Let me start by saying, communication is so important not only in international relations but also in everyday life. World War I, World War II, and the Cold War all needed effective and timely communication to reach the end of the war.

Prior to WWI, Russian and German leaders communicated using telegrams and communicated well as these two leaders were cousins. Since these two leaders were able to communicate so quickly, Russia was able to mobilize its troops and prepare for what would be known as World War I. This communication was also effective in sounding the alarm of Austrian forces to gain a better foothold in the conflict.

The book then moves to The League of Nations. “The League of Nations was the first international institution to embody the collective security approach to the use of military power. The Covenant of the League spelled out the various provisions of collective security” (Nau, p.127). Obviously, with WWII as a result, the League of Nations failed, however, it did demonstrate effective communication leading up to the war. A more notable communication in WWII was the D-Day Ghost Transmission which was an effective form of secret telegrams that detailed the invasion on Normandy Beaches but, some telegrams were faked to throw off the Germans. “To support the deception, British intelligence agents had spread hints of a Calais invasion so convincingly that the Germans believed they had discovered a great military secret” (Nilsson, 2014). This timely and effective communication between President Eisenhower and Allied leaders helped win the war.

Finally, the Cold War, which I would consider this war to be based on communications since there was not an actual use of arms. The United States and the Soviet Union were able to effectively communicate using diplomacy and mediation causing the Cold War to be settled without the use of weapons. This caused both sides to agree on the number of nuclear weapons owned without bloodshed.

Nau, Henry R. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, and Ideas, 6th Edition. CQ Press, 20180130. VitalBook file.

Nilsson, J. (2014, June 5). D-Day: The Century’s Best Kept Secret. Retrieved June 26, 2018, from http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/06/05/history/post-perspective/d-day-the-centurys-best-kept-secret.html

Effective Communication 

Effective communication and creating alliances, a liberal perspective, has been effective means of mitigating the shift towards hostile action. In the years surrounding World War I, World War II, and the Cold War communication were able to solidify alliances.

World War I

During World War I, from the realist perspective, before the start of the war in 1904, Britain in practicing self-help had a choice between aligning with a newly formed and quickly rising superpower Germany or France to create a counterbalance (Nau, 2017). Britain Chose to counterbalance Germany and aligned themselves with France (Nau, 2017). They formed an institution called Entente Cordiale which opened communication between the two countries (Nau, 2017). A year later the duo folded Russia into the institution and formed the Triple Entente (Nau, 2017). Additionally, before the war for almost a hundred years the Concert of Europe also kept the lines of communication open (Nau, 2017). In 1899, twenty-six states joined what was known as the Hague Conferences, and by 1907 the conference grew to forty-four (Nau, 2017). The institution created a level of trade and communication that was more efficient than the next fifty years (Nau, 2017). The best example of communication that was both timely and effective is the Willy-Nicky telegrams. Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany and Tsar Nicholas II of Germany sent a series of telegrams shortly after the Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia (Nau, 2017). They two leaders, through communication, was almost able to keep the war to a regional conflict instead of a world war (Nau, 2017). Germany on the onset of war actually pulled their troops out of France to try and limit the battle (Nau, 2017). Although the war happened, communication in the Willy-Nicky telegrams almost prevented it.

World War II

When it came to World War II, there are two examples of communication that stands out. The first is the League of Nations. When the League of Nations was formed, it was modeled after Woodrow Wilson’s desire for “open diplomacy, freedom of the seas, general disarmament, removal of trade barriers, and impartial settlement of colonial claims” (Nau, 2017, Ch. 3). The League of Nations aims was to obtain collective security, and until Germany and Japan decided to pull out (Nau, 2017). The League of Nations was timely because it brought the world together after it was torn apart from the World War I and was effective in providing collective security through open diplomacy. The second example of effective communication between two nations was the Russia “bandwagoning” onto Germany just before World War II. Stalin (Nau, 2017). Russia was faced with two choices; it could join the militarily stronger Germany or a weaker France/Great Britain (Nau, 2017). Stalin entered into negations with both sides but through the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement entered into a nonaggression pact with Germany (Nau, 2017). The communication was timely because it took place the same year World War II started and it was effective because Russia understood that Germany wanted to expand eastward and was seeking to placate or a the very least delay the German aggression.

Cold War

As far as the Cold War is a concern, there are a plethora of examples to communications between two nations that were shaping the international community. Two great example of this is the Warsaw Pact, that felicitated communication between the communist nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which felicitated communication between the noncommunist actors in the Cold War. The best example, and the one that has the most impact on the world, though was the Helsinki Accords. The Helsinki Accords was a meeting of thirty-five nations from the East and the West, in which the nations agree to a series of policies separated into three baskets (Nau, 2017). The first basket contained ten principles dealing with military and political issues (Helsinki Final Act, n.d.). The second basket set policies on trade, scientific cooperation, and other economic issues (Helsinki Final Act, n.d.). The third basket focused on human rights, including reunification of families divided by international borders (Helsinki Final Act, n.d.). The Helsinki Accord was part of a larger emphasis on diplomacy known as détente (Nau, 2017). From the liberal perspective, the communication that took place in the Helsinki Accord created interdependence and trade, which made countries less suspicious of one another and create an atmosphere conducive to New Thinking (Nau, 2017). The interdependence created by the Helsinki Accord made the communication effective, and the ability to be one of the catalysts for ending the Cold War made it timely.  

References

Helsinki Final Act, 1975. (n.d.). Office of the Historian. Retrieved June 27, 2018, from https://history.state.gov/milestones/1969-1976/helsinkiLinks to an external site.

Nau, H. R. (2017). Perspectives on international relations: Power, institutions, and ideas (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.

The topic is: The Ayatollah Khomeini’s essay “Islam and Revolution” is as much nationalistic (or anti-imperialist) as it is religious. How does Khomeini link these two themes? Discuss.

Directions: 

Papers will be graded for organization and quality of writing, as well as content. Be as concise and precise as possible. Assume that your reader is conversant with the material under discussion. Fashion your own original argument. Don’t merely rehash the theorist’s views.

2. Thomas Jefferson once said that we must “follow truth wherever it may lead.” Jefferson’s dictum was not, however, an invitation to stray far from the themes of the course. Remember that you are writing an essay for a course in contemporary political theory. Situate your discussion and analysis within this framework.

3. Your first paragraph should state clearly the question or problem your essay explores, and should at least hint at the conclusion you reach.A crisp thesis statement is desirable. Good introductions – the most important part of any paper – might employ a zinger quote, a provocative observation, a series of rhetorical questions, or a shocking statistic. The important thing is immediately to engage the reader’s interest.

4. Explain and analyze. There is room for opinion and speculation in your paper, but do not confuse it with evidence or argument. Stay focused. Don’t meander into some historical backwater irrelevant to your argument.

5. Good writing helps you express your ideas and advance your argument. Use interesting, precise, active verbs. Avoid the verb “to be.”Give your essay a good title. Insert subheadings in the text as “signposts” for the reader.

6. Stay close to the texts. Provide citations for all quoted and paraphrased material.

Use a consistent, recognized citation form. Either use footnotes, endnotes, or parenthetical citations and a “References Cited” page.All direct quotes and specific citations must provide a page number as well.

1. Pateman says the sexual contract is part of the social contract. Describe with reference to the “Founding Fathers” of the U.S.; and the establishment of Australia.

2. How, for Pateman, does the liberal idea of individual rights mask patriarchy and curtail the political lives of women?

3. Is there a politics to sex, relations between the sexes, and private life? Is the sex industry political?

4. MacKinnon says that whether one focuses on sameness or difference, man remains the measure of all things (p. 382). How does this work?

5. Why does MacKinnon consider American society “an affirmative action plan” for men (p.384).

6. What are the fallacies of thinking in terms of “women’s” art, culture, morality, or history (sometimes called “her-story)?

7. Describe MacKinnon’s “dominance” approach to gender politics. Does thinking in terms of power rather than difference change the nature of the debate?

Directions:

Answers MUST come from the book “Introduction to Political Theory” by Bronner. Please state the question first and then the answer. The answer must be 5-6 sentences long.

The reading this week presented interesting views from the three different perspectives. The first being Ronald Steel, who is a professor at the University of Southern California, wrote that the attack on 9/11 was “’a war in which the weak turned the guns of the strong against them…showing…that in the end there may be no such thing as a universal civilization of which we all too easily assume we are the rightful leaders.’ Steel interprets the attacks by Al Qaeda as weak actors rebelling against strong actors, with the weak actors rejecting the notion that the strong ones can dictate what is right and therefore universally valid in international affairs” (Nau, 2017, 16). This is an example of the realist perspective. Two days after Steel’s comment, Journalist Caryle Murphy wrote, “September 11, 2001, was a result not of the weak striking back against the strong but of unresolved diplomatic disputes, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that created unfairness and grievances between the feuding parties” (Nau, 2017, 17). This was an example of the liberal perspective. Finally, a year later, “Jim Hoagland, a columnist for the Washington Post, suggested…that the problem was one of nondemocratic governments in the Middle East” (Nau, 2017, 18). The final example is that of an identity perspective.

           All perspectives present some strengths and weaknesses. One strength of the realist perspective is that it works well in situations of threat, however a weakness of the realist perspective is that is may embellish threat. The liberal perspective gives the opportunity to work together and unite but a downside to this perspective could include exposure to unexpected peril. Finally, the identity perspective is helpful in establishing allies and foes, but a weakness may be the fact that this perspective can become ideological if powers do not fully agree.             Using my judgement in context with the attacks on 9/11 I believe that the identity perspective relates the best. The Middle East did not provide the representative democracy that citizens of the United States have. I believe that this caused a “rebellion” of sorts because of the lack of listening to the peoples’ concerns and wishes. I agree with Jim Hoagland when he said that negotiations or a shift in power would not suffice to change the political climate in the Middle East. Overall, I feel I closely relate with the identity perspective.  

References

Nau, Henry R. Perspectives on International Relations: Power, Institutions, and Ideas, 6th Edition. CQ Press, 20180130. VitalBook file.

One strength of the realist perspective is in the name itself; it is the most closely based on the reality of today’s world. Right or wrong most countries must maintain an us versus them perspective because of the instability of a variety of world leaders. A weakness of the realist perspective is that it could be seen as a self-fulfilling prophecy. As one country takes moves to protect their self-interest, other countries may feel threatened and take additional moves as well. Eventually you end up in a place similar to where the United States and Russia were during the Cold War.

The liberal perspective looks to overcome the self-interest problems with the realist perspective. “The liberal perspective pays more attention to interdependence than to independence or self-help” (Nau, 2018). A primary strength of the liberal perspective is that it recognizes that no man, or country, can stand truly alone. In this day and age of modern technology and conveniences, most people are not willing to go without in the name of overt Nationalism. A problem with the liberal perspective is that it ignores the realities of the types of world leaders that sometimes find power. The United States is a prime example. This idea of cooperation and interdependence has been a theme for many decades, however the elections of 2016 has placed a person in charge who is more focused in self-interest. I feel many do not realize the price they will pay in loss of luxury if things continue to progress as they are.

It is harder for me personally to find much strength in the identity perspective. I think it can be very dangerous when carried to extreme. “Identities are not given or exogenous—that is, taken for granted—as in realist or liberal perspectives, but are themselves aspects of reality that have to be accounted for” (Nau, 2018). The dangers of the identity perspective can be clearly seen in the terrible years in Nazi Germany, and some of the same dangers can be seen in the present day United States. The swelling America First movement of the past 2 years has led to an increase in violence and intolerance for those of other races and nationalities. While some strength can be identified in this perspective, the tendency for it to have negative outcomes is great.

While I think it would be lovely if the world adopted a more liberal perspective of cooperation and mutual benefit, the fact is that the realist perspective is the most closely able to express the reality of the current world stage.

Reference

Nau, H. R. (2018). Perspectives on international relations: Power, institutions, and ideas (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.