Pakistan’s Actions towards Saudi Essay

The role of international relations in collective security and the false promise

Modern age can be characterised by great attention which is given to such issues as democracy, tolerance and humanism. That is why people also try to create a simple, though efficient way which will allow to avoid wars and find good solutions to some conflict situations. Moreover, this method should be good enough for all, or at least the most influential, countries in the world. That is why such an issue as collective security appeared. Besides, the necessity of this issue appeared after WWII as it became obvious that the efforts of one country were not enough to stop some potential aggressor or try to align some negotiations between all litigants.

With this in mind, the tool of collective security was created for the world to be ready to answer new challenges. However, under new conditions, very often this remedy turns out to be not so efficient as it was excepted or even useless. The importance of new realities is also shown in the article National Strategy, Collective Security, and the Global Common by Gary Hart. In this work, he investigates the main aspects of the question of collective security, suggesting the idea that creation of new alliances is the result of the change of conditions which determine functioning of different states¹.

The author also underlines the economic and political side of the issue, though saying that international relations still play an important role in the process of development of collective security. However, with the further development of this issue, the question of false promise appears. The thing is that collective security is not the guaranty of the absence of wars as no remedy can be absolutely efficient. However, it tries to prevent wars, suggesting some tools for the regulation of conflicts. However, the feeling of spurious safety can appear, and a new local military conflict or war can be taken as the sign of the low efficiency of the issue. With this in mind, it is possible to say that the issue of collective security should be investigated and improved.

Perception and misperception

There is no use denying the fact that every country has a leader which determines its main political course and influences its future in this way. That is why it is vital for this leader to be able to analyse the situation and make the right decisions or find good solutions to some problems as the destiny of the whole country depends on this person. With this in mind, it is possible to say that misperception can be disastrous under these conditions. There is a great number of examples in the history of humanity, starting with ancient times and ending with the modern age, which can prove this statement. Nevertheless, it is possible to analyse the situation in Egypt in 1977².

Egypt and Syrian leaders had a false idea about the state of affairs in the region. It is possible to analyse four main factors of this misperception to understand its nature better. First of all, it should be said that Egypt and Syria underestimated the power of their troops and the terms of war, being sure in their victory. Additionally, they hoped to involve a greater number of states in the war and make these countries their allies. Egypt and Syria were supported by several countries and the USSR, though they did not manage to persuade society to take their side. Moreover, this war was supposed to be the demonstration of the power of these states and the right political course which the leaders of these states had chosen.

The last important factor was money, as these countries hoped to obtain benefits.Though being successful at the beginning of the war, Egypt and Syria were then defeated, and only the interference of the USSR in the conflict saved these countries from failure. Analysing this case, it is possible to see the great importance of a good analysis of the situation and understand the pernicious influence of the misperception on the country.

Liberalism and democratic peace

Nowadays, there is a tendency to assume that a democratic form of government is one of the main factors which can lead to the establishment of peace all over the world. There is a great number of people who support this idea, and there is no use denying the fact that modern age can be called the era of democracy. Majority of civilised countries practise this kind of regime. Under these conditions, democratic peace theory obtains great significance. According to this theory, democratic states do not start wars and, moreover, they do not fight with each other. There are several main aspects of this theory. First of all, it is the nature of democracy. The thing is that liberalism is the basis of this form of government. Liberalism guarantees inviolability of rights of a person and his/her points of view on some questions³.

Being the main factor which leads to further development o democracy, liberalism also promotes the evolution of the idea of democratic peace. The thing is that war always means interference in the private life of a person. Moreover, a great number of the rights of people are ignored if a state is in the war. That is why, from the point of view of people who support ideas of liberalism, war is absolutely unacceptable in the modern world. Additionally, the main aspects of the idea of liberalism are also important for the development of international relations. Different countries have different points of view on some questions or situations.

However, it is impossible to ignore the needs and rights of a person in the modern world. That is why, having liberalism as the basis of society and state, different countries have some common issues which are connected with the life of people and their security. Additionally, attempts to preserve democracy and liberalism can lead to the appearance of common interests and aims between different countries which, in its turn, can lead to the improvement of their relations.

Statecraft using political realism

There is no use denying the fact that the issue of rivalry is very topical in the modern world. Moreover, its manifestations can be seen on different levels, starting from the rivalry between neighbours and ending with the rivalry between giant states. Under these conditions, the issue of political realism obtains great importance. It states that the aims of international policy of every state should be determined by the needs of a state and, moreover, should be supported by force. That is why the whole international policy of any country can be taken as its attempt to obtain more power and become the most influential country in the world. Moreover, it is also the struggle for dominance⁴.

Resting on these facts, it is possible to say that there is a great number of countries nowadays which act according to the ideas of political realism. The USA is one of them. Being taken as one of the most powerful states in the modern world, the USA makes great efforts to support this image and promote further development of its influence and dominance. There is a great number of different factors which can prove this statement.

First of all, the USA is an active participant in all important processes in the world. Additionally, it does not just participate, though, it tries to obtain the greatest benefit from these processes. Nevertheless, the USA is also one of the litigants of all military conflicts in the world as it tries to show its power and influence in this way. Additionally, supporting a certain state, the USA hopes that this country will fall under the influence of the US government and promote the increase of the US power in the world. Besides, a great amount of money is also spent in the USA to support its military forces. Resting on these facts, it is possible to say that the USA uses the principle of political realism in its international policy.

Collective deterrence

With the further development of collective security, the issue of collective deterrence becomes more and more topical. The thing is that collective deterrence is an integral part of collective security and, moreover, it can be called one of its most efficient and peaceful methods. Deterrence is a set of actions which main aim is to show some country that its actions are not acceptable, and some measures are created by the rest of the states of the world to prevent these actions. With this in mind, collective deterrence can be taken as a powerful remedy to curb the aggression of some state. Nevertheless, the current international situation can serve as a good example of the usage of the practice of collective deterrence. The conflict and civil war in Ukraine led to the appearance of the need in collective deterrence. The thing is that Russia is one of the most active litigants of this conflict. The Crimean question became the turning point in the international policy⁵.

The majority of countries of the West condemned this step and introduced different sanctions which main aim was to make Russia weaker and cause some inner financial problems for Russia to give Crimea back and, moreover, to stop support rebels in the East of Ukraine.

This set of actions can be taken as part of collective deterrence. Trying to avoid some military conflicts or further deterioration of the situation and appearance of new disputable questions, countries of the West want to persuade Russia to take into account their point of view with the help of these sanctions. It is difficult to judge the level of their efficiency, as a result, can be seen only with the course of time and the conflict is not ended yet. That is why it is impossible to evaluate it and make some conclusions. However, the modern international situation provides us with a good example of the usage of the practice of collective deterrence.

Pakistan’s actions towards Saudi. Neo-realism

Power has always been taken as the main and the most important factor in international policy. Since ancient times, people believed that the most powerful state should rule the world. Nowadays, conditions under which society lives changed, though, power still plays a great role in international policy. There are different approaches to this issue nowadays. However, there is also a great number of various situations in the world which demand special approach.

With this in mind, it is possible to analyse the situation in the Middle East and Pakistan’s actions towards Saudi from the point of view of neorealism. Adherers of this point of view also consider power to be the main force in international relations, though, they tend to analyse the aftermath of its usage and act taking into account some possible changes in political balance and power. With this in mind, Pakistan’s actions seem to be quite logic in terms of neo-realism. The thing is that in the situation in the Middle East is quite brittle and Pakistan’s interference can destroy existing balance of power⁶.

It is one of the main factors of Pakistan’s refusal to help Saudi. The government of the country is not able to foresee the development of the situation, and, moreover, benefits for the country. Additionally, there is a great possibility of a decrease in the level of trust and partnership between Muslim states in the region. Having one of the biggest contingents of troops, Pakistan still cannot risk its position in the region, preferring to initiate negotiations between all litigants of the conflict. With this in mind, it is possible to say that Pakistan’s actions seem to be quite logical and, moreover, they can be easily explained from a perspective of neorealism. Being a very popular theory now, neorealism is often used in international relations.

Reference List

Hart, G., ‘National strategy, collective security, and the Global Common‘, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, vol. 41, no. 1. 2012, pp. 1-6. Web.

Hussain, T. ‘Pakistan rejects Saudi request for military help in Yemen’, McClatchy. 2015. Web.

Levy, J., ‘Misperception and the causes of war: theoretical linkages and analytical problems’, World Politics, vol. 36, no. 1. 1983. pp. 76-99. Web.

Owen, J., ‘How Liberalism produces democratic peace‘, International Security, vol. 19, no. 2, 1994, pp. 87-125. Web.

Maloy, J., ‘Democratic Statecraft: Political Realism and Popular Power’, Political Studies Review, vol. 13, no. 1, 2015, pp. 92-93. Web.

Yakovenko, A., ‘Crisis in Ukraine: A case study in mismanagement‘, rt.com. 2014. Web.

Footnotes

1. G. Hart, ‘National strategy, collective security, and the Global Common’, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, vol. 41, no. 1. 2012, pp. 1-6. Web.
2. J. Levy, ‘Misperception and the causes of war: theoretical linkages and analytical problems’, World Politics, vol. 36, no. 1. 1983. Pp. 76-99. Web.
3. J. Owen, ‘How Liberalism produces democratic peace’, International Security, vol. 19, no. 2, 1994, pp. 87-125. Web.
4. J. Maloy, ‘Democratic Statecraft: Political Realism and Popular Power’, Political Studies Review, vol. 13, no. 1, 2015, pp. 92-93. Web.
5. A. Yakovenko, ‘Crisis in Ukraine: A case study in mismanagement’, rt.com. 2014. Web.
6. T, Hussain, ‘Pakistan rejects Saudi request for military help in Yemen’, McClatchy. 2015. Web.