FPA exam 29.01.2019 [605267]

FPA – exam 29.01.2019

1) Ethics is one of the most divisive subjects in human society and its complex ramifications
do not spare the international arena. If we ask ourselves “What is the right thing to do? What is
right and what is wrong?”, so must nations, as entities, ask themselves whether or not to intervene
in their neighbour’s affairs. From this standpoint, there are two major philosophies:
cosmopolitanism and realism.
These two mindsets regarding ethical dilemmas must be discussed jointly, as they stand on
opposite ends of the spectrum. On the one hand, cosmopolitanism promotes the ideas that morals
transcend the borders of any one nation, and that basic morals are universal to society as a whole,
while realism, on the other hand, is seen by m any as an amoral school of thought, since it promotes
the wellbeing of the state (its ability to withstand harsh periods) at the expense of individual
interests, especially those of outsiders (individuals, organizations or nations).1
Once defined, the sta nce regarding international involvement of these ideologies becomes
evident. Cosmopolitanism strongly adheres to the idea that it is a duty to ensure that moral
principles are respected for all citizens of the world, leading to be active and intervene in c risis
situations outside the respective nation’s borders. A polar opposite, realism states that engaging in
international operations must be dealt with carefully, taking into account all possible
repercussions. This idea stems from the main idea that since humans always follow their own
interest first, it is only natural that nations, as being comprised of people, will have the same
impulse, and so must they.
One of the most important aspects of foreign policy in regard to moral and ethical issues is
the d ecision to intervene, or not, in crisis situations. If the use of military strength has been
associated with wars of conquest in the past, in today’s society the issue has changed in some
aspects. The military is often used in the context of humanitarian i nterventions. This shift in
mentality can be attributed to a more cosmopolitan view of some powerful nations. The Clinton
Doctrine can be viewed as powerful evidence in support of this statement in recent history. The
former president stated that “(…) wher e our values and our interests are at stake, and where we
can make a difference we must be prepared to do so”2 and that the United States will intervene in

1 https://plato.stanford.edu/ entries/realism -intl-relations/
2 https://archive.is/20060318133204/http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990419/klare#selection -529.405 -533.339

extreme cases, such as genocide. I consider that humanitarian military intervention should be
suppor ted, in an effort to ensure the wellbeing of civilians, innocent but trapped in the middle of
an irrational conflict.
Even though Clinton’s official statement clearly underlined that his country will assume
the role of a protector of innocents in cases su ch as genocides, history has showed that this was
not the truth. In the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the United States chose to not interfere , even
though there is evidence that they knew of what was going to unfold.3 The UN intervened by
sending a peacekeepi ng force to the area in 1993, to make sure that no weapons entered the
country. However, the peacekeeping force did not help the general population the following year,
during the massacre. I believe that this atrocity is a strong argument of why humanitari an military
intervention should not be ignored, since the lives of innocents may very well depend on it. Some
years after the Rwandan genocide, even former president Clinton voiced his regret of not
intervening, since it could have saved many lives.
The m ore actual example of military humanitarian aid is represented by the war against the
Islamic State. This intervention started because of the emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant in 2014. They have been unanimously accused of human rights abuses, which led to
the involvement of many international powers in this conflict (such as the U.S.A., Russia, the U.K.,
France, Germany, etc.). Although controversial in some aspects, and not without issues
concerning the interests of the participant na tions, some merits of this campaign are undisputed.
They have managed to save many lives, provided with humanitarian aid in endangered areas and
secured safe areas in the affected countries.4
In conclusion, in the context of our society, I find myself in support of the cosmopolitan
view, rather than realism. Although the latter has its clear merits, given the current situation of
humanity, our technological and social evolution, we are capable, now more than ever, of helping
our fellow man. It may not be w ithout sacrifice, and it does not mean only military intervention,
but we have the means, and automatically have the duty to intervene when the cause is just, where
innocent lives are at risk.

3 https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/12/americas -secret -role-in-the-rwandan -genocide
4 https://www.apnews.com/2ba65c2bb3b64da4819879c79155faef

2) The current processes taking place within the contemporary international relations system
have a systematic and continuous impact on national interests. I consider that each state is
concerned about sustaining national interest based on the evaluation of real potential risks. Thus,
in this context , we can understand that the state maintains its role as an actor of the international
system and foreign policy is dictated by the need to respond to threats of different types.
Firstly, n ational interest represen ts a totality of what a state is trying to preserve and
develop in international relations in the name of the society it represents. Therefore, the foreign
policy is the tool of national interest, and if it does not respond to the needs of domestic politics,
then the state's i ntegri ty is threatened. The more the national interests are promoted more flexibly
and more efficiently, the tighten the correlation between them (national interests and tools) is .
So, if any state seeks to better defend its nat ional interest , the difference can be made
depending on the ways in which states achieve it , for example: the interests of a leader or a small
group which coordinates the foreign policy of the country , so that it achieves its own goals (for
example, the Ho locaust period in Europe, described by the “ mythical nationalist beliefs ”, based on
Hitler's conception that “ The Jews are definitely a race, but they are not human. ”5) or as when
states tend to put their own national interests above the international, collective ones ; it is the
moment in which the “grater good” maybe is not good enough for their interests . For example, the
United States, sustaining a policy of isolationism, decided not to join League of Nations because,
among other, would have involve things that might set back the economy.
Secondly, in the foreign policy decision -making process the concepts of balancing and
bandwagoning outlines how the actions taken by states evolve according to their interests. An
illustrative moment for the process of bandwagoning is Romania’s choice to turn its weapons
against Germany in 1944, accepting the armistice offered by the Soviet Union, Great Britain and
the United States of America and thereby avoiding the loss of sev eral million lives.
In the end, regarding the problem of common values and ideas in international relations, I
do consider that sometimes interests of the state do prevail over them , but it is also debatable. From
a humanitarian perspective, it is in our n ature to preserve our interests in order to survive or to
evolve, from an ethical perspective we are supposed to question ourselves about the consequences
of our actions and, maybe from a more rationalistic perspective, we are supposed to let the
teachings of history to guide us towards a more balanced interstate behavior .

5 https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the -roots -hitlers -hate -25411

3)
Like any other subject of the socio -human field, knowledge in the field of international
relations implicitly need s theoretical formulations included in some theories or paradigms .
Therefore, in order to conduct a foreign policy decision -making process, we are supposed to have
as tools some levels of analysis aiming to describe, explain and predict. They represent a normative
way of approaching interstate relat ions which resulted in a tension with the pragmatic approaches
that lead, among other things, to the issue of morality, for example.
I consider that the foreign decision -making process is built from a system that involves
the combination and simultaneous operation of several elements, so we cannot determine an
element as the only crucial one. Further, I will briefly present the main levels of analysis for foreign
policy , in order to build a general image for this field.
International relations are intrinsically complex , since they encompass several factors
which need to be taken into account. A turning point in this area is Kenneth Waltz’s “Man, the
State, and War”, which lead to a division of the problem into its three c onstituent elements: the
man, the state, and war. The study of these elements aims to explain why countries choose specific
foreign policies. The first level, “man”, highlights the impact of individuals, the leaders, in the
foreign policies of a nation. In dividuals think and can make decisions independent to the condition
of the state or international relations. They can be unpredictable and can lead to a more difficult
study than the other two levels. Outliers may completely overthrow the status quo of int ernational
relations, the most obvious example being Hitler’s rise to power and subsequent start of World
War II.6
The next level, the “state”, tries to widen the horizon in explaining international conflicts.
A close examination of different factors may s how a more complex image, factors such as: culture,
geographical positioning, and government. Probably the best example to illustrate this layer of
analysis is the Cold War. This conflict was between the world’s two superpowers, but which also
had polar op posite ideologies (capitalism and communism). Even more, the economic decline of
the USSR was probably one of the main factors which lead to the end of the war. 7
The third level, the international scene, tries to explain foreign policies ignoring the firs t
two levels, since it is considered the most important, or at least can illustrate the most by itself.

6 https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adolf -Hitler/Dictator -1933 -39
7 http://www.ushistory.org/us/59e.asp

Basically, foreign policies are conditioned by the status of the international scene, rather than the
internal state of affairs of a nation, or its lead ers. Again, the best example is the Cold War, since
the main reason of it happening is the tension between the two main global powers.
Also, Allison's bureaucratic policy model is based on the analysis of the mutual action
between the "players" that mak e up the state. Studying the decisions made by the US and Soviet
governments during the Caribbean Crisis from this point of view enabled Allison to formulate the
basic principles of the bureaucratic paradigm. In his opinion, state decisions and actions are a result
of the processes that take place within. The circle of participants who model a decision or another
represents an ensemble of the so-called “players ”, represented by persons holding certain
positions. The player's position determines the perception of the problem to be solved. The
determination of the player's goals and interests is conditioned by the influence of interests at
different levels – national, the interests of the organization they represent, internal or personal. All
these int erests determine the "stake" of the game. State option is the result of negotiation between
players, each influencing this result in its own way.
There are also other important factors, as g roupthi nk, which is a “regime” of thinking in
which the tendency to reach a unanimous decision is so important to the group members that it
becomes incapable of realistically appreciating other alternative decisions. Also, in this context,
the second factor is t he organizational process model taken by Allison from the f ield economy.
The state is not homogeneous and it is made up of a certain set of organizations. States' activity on
the international arena is seen as a result of the processes that take place according to the procedure
established in time within the organ izations. Generally speaking, Allison believes that the model
of the organizational process substantially complements the rationalist one.
However , from my point of view, the most useful one , in explaining the decision -making
process , is the individual level , because at the roots, it is people who make policy. Therefore,
individual level analysis involves understanding how the human decision -making process (people
making decisions as a species , in groups) leads to policy making. Human nature must always be
involved, because we cannot determine an international, global process, without taking into
consideration the individual dimension, using just paradigms and schemes. So, the main question
should be: How do basic human traits influence policy? It may be comforting to imagine that
foreign policy decision making is fully rational, but the truth is that it implies many factors, such
as cognitive factors, emotional factors, even biological ones and perceptions.

Furthermore, in terms of how good or not a decision is, it is a more ethical problem; well,
we do not know, but we are not supposed to . We are responsible for gathering as much information
as we can from the past experiences and abilities t o analyze the facts in order to predict as accurate
as possible and, maybe most important, to be responsible for our choices and actions. In this
context, the quote of Winston Churchill seems to me as the most eloquent one: “A politician must
be able to pr edict what will happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And then
explain why it did not happen.”8.
So, predictability seems to be the key for the i ntrigue regarding the decision -making
process. Of course, we can argue that mistakes are , again , part of the human nature, but when it is
about nation s, mistakes cannot be overlooked. Perhaps international co operation is considered as
being the best method for avoiding such mistakes along peaceful settlements and peace -keeping
processes .
To su m up, I consider that the very premise of the levels of analysis imposes certain
limitations to each level. As explain ed, even though the international level may be considered by
some the most important, the other two levels have an important impact on the outcome.
Otherwise, international relations could be, more or less, precisely predicted for almost unlimited
periods of time. However, my opinion is that the individual level is the most important since all
policies and decisions are, ultimately, devised by human beings.

8 https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/speeches -about -winston -churchill /the -study -of-history -and-
the-practice -of-politics/

References:

➢ Beitz, Charles R. Political theory and international relations . Princeton University Press,
1999, 182
➢ Korab -Karpowicz, W. Julian. Political Realism in International Relations. [online]
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2017. Available at:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism -intl-relations/ [Accessed 29 Jan. 2 019].
➢ Klare, Michael T. The Clinton Doctrine. [online] The Nation. 1999. Available at
https://archive.is/20060318133204/http://www.the nation.com/doc/19990419/klare#select
ion-409.5 -409.21 [Accessed 29 Jan. 2019].
➢ Epstein, Helen C. America’s secret role in the Rwandan genocide. [online] The Guardian.
2017. Available at https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/sep/12/americas -secret -role-
in-the-rwandan -genocide [Accessed 29 Jan. 2019].
➢ A look at US involvement in Syria’s civil war. [online] The Associated Press. 2018.
Available at: https://www.apnews.com/2ba65c2bb3b64da4819879c79155faef [Accessed
29 Jan. 2019].
➢ The Roots of Hitler's Hate. [online] The National Interest. 2018. Available at:
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/the -roots -hitlers -hate-25411 [Accessed 29 Jan. 2019].
➢ Adolf Hitler. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adolf -Hitler/Dictator -1933 -39 [Accessed 29 Jan.
2019].
➢ The End of The Cold War. [online] U.S. History. Available at:
http://www.ushistor y.org/us/59e.asp [Accessed 29 Jan. 2019].
➢ The Study of History and the Practice of Politics. [online] International Churchill Society.
Available at: https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/speeches -about -winston –
churchill/the -study -of-history -and-the-practice -of-politics/ [Accessed 29 Jan. 2019].