Understanding the Iraq War from the context of international society

Understanding the Iraq War from the context of international society

Question

English school for international relations

Explain the Iraq War in the international community and analyze the Iraq War in the international community.

Answer

Hostility and conflict are widespread phenomena in international relations more broadly. Different nation-states of the world have a common tendency to strive for greater power and authority in the international context (Buzan, 2014). To acquire such authority and power, you first need territory and resources. This is the main reason why wars and conflicts break out between countries in the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 20th century, the structure of the world order changed. Global society has evolved from a bipolar world order to a unipolar system, with the United States emerging as the sole dominant hegemon controlling world affairs (Murray, 2015).

The advent of the idea of ​​sovereignty gave countries around the world the freedom to make their own decisions, but most of the world’s political matters were determined by the United States. This American occupation hegemony was not accepted by many countries of the world (Devetak, George & Percy, 2017). Many of them felt that the liberal and democratic ideals espoused by American leaders conflicted with their religious imperatives. It was a conflict over such political and religious ideals that led to the Iraq War in 2003 (Wilson, 2016). The purpose of this paper is to understand the issue of the 2003 Iraq War within the broader context of the international community. This article also attempted to analyze this incident through the lens of the British school that exists in the field of international relations.

International theory attempts to focus on or emphasize single factors of smaller issues, which are included in the unit of analysis. Such units or themes are studied and analyzed, and the characteristics derived from such studies are attributed to wider areas across the globe. In the current world order, international theorists are looking for such clues that may indicate a decline in the importance of the power and authority of the world’s various nation-states (Fawcett, 2016). Such scientists seek to study changes in the power structure of each country, from the desire to acquire more power and authority to the desire to do work for the advancement of all humanity. However, it can be observed that even in the 21st century, states’ desire for more power has not diminished (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). They are still considered major players in the field of international relations. Therefore, it was necessary to obtain a new perspective on the nature of states and forms of mutual communication in the international arena.

2003 Iraq War

It was in this context that the British school of thought emerged. English School is also known as the Society of States approach (Booth & Erskine, 2016). It includes three different methods used to understand how the globe works and how it works. English schools were primarily designed to absorb characteristics of liberalism and realism (Brown, 2017). The main question posed by theorists of this school was how individuals could integrate the various cooperative elements of the international sphere into a realistic conception of the current adversarial nature of international relations. . The first realm that can be recognized within international politics is that of the international system (Hast, 2016). This element was first proposed by Hobbes and Machiavelli. They believed that the countries of the world are connected to each other primarily in the form of power politics. Realists believe that the processes and structures of international anarchy are central to international relations theory (Jackson, Sørensen, & Møller, 2019).

The second focus is the international community (Devetak, George & Percy, 2017). This idea came primarily from Grotius’ ideas. He believed that international society consists of the institutionalization of common identities and interests among nations. Rationalist theory helps create and maintain common rules, norms, and institutions in the field of international politics (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). The British School of Thought places particular emphasis on the idea of ​​international society.

His third element developed is that of global society (Devetak, George & Percy, 2017). This idea was first proposed by Kant. Kant believes that the formation of social identity is central to nongovernmental organizations, individuals, and global society as a whole. This element focuses on the idea of ​​revolutionism, which puts the spotlight of international theory on the state system (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). Revolutionism mainly refers to universalist cosmopolitan ideas and communist ideas. The British school has not yet developed this idea of ​​a global society.

The English School is known to take into account the postulates of the field of realism (Jackson, Sørensen & Møller, 2019). In other words, it emphasizes the primacy of the world’s nation-states interacting within anarchic systems. However, the British School clearly seeks to draw out and analyze the human element that arises from the home sphere of activity (Jackson, Sørensen & Møller, 2019). In this connection, we can see that the most important elements of the British School’s thought are the international system or realism, and the elements of an international society that functions on the basis of the influence of world society or revolutiorism.

The Iraq War that broke out in 2003 was caused by a variety of factors. The foreign policy of the United States under the leadership of then-President George Bush shaped the course of the war (Pauly, 2017). The United States’ war with Iraq in 2003 was mainly explained in terms of realism due to the unipolar structure of the world order and the resulting disorder (Dieterich, Hummel & Marschall, 2015). Scholars believed that U.S. leaders were appealing to aggressive realism. Offensive realism states that there is a tendency among the countries of the world to try to maintain the regional status quo by waging wars among themselves to establish their superiority.

The need for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 can be understood in the context of a changing international society (Robinson et al., 2016). The main reasons for such attacks were the increase in globalized terrorism, the hegemony of the United States, and the issue of nuclear proliferation. English schools have attempted to explain the impact of the Iraq War and its impact on the international community.

The war with Iraq is largely considered to be illegal. Many English school scholars believed that US coercion to bring about regime change in Iraq was completely unnecessary (Jackson, Sørensen & Møller, 2019). This intervention was therefore considered unjustified in the context of a pluralistic international society. This illegality was further reinforced by the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, as the United States claims. American leaders launched this preemptive strike on the grounds that Iraq was attempting to cause further chaos in the world and was violating the human rights of its own people (Robinson et al., 2016). However, no such humanitarian atrocities had occurred in Iraq at the time of the attack.

Scholars of the British School sought to understand the causes of the war. Dunn believed that U.S. unilateralism in Iraq was an effect of the crisis and dysfunction prevalent in the international community. The Westphalian pluralist system and its tendency towards non-intervention contradict ancient customs and traditions (Jackson, Sørensen & Møller, 2019). International law originally provided for certain limitations on the sovereignty of states. However, over time, such international laws aimed to strengthen the national sovereignty of each country. As a result, significant tensions are felt across the entire spectrum of international law. In today’s international society, issues of humanity and debates over the legitimacy of democratic principles conflict with issues of non-intervention and pluralism (Jackson, Sørensen, & Møller, 2019). Vattel believed that the sovereignty of a state should not be violated under any circumstances, even if it is contrary to justice, which could lead to the roots of jealousy. However, in this connection, Vattel states that if the sovereign of a country is found to have violated its own rules and regulations, resulting in economic and political disturbances within the country, then the citizens of that nation-state He proposed the idea of ​​having power. It is to legally resist the sovereign’s activities and invite foreign intervention and relief. This reasoning was used by U.S. leaders to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iraq. However, supporters of English schools believed that the war against Iraq was unjust because the people were not facing the crisis itself. The sovereign was not responsible for his 2001 attack (Robinson et al., 2016). Rather, it was the malign activities of members of transnational non-state terrorist groups that caused suffering to the entire international community. In this connection, the British School considered it necessary to maintain world peace by ensuring the harmonious behavior of the world’s interdependent nations.

Regarding the British school of thought, a new perspective has emerged in the recent world system. As exemplified by Hedley Bull (Robinson et al., 2016), it is important to analyze the foreign policy of the United States from the perspective of the framework of the international community. The country’s foreign policy has been primarily examined through the lens of realism and neoliberalism. However, the British School has attempted to consider the impact of such policies on the broader framework of the international community as a whole, and hence the need to understand the Iraq war in this light (Cuhadar et al., 2017).

In his book Anarchy, Hedley Bull argued that we need to understand international reality in a broader framework than just through the narrow conservative lens of realism. The current world order is structured along “state-society” lines (Conte, 2017). This shows that states in today’s global society recognize the existence of certain mutually contradictory norms and interests. This is very different from the earlier common structure, where each nation-state was only concerned with achieving its own national interests and goals. Today, it is clear that countries are interdependent to achieve their national goals. As a result, states developed common rules to guide and shape their interactions with each other. One of the main goals of such a society of states is to maintain the current existing system and ensure the independence of the world’s states (Moens, 2017). The main objective for achieving these goals is to maintain peace, which requires limiting the disorderly violence and hostility inherent in the nature of the state. In this respect, it is clear that the fundamental goal of states is to protect their goals so that international order is maintained. In this respect, there is a difference between the neorealist approach and the British school of thought. The neorealist approach states that international order is a natural outcome of the establishment of various balancing mechanisms (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2015). On the other hand, the British School believes that maintaining such an international order and compensation mechanism requires the active participation of states.

However, in Hedley Bull’s view, this national-society structure faced persistent challenges that became more acute after September 2001. The main issue was the identity of the state as a major actor in the international community (Murray, 2015). This is because globalization has significantly undermined elements of the sovereignty of various nation-states and their control over the activities that take place within their territory. Additionally, new challenges have emerged in the policy field. For a long time, the main threat to the existence of a state was its economic resources (Messerschmidt, 2015). However, attacks on the political arena of world hegemons have spread the idea that security threats are no longer purely nation-based. Such security threats currently arise from the transnational activities and functions of the world’s various non-state terrorist groups that operate within the territorial boundaries of such nation-states around the world (Göl, 2015 ).

Proponents of the British school of thought are concerned about the unipolar structure of the world. They represent the idea that the dominance of a single dominant state or hegemon is seen as a threat to the existence of other nation-states in the world (Schwartz, 2016). Hegemonic powers have the power to punish other states in the world who violate their rules and regulations, thereby endangering the maintenance of the status quo. In this context, the existence of a hegemonic power turns out to be inconsistent with the claims of the British school of thought and the need to form a national society (Dodge, 2017). They state that each country has its own system of internal control over the power and authority of its citizens. This creates a need for other countries in the world that do not exercise the necessary power and authority like the US hegemon to change the status quo (Beyer, 2016).

The attacks on the United States in September 2001 can be traced back to this particular direction of the world order. The world’s transnational non-state terrorist groups have their own objectives and goals they aim to achieve. This is usually done through hostility and violence and goes against the need to maintain the status quo in the world (Norrlof, 2014). However, the United States responded to this attack by launching a pre-emptive war against Iraq in 2003. This attack by the United States, the world’s leading hegemon, was criticized and condemned by many nation-states around the world. However, none of them had the courage to stop the US retaliation and decided to continue attacking Iraq.

diploma

In conclusion, the 2003 Iraq War has been analyzed from different perspectives by different scholars around the world. One category of theorists declared that the war was necessary because of the presence of a dominant hegemon in the world, while scholars of the British School declared that the direction of the war was unjust. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world was primarily organized in a unipolar system. The liberal ideology advocated by the leaders of the United States gained wide support around the world due to its ideas of democracy and sovereignty. The idea of ​​a society of nations was developed and it was established that nation-states were interdependent to achieve common goals. In today’s world order, the United States shares a strategic relationship with Iraq. This strategic relationship is necessary for the United States because it allows the United States to engage in the military and political spheres of the Middle East region. The Middle East has always been of interest to the United States because of its rich natural resources. In exchange for access to these rich resources, the United States ensures the security of Iraqi forces by providing them with millions of dollars in financial support. They also provide military assistance to Iraq in the form of an advanced military and efficient training programs. It is therefore established that states are diplomatically interdependent and that the activities of one state can affect the functioning of other states. In this context, British School scholars believe that it is necessary to maintain the status quo of international order through mechanisms of peace and harmony.

References

Bayer, A.C. (2016). Inequality and violence: A reappraisal of people, nations, and war. Routledge. Booth, K. & Erskine, T. (Ed.). (2016). International relations theory today. John Wiley & Sons.

Brown, C. (2017). Political thought, international relations theory, and international political theory: Interpretation. International Relations, 31(3), 227-240.

Buzan, B. (2014). Introduction to the English School of International Relations: A social approach. John Wiley & Sons. Buzan, B. & Gonzalez-Pelaez, A. (2015). International society and the Middle East. Palgrave Macmillan.

Conte, A. (2017). Security in the 21st Century: The United Nations, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Routledge.

Cuhadar, E., Kaarbo, J., Kesgin, B., Ozkececi-Taner, B. (2017). Examining the orientation of heads of state and government against structural constraints: Turkey’s decisions regarding the 1991 and 2003 Iraq wars. Journal of International Relations and Development, 20(1), 29-54.

Devetak, R., George, J., Percy, S. (Eds.). (2017). Introduction to international relations theory. Cambridge University Press.

Dieterich, S., Hummel, H., and Marshall, S. (2015). Reclaiming Democracy: The Democratic Peace, Congressional War Powers, and European Involvement in the 2003 Iraq War. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 87-106.

Dodge, T. (2017). Iraq – From war to new authoritarianism. Routledge. Fawcett, L. (Ed.). (2016). International relations in the Middle East. Oxford University Press. Gell, A. (2015). Imagining the Middle East: States, nationalism, and the region’s international community. Global Discourse, 5(3), 379-394.

Hast, S. (2016). Influential areas in international relations: history, theory, politics. Routledge.

Jackson, R., Sorensen, G., and Mohler, J. (2019). Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford University Press, USA.

Messerschmidt, J. W. (2015). Hegemonic masculinity and disguised politics: Exposing the Bush dynasty and its war against Iraq. Routledge.

Mogens, A. (2017). george w. Bush: Values, Strategy, and Loyalty. Routledge. Murray, R. W. (Ed.). (2015). Systems, society, and the world: Exploring the English School of International Relations. E-International Relations Publishing.

Murray, R.W. (Ed.). (2015). Systems, society, and the world: Exploring the English School of International Relations. E-International Relations Publishing.

Norlev, C. (2014). Dollar Hegemony: Aine Maktanalise. International Review of Political Economy, 21(5), 1042-1070.

Polley, R.J. (2017). Strategic Preemption: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Second Iraq War. Routledge.

Robinson, P., Goddard, P., Parry, K., Murray, C., Taylor, P.M. (2016). Pockets of resistance: British news media, war and theory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Schwartz, M. (2016). Endless wars: The Iraq war in context. Haymarket Books.

Viotti, P. R. & Cauppi, M. V. (2019). International relations theory. Rowman & Littlefield.

Wilson, P. (2016). English School Reviews and Perspectives: An Introduction to Barry Buzan’s International Relations English School: A Social Approach. Cooperation and Conflict, 51(1), 94-136.