoyed or attainable by the various players in the system.

The core components of Realism are as follows:

Anarchy predominates at the systemic level, since there is no international body capable of enforcing laws on all states.

States are sovereign bodies capable of enforcing laws, since, by definition, they hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within a given territory. States are the most important actors in the international system.

States are unitary, rational actors, engaged in a struggle for survival and power.

Security exists only within the state.

It is assumed that the units (usually states) in the system act rationally and calculate forces.

Military force is ultimately the most decisive facet of power.

National ambitions and threats to survival are permanent.

The imperative factor and source of order in the international system is the balance of power.

It is impossible (and thus unrealistic) to operate in the system on the basis of ethics.

Power is used rationally, not morally.

The goals of states are based on national interests.

Geopolitical factors play a key role in the definition of states’ goals.

The personified state is what international relations is all about—not class conflict, ideology, law or the bureaucratic process.

Key criticisms of Realism include the following:

On empirical grounds: States are not the only important actors in the system. Other units or actors can challenge the power of the state from above or below and play a crucial role in determining outcomes in certain issue areas.

On moral grounds: The statist view fails to provide a way for the world to respond to collective concerns such as environmental degradation and disease.

Also on moral grounds: If states must always judge on the basis of ends not means, what limits are there to what they can do in the name of national survival?

On empirical and normative grounds: The expectation that states will inevitably prefer self-help or self-sufficiency to collective action or regional integration is misleading and not necessarily accurate.

Liberalism has evolved largely in reaction to Realism and sometimes appears to gain the upper hand. The establishment of the United Nations was one such instance of Liberalism, or Idealism, triumphing over Realism though the Cold War then took control of the system.

The core concepts of Liberalism include:

Collective security.

Conditionality: Economic benefits are distributed by states or institutions to developing countries on the basis of their meeting certain conditions deemed ‘good’ by the benefactors or donors.

Democracy: Both national governments and international institutions should be run democratically. This is justified on the basis that democracies do not make war with one another. Furthermore, the goal should be to encourage regionalism and international integration through democratic institutions such as regional parliaments like the EU and a democratic and accountable global parliament to replace the UN.

Enlightenment: A belief in secularism, progress, reason, science, knowledge and freedom.

Idealism: A quest to institutionalize the rule of law at the international level. (The foundation of the League of Nations was the brainchild of the Idealists who enjoyed ascendancy at the end of World War I.)

Integration and the notion of ramification: The objective is regional and international integration between states and the belief is that cooperation in one area will encourage it in another (ramification). The process is usually expected to start with cooperation to solve technical problems, which then builds into a pattern of cooperative regimes.

Interdependence: A process is at work whereby societies and states are becoming ever more interdependent and decisions made by one actor in one setting will affect others around the globe.

The Liberal ideal: Liberty of the individual is the core value of the ideological orientation of Liberals. Generally, the belief is that the state is necessary to preserve individual liberty from harm by others. But, unlike in Realism, for which the state is the master, in Liberalism the state is the servant of the collective will.

Liberal internationalism: The natural order of things is for people to cooperate and therefore the more contact there is between peoples across state and geographic boundaries, the more the natural order of harmony of interests will prevail over the perverting effects of undemocratic states and the balance of power.

The normative imperative: Theorists should concern themselves with what ought to be rather than just analyzing what is.

Pluralism: Rejection of Realist ideas on the primacy of the state and the coherence of the state as actor.

Peace through world government.

Liberalism has been open to criticism recently in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War, which initially looked like the triumph of Liberalism.

Because Liberalism assumes the pursuit of progress or normative goals like peace, human rights and international cooperation on environmental protection, it is subject to conflicting visions of what goals to pursue. For example, some Liberals might argue that developed countries should intervene in the internal wars of other countries (such as the former Yugoslavia) in the name of protecting human rights in those countries. Other Liberals, however, could argue against putting the lives of the citizens of one country at risk in order to protect the human rights of people in another country. Alternatively, some other Liberals might argue against imposing the norms of one country on the people of another.

Typical of the Liberalism school is a belief in the universal ‘good’ of democracy, capitalism and secularism. Liberals are therefore open to charges of ‘Western imperialism’ wrapped in moral guise.

This theoretical framework provides a description of how the structure of global capitalism (which is the hidden or underlying determinant of the way the world works) divides the world into core areas of prosperity and peripheral areas of poverty and dependency. To illustrate the point: one third of the world’s population consumes most of the available resources, leaving the remainder to exist in poverty. If the distribution were more equitable, then the great pockets of wealth which now exist could not. Therefore, the wealthy minority depends on preventing the poor majority from escaping their plight. This is ‘zero-sum’ logic, completely at odds with Liberal idealism, which believes that progress can embrace and benefit all through cooperation.

Thus World-System Theory places economics at the heart of its analysis. This, of course, contrasts sharply with the Realists’ emphasis on the ascendancy of military force and the balance of power between states. Marx laid the groundwork with his dialectic on relations of production. Lenin built on this to define the relations between core and periphery that is imperialism.

The core concepts of World-System Theory are as follows:

The key unit of analysis is a world-system, that is the geographic area governed by the logic of one system. (The Roman Empire could be considered one such world- system.)

Holistic approach: All the elements within the system are inter-linked and politics cannot be separated from economics. Also, the system is essentially self-contained: all developments within a system can be explained by internal factors.

Classes are actors within the system.

Core and periphery: Spatially, the system comprises core, semi-periphery and periphery areas.

Historically there have been two types of world-system: world-empires and world-economies. The modern world-system is a world-economy and incorporates the whole globe.

World Capitalism: The capitalist world economy is the modern world-system and as such the structure within which domestic and international politics take place and which determines the pattern of political relations.

Resources within the modern world-system are transferred from the periphery to the core through the mechanism of the market.

(Wallerstein) process or dynamics at work over time within the system include: cyclical rhythms (boom and bust/growth and depression), secular trends (the long- term trend; system does not revert to the original beginning with each cycle), contradictions (certain behaviors are beneficial in the short run for certain actors, but not in the medium term) and crises (produced by interaction of other three dynamics and heralds the collapse of the whole system).

Stability within the modern system is provided by the emergence of an inter-state system in which states in different areas (core/periphery) play different roles; plus the existence of dominant ideologies of liberalism and scientism.

Criticisms of current World-System Theorists include:

Questions concerning the definition of capitalism on which it rests.

The approach is too deterministic.

It interprets events in accordance with the theory and allows for no alternative explanations.

The semi-periphery may contribute more to instability than to stability.

Equipped with these three alternative theoretical frameworks, it should be possible to discuss the meaning of so-called ‘globalization’ in relation to each. Also, how one determines the place of the US and Canada within the international system will depend on which theoretical framework one is using. Similarly, definitions of the national interest vary according to the theoretical approach employed.

Dr. Rosemary Hollis

According to political theorists Steve Smith and John Baylis:

“By globalization we simply mean the process of increasing interconnectedness between societies such that events in one part of the world more and more have effects on peoples and societies far away. A globalized world is one in which political, economic, cultural and social events become more and more interconnected, and also one in which they have more impact.”

Prominent facets of the phenomenon include:

The World Wide Web, E-mail, satellite communications, worldwide TV networks, global pressure groups like Greenpeace, global franchises like McDonalds, Coca Cola and Pizza Hut;

the international economy, including investment flows and the global production systems;

military strategy is conducted on a global stage (including psychologically through the media);

fashion items, e.g., jeans, Barbie Dolls;

global environmental concerns;

disease control, e.g., AIDS.

The crucial question for international relations is whether ‘globalization’ has introduced a wholly new world or just a development of the old. The case for arguing that globalization is something wholly new rests on the following key arguments:

The speed of economic transformation: states are no longer discrete units able to manage their economies in isolation. Governments are powerless or very constrained in the face of global economic developments that impact on state economies. Trade and financial transactions are of a new order of magnitude and expanding fast.

The spread of electronic communications has allowed for instant contact with other parts of the world, leading to the development of new social groups or societies and transnational networks. As a result, people will develop new and multiple identities.

A global culture links urban settings around the world, with these having more in common with each other than surrounding national hinterlands.

Homogeneity seems to be increasing, with distinctions between cultures, peoples and values diminishing.

Time and space seem to be collapsing. Our old ideas of geographical space and of chronological time are undermined by the speed of modern communications and the media.

A global polity is emerging with people identifying and according loyalty to new political agendas that have nothing to do with state boundaries.

People think more and act more in global terms.

Risks are seen as global and beyond the intervention of the state.

The territorially rooted sovereignty of states is undermined or challenged by the phenomena beyond state control, such as international bond trading, multinational company operations, and information flows.

The case for dismissing globalization as a catch phrase and not a transformation of the world-system rests on the following:

It is no more than the latest phase of capitalism. The openness of the world economy today is not unprecedented or unique. Very few companies are genuinely transnational. There is no shift of capital from the developed to the underdeveloped world but quite the contrary. The main trade and financial flows are not global but within and between three blocs: Europe, North America and Japan. The system could be controlled if these three blocs decided to coordinate and regulate.

The effects of the phenomenon are very uneven. Only a minority have access to the facets of globalization such as the World Wide Web.

Globalization could well be Western imperialism in disguise. Non-Western values are being lost.

It is the triumph of liberal capitalism in certain parts of the world that is worsening the plight of those on the periphery. Meanwhile, it entrenches the hold of the most developed and technologically advanced on the system.

The effects are not necessarily ‘good’. International crime can exploit the phenomenon.

Accountability is harder to operate and transnational actors are not democratic. If anything democracy had a greater chance of flourishing in a state centric system than it does in a global village.

Some of the most successful players in the global village do not espouse the values thought to be predominant.

Globalization has triggered a revival or resurgence of nationalist, religious or particularist movements and hence resistance to it.

Geography, military power and the state are still powerful determinants of the fate of peoples.

The Realist school appeared doomed with the end of the Cold War. The most optimistic interpretation of globalization, that it is the triumph of Liberal ideals, is, however, at odds with reality and thus the Realist school is comfortable with its approach even in the era of globalization. Realists expect war, punctuated by periods in between when states prepare for war. This could well describe what to expect in the coming years. Globalization could have made us all more vulnerable not more secure. Backlash nationalism and resort to force characterized the war in Yugoslavia. The conflict in the Gulf can be seen as the projection of US power and values, not as either an anachronism or a misrepresentation of events.

Liberalism was boosted by the end of the Cold War but is now going through a crisis. For one thing there are competing strands, which do not sit well together. For another thing wars have torn countries apart despite greater international interdependence. US military intervention was seen as necessary to end the Yugoslav war, and it is a key factor in the current Gulf crisis. True, globalization has been characterized by a spread of liberal economic values, but, as discussed above, only in the most developed pockets and areas of the world. The fact that globalization is not intrinsically good and that democracy is in retreat in the new global and regional organizations and amongst the transnational actors does not reinforce Liberal belief in progress. Also, there is a backlash against the spread of Liberal values, which are seen as culturally determined and not universal.

World-System Theorists acknowledge the central characteristics of the globalized economy, polity and culture, but they see nothing unique or novel in the trend. Rather they see it as a progression of the phenomenon of global capitalism. Meanwhile, they notice that globalization is cited as an excuse to reinforce business interests over those of the community, or workers and the poor. The state, it is argued, is powerless to control economic forces and the market must decide. However, they see dangers looming that may spell crisis and demise for the modern world-system. Ecological damage is rendering resources more scarce and even the elite are affected by environmental dangers. Workers can no longer be bought off with expensive welfare systems in the core areas. They also see a crisis for liberalism that threatens order and obedience within the state system that has helped stabilize the modern world-system. The result, argue World-System Theorists, will be chaos (and possibly barbarism) and/or the emergence of a new system.