Thucydides and international relations

Thucydides and international relations Thucydides is seen by some scholars as the first writer in the realist tradition as well as the founding father of International Relations.[1] There are contrasting interpretations of the History of the Peloponnesian War as Thucydides rarely gives his opinion about the events described and the characters actions. This essay will adopt the realist interpretation of Thucydides and argue that he is still relevant today due to the prevalence of fear, self interest and power politics in todays world. It will use competing interpretations of his work to show that, even though there are important differences between his world and todays world, his insights into human nature are relevant and are one of the best sources to learn from history.[2] Thucydides work is valuable as it investigates the causes and dynamics of war. He states: What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta. [3] According to Lebow, power transition theories are based on the premise that hegemons are unwilling to relinquish their status to upcoming powers.[4] Power transition theories investigate how a shift in an actors power in the system affects other actors. Theorists stress the critical importance of changes in the relative power of states as these changes produce fear and result in the security dilemma. Thus the system becomes increasingly unstable and small events can precipitate a major conflict. [5] Sparta was afraid that a shift in the balance of power would be to the detriment of its national security and thus according to power transition theory it felt aggression was necessary to address the imbalance. A theme that dominates Thucydides narrative is how fear in conjunction with honour and i nterest result in a state taking action in the hope of safeguarding its national security and independence.[6] The Peloponnesian war was the product of two developments. The first was the uneven and unprecedented growth of Athens. The issuance of the Megarian Decree was another provocative action. Athens believed that the integrity of their empire was at stake due to their fear of a revolt of their colonies. Athenss use of economic sanctions aimed to dislodge Megara from its alliance with Sparta posing a direct threat to Spartan and Corinthian security.[7] The Corinthians warned their Spartan allies that unless they asserted themselves against the Athenians, they (the Corinthians) would form a new alliance thus harming Spartan security. Thus Sparta delivered the ultimatum calling for the revocation of the Megarian decree. Rejection of the ultimatum was the immediate cause of the war. Thus the security dilemma can be said to have drove the hegemons into a war that neither desired.[8] A modern example of this theory is the change in American perception of Soviet power after the first Soviet ICBM launch. The so called missile gap resulted in US insecurity as the Kennedy administration believed Khruschchev was behaving aggressively in Berlin because he felt the power balance was shifting in his favour. Concern to maintain US power led Kennedy to increase the US strategic buildup.[9] However Kauppi states that there are intervening variables preventing the shifting balance of power leading to war in the cold war world. He cites modern examples of the restraining effect of nuclear weapons, and the existence of neutrals as having a stabilizing influence by not entrapping the superpowers in a zero sum game. He also cites the role of ideology as convincing both superpowers that they could win without war. [10] Thus while power transition theory and the resultant fear explain the pressure imposed on states, other factors can prevent fear from resulting in war. Lebow con tests the basis of power transition theory by pointing out that Athens reached the zenith of its power 20 years before the outbreak of war, he adds that it is the perception of power that is vital to power transition theory and war. The effect of middle powers like Corinth is another factor to consider. [11] While there was no direct conflict between the superpowers in the cold war, the massive defence budgets and development of weapons of mass destruction shows that both superpowers were using fear to deter their enemy and acting on fear by arming themselves. Another central feature of Thucydides thought is that of self interest. According to Gilpin, Thucydides believed that human nature was unchanging and since human beings were driven by interest, pride and fear, they always seek to increase their wealth until others driven by like passions, try to stop them.[12] In the Melian dialogue the Athenians say: Our opinion of the gods and our knowledge of men lead us to conclude that it is a general and necessary law of nature to rule wherever one can. [13] The Athenians state that maintaining their empire is their only concern and they try to convince the Melians that it is in their interest to surrender. They ask the Melians to ignore the matter of justice and claim that it is not in Spartas interest to intervene on their behalf.[14] The Melian dialogue shows the primacy of self interest not only as a practical course of action but as a law of nature. A modern example of self interest is the statist concept the national interest- seen in th e Mytilenian debate. Even though Cleon and Diodotus have different thoughts of the way forward they both seek to deal with the situation to Athenss benefit. For Diodotus, considerations of justice are inapplicable to interstate relations. [15] A modern example of the national interest at work is the October, 2006 United States doctrine on space. The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US national interests. [16] In todays world while the national interest is seen as a guiding principle it need not always be action by a sole state. States may cooperate to ensure the common good. In an increasingly globalised world states must consider and temper their exercise of national interest. The development of international law, particularly humanitarian law, shows that there are norms of non intervention and human rights that states are obliged to follow. Condemnation from the international community in case of their violation would not be in a states national interest. Thus while the national interest is a key component of state decision making, today, the experience of two world wars and the prevalence of liberal ideas mean that the national interest is still important but not the sole reason for state behaviour. Self interest and fear result in power politics. The Athenians say ones ability to engage in power politics depends on strength. The standard of justice, depends on the equality of power to compel and that, in fact, the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept.[17] Thus ones ability to enforce ones demands depends on relative power. The quote above from the Melian dialogue shows Athens warning Melos to submit as they are too weak to resist. Since there is anarchy in relations among states, the order that exists is created and sustained by the powerful that impose their power within their sphere of influence. States, like individuals, are motivated by fear and self interest and appeal to justice only when their interest is served. The natural right of the stronger to rule over the weaker is a rather simplistic explanation and justification of imperialism. [18] A modern example of this is the ultimatum given by the US warning countries that they were either with us or against us. This can be seen as a threat to compel unity in the war on terror. Thucydides adds that an actors power determines his treatment thus showing the essential nature of the balance of power in international relations. This is the safe rule to stand up to ones equals, to behave with deference towards ones superiors and to treat ones inferiors with moderation. [19] A quote from US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about nations that didnt support the war on Iraq illustrates this: Punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia.[20] For Thucydides it is a law of nature that the weak become subject to the strong and when the opportunity of aggrandisement is offered by superior strength considerations of right and wrong are sacrificed to self interest. [21] Welch adds that while Thucydides does not deny the notion of universal justice; he simply acknowledges that for better or worse it has no constraining force in a system composed of states unequ al in power.[22] However Bagby argues that not all states choose to maximise power. He cites the example of Sparta and how the Corinthians call them timid and weak in contrast to Athens. King Archidamus of Sparta confirms these national differences when he asks fellow Spartans to be not ashamed of the slowness and dilatoriness for which they censure us most.[23] According to Doyle, the political ideologies of both Athens and Sparta, and the different sectors of society they appealed to, were an important component of their conflict. He picks up on Thucydides emphasis on the national character of Athens, both in its restless culture and its democratic institutions, as well as the character of Sparta, with its slow and cautious character and the conservation of its oligarchic institutions.[24] Thus the goal to maximize power can be seen as a powerful motivator but domestic influences and domestic character are also important. In conclusion, Thucydides was among the first to set out three basic assumption of classical political realism: states are the key units of action, they seek power either as an end in itself or as a means to other ends and they behave in ways that are by and large rational. [25] While Thucydides has been interpreted in various ways, his ideas about human nature fear, self interest and power maximisation are enduring. They explain the pressures acting on states in todays world pushing them to make decisions. While there are many differences between today and his time, Thucydides effectively explains the psychological and social tendencies in strategy and is thus still relevant today. Bibliography International Relations in Political Thought: texts from the ancient Greeks to the First World War, Brown, C, Nardin, T and Rengger N, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002. The Use and Abuse of Thucydides, Bagby, L, International Organization, 48, 1, Winter. Political Theories of International Relations, Boucher, D, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Ways of War and Peace, Doyle, M, New York, Norton, 1997. Hegemonic Rivalry, R N Lebow, B Strauss (eds), Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991. Why International Relations theorists should stop reading Thucydides, Welch, D, Review of International Studies, 29, 3, 2003. www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0525-09.htm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6063926.stm Paul Viotti and Mark Kauppi as cited in Bagby, L, The Use and Abuse of Thucydides, International Organization, 48, 1, Winter, Page 131 Lebow, R, Hegemonic Rivalry, R N Lebow, B Strauss (eds), Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, Page 1 Brown, C, Nardin, T and Rengger N, International Relations in Political Thought: texts from the ancient Greeks to the First World War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, Page 36 Lebow, R, Hegemonic Rivalry, R N Lebow, B Strauss (eds), Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, Page 135 Welch, D, Why International Relations theorists should stop reading Thucydides, Review of International Studies, 29, 3, 2003, page 301 Kauppi, M, Hegemonic Rivalry, R N Lebow, B Strauss (eds), Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, Page 103-104 Gilpin, R, Hegemonic Rivalry, R N Lebow, B Strauss (eds), Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, Page 34-35 Lebow, R, Hegemonic Rivalry, R N Lebow, B Strauss (eds), Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, Page 127 Lebow, R, Hegemonic Rivalry, R N Lebow, B Strauss (eds), Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, Page 142 Gilpin, R, Hegemonic Rivalry, R N Lebow, B Strauss (eds), Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, Page 47-48 Lebow, R, Hegemonic Rivalry, R N Lebow, B Strauss (eds), Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1991, Page 128 As cited by Welch, Welch, D, Why International Relations theorists should stop reading Thucydides, Review of International Studies, 29, 3, 2003, Page 304 Brown, C, Nardin, T and Rengger N, International Relations in Political Thought: texts from the ancient Greeks to the First World War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, Page 57 Ibid Welch, D, Why International Relations theorists should stop reading Thucydides, Review of International Studies, 29, 3, 2003, Page 76 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6063926.stm Brown, C, Nardin, T and Rengger N, International Relations in Political Thought: texts from the ancient Greeks to the First World War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, Page 52 Welch, D, Why International Relations theorists should stop reading Thucydides, Review of International Studies, 29, 3, 2003, Page 75 Brown, C, Nardin, T and Rengger N, International Relations in Political Thought: texts from the ancient Greeks to the First World War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, Page 58 www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0525-09.htm Welch, D, Why International Relations theorists should stop reading Thucydides, Review of International Studies, 29, 3, 2003, Page 75 Ibid Bagby, L, The Use and Abuse of Thucydides, International Organization, 48, 1, Winter, Page 138 Doyle, M, Ways of War and Peace, New York, Norton, 1997, Page 150-152 Keohane as cited in Bagby, L, The Use and Abuse of Thucydides, International Organization, 48, 1, Winter, Page 132

Country Music Essay -- Entertainment

The debate whether commercialism has stripped country music of its authenticity is one that requires further examination into who ultimately holds the power. The sometimes-drastic changes made in music leaves people questioning the tastes of consumers when in fact they are the bystanders of an overpowering industry. Fans are people who buy the albums, go to concerts, and request songs on the radio, not the execs that market the music, and yet their opinions/tastes aren’t taken into consideration. Fans carry a lot of clout in regards to what they define as commercialism gone wrong and acceptable country music. Despite what may seem fair, those who are financially invested in its success drive the commercialization of music. According to The Nashville Sound, markers that include â€Å"rural origins, stylized sets, seemingly spontaneous performance, accessible performers, and heartfelt songs can characterize country music’s authenticity† (13). The foundations of what country music has originated from are incorporated within these markers and are used to separate the real from the fake. Early country music was a means of coping with a life of work and worries; it also brought communities of the impoverished together in fellowship. The establishment of these markers glimpses into the culture and realities of many country music artists before their fame. Take for instance a family sitting huddled together on a porch on a cool summer evening listening to a family member play the banjo while another sings along. Everyone is enjoying and living in that moment and all worries are far from mind. Country music made people feel at ease and comfortable, it brought people back to their memories of the g ood old days. This is the way country music sh... ...ue. Consumers shouldn’t have to settle with music instead they should be enjoying it. In order to get the authenticity back within commercialized music it will only happen if people begin to realize the power that they hold. Once people start to realize that then the music that is produced, and sung will have a more significant affect on its listeners; music then can continue to be inspiring. Quality music is and will always be cherished more than mass-produced commercialized cacophony. Works Cited Jensen, Joli. The Nashville Sound: Authenticity, Commercialization, and Country Music. Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press/ Country Music Foundation Press, 1998. Print Malone, Bill C. Country Music, U.S.A. Texas: University of Texas Press, 1985. Print Marcus, Greil. Mystery Train: Images of America in Rock 'n' Roll. New York: Penguin Group, 1985. Print

Positive and negative impacts of social networking sites Essay

THE POSITIVE PART Social networking Web sites are helping businesses advertise, thus social networking Web sites are benefiting businesses – economically. Social networking Web sites are helping education by allowing teachers and coaches to post club meeting times, school projects, and even homework on these sites. Social networking Web sites are enabling advancements in science and medicine. Job hunting Stay in touch with friends Positive causes/awareness THE NEGATIVE PART The very nature of such sites encourages users to provide a certain amount of personal information. But when deciding how much information to reveal, people may not exercise the same amount of caution on a Website as they would when meeting someone in person. This happens because: the Internet provides a sense of anonymity; the lack of physical interaction provides a false sense of security they tailor the information for their friends to read, forgetting that others may see it. Sharing too much information on social networking sites can be problematic in two ways: firstly, it can reveal something about you that you’d rather your current or future employer or school administrator not know, and second, it can put your personal safety at risk. Another potential downside of social networking sites is that they allow others to know a person’s contact information, interests, habits, and whereabouts. Consequences of sharing this information can range from the relatively harmless but annoying—such as an increase in spam—to the potentially deadly—such as stalking. Another great issue of concern with social networking web sites is that of child safety. Read more:  Positive and Negative Effects of Social Media Essay Research has shown that almost three out of every four teenagers who use social networking web sites are at risk due to their lack of using online safety. (Joly, Karine, 2007) A lot of the web sites do have an age requirement but it is easily bypassed by the  lying about of one’s age. Even if they don’t lie about their age the average age requirement is around fifteen years old. Predators may target children, teens, and other unsuspecting persons online—sometimes posing to be someone else—and then slowlyâ€Å"groom† them, forming relationships with them and then eventually convincing them to meet in person In Touch with The World Family living abroad can be kept abreast of the latest happenings in your world as quickly as those living next door. Friends who you haven’t seen since school, and who have since moved away, are able to keep in touch. Social networking sites have made the world a smaller place. Conclusions As with most things in life there are positive and negative sides to social networking, both of which we have now explored. Ultimate belief is that when done in moderation, with checks and balances on how younger people in particular are using them, and with a firm grasp being kept on reality at all time, social networking sites are neither evil or a Godsend. They’re somewhere in between. Social networking isn’t for everyone, but it’s now such a massive part of all our lives, whether we embrace or reject the notion, that it can no longer be ignored. Privacy  Social networking sites encourage people to be more public about their personal lives. Because intimate details of our lives can be posted so easily, users are prone to bypass the filters they might normally employ when talking about their private lives. What’s more, the things they post remain available indefinitely. While at one moment a photo of friends doing shots at a party may seem harmless, the image may appear less attractive in the context of an employer doing a background check. While most sites allow their users to control who sees the things they’ve posted, such limitations are often forgotten, can be difficult to control or don’t work as well as advertised. Decreased Productivity While many businesses use social networking sites to find and communicate with clients, the sites can also prove a great distraction to employees who  may show more interest in what their friends are posting than in their work tasks. Wired.com posted two studies which demonstrated damage to productivity caused by social networking: Nucleus Research reported that Face book shaves 1.5% off office productivity while Morse claimed that British companies lost 2.2 billion a year to the social phenomenon. New technology products have become available that allow social networks to be blocked, but their effectiveness remains spotty. A False Sense of Connection According to Cornell University’s Steven Strogatz, social media sites can make it more difficult for us to distinguish between the meaningful relationships we foster in the real world, and the numerous casual relationships formed through social media. By focusing so much of our time and psychic energy on these less meaningful relationships, our most important connections, he fears, will weaken. social networking has become a major part of society. Even big businesses and celebrities are jumping on the social networking bandwagon. Many people wake up each day and check social websites first thing in the morning instead of reaching for a newspaper. According to Mashable.com, as of June 2010, American Internet users spend more than 22 percent of their online time using a social networking site. Since people are spending such a large amount of time surfing social networks, it is important to point out some of the positive and negative effects that social networking can have on a society. Helping Small Businesses Social networking can help small businesses in a big way. Traditional mediums such as print magazine ads and radio commercials can cost thousands of dollars that some small businesses just don’t have in a down economy. Social networking allows small business owners to connect with prospects and clients for free, costing nothing but time and energy. Marketers at small companies can post coupons to Facebook groups or run promotions on Twitter. In addition to generating revenue this way, companies also can get positive and negative feedback directly from consumers. Addictive A negative aspect of social networking is that it can be addictive. Spending  too much time on social networking sites can cause people to lose focus on tasks at work or around the house. Social networking needs to be used in moderation. If someone is spending so much time on social networks that they are not sleeping enough hours per night or are ignoring friends and family that want to spend time with them in person, social networking can be a serious problem. Sharing Too Much Another drawback to social networking is that some users are simply sharing too much information. People can lose their jobs or a friendship over leaking information on social networks. Even if a user of a social site has her privacy settings on the highest level, their information can still be passed on by someone on their friends list. It doesn’t take much for an angry follower to copy and paste a status or download a picture if they are looking for revenge.

The Issue Of Legalizing Marijuana - 1324 Words

Does it really come to morality after all? The decision to legalize marijuana has been subject for debate since first introduced in 1969; many arguing the fact that we are sitting on an industry worth an estimated 113 billion dollars. For once we have an opportunity to make a real impact in our economy. We have an aid on â€Å"the war on drugs†. But are we then showing our children that legalizing drugs is really the answer to our problems or does only the big picture mater in the end? Will this bring for a stronger, richer nation or will this bring us down to our knees. Colorado Amendment 64 was passed on November 6, 2012. Section 16 legalized the â€Å"personal use and regulation of marijuana† for adults 21 and over as well as commercial†¦show more content†¦This brings us to the beginning of the debate over this issue. In truth, everything has those who favor and those who oppose. In 1969 Gallup first questioned Americans and found that only 12% favored legalizing marijuana use. Today that number has risen to 53%. A National Survey on Drug and Health says that it is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United Stated. The government survey showed that 18.9 million Americans 12 years or older had used marijuana in the past month. So what does this information tell us? That legal or not millions of Americans have and still use marijuana here in the U.S. This has been said a lot by an advocate in favor of the legalization of marijuana, his name is Tom Tancredo. Tom Tancredo is the one who said, â€Å"Marijuana prohibition has failed us.† It’s crippled our nation over the matter when we have the power to change what is. This former Republican Congressman wrote a column for the Gazette saying, â€Å"that despite his conservative beliefs he is in fact supporting Amendment 64 calling marijuana prohibition to be wasteful and ineffective program. Nothing proved to be truer as the production and sale brought millions of profit annually to the illegal cultivation and sale of marijuana. â€Å"Not to mention the tens of billions we spend trying to prohibit the consumption of something less harmful the alcohol.† In Colorado marijuana users are helping out public schools. â€Å"The people who