The Melian Dialogue and Manifest Destiny

           Thucydides' account of the dialogue between the people of Melos and representatives of Athens has long been a touchstone of texts in International Relations.  The substance of the text and the historical events that transpired are not the important things here, however.  What is important is how the concepts of authority and submission play out between the Melians and Athenians.   Upon reading this dialogue we are quick to side with the Melians as the ones "in the right"; they are, in our opinion, the ones being unjustly coerced by a superior nation.   However, an interesting parallel can be drawn between the actions of the Athenians and the actions of the United States under Manifest Destiny.

            In the Melian Dialogue, Thucydides recalls that Athens is currently in the midst of the Peloponnesian War against Sparta and its allies.  The Athenians arrive in Melos, peacefully, to offer the Melians a deal: submit to Athenian rule and Athens will protect Melos.  Athens, because of its current bout against Sparta, cannot afford to perceived as “weak” as it fears that this perception would make the Athenian empire unstable.  Another major argument used by the Athenians revolved around justice; more specifically, since Melos was so dramatically weaker than Athens, they had no right to justice, stating that “when one side is stronger, it gets as much as it can, and the weak must accept that” (Thucydides, 103).  In the Athenians’ view, their military superiority usurps the Melians’ right to justice.  The Melians reject the offer, arguing that, mainly; they value their own sovereignty and wish to remain neutral in the Peloponnesian War.  Melos is steadfast in their verbal defense of their city and integrity, even in the face of aggression from more powerful enemies.  Athens eventually besieges and brutally conquers Melos.  This timeline of events may have taken place in Ancient Greece, but the perspectives and interactions between these two actors has been seen time and again in contemporary history, notably with regards to the United States and Manifest Destiny.

            Manifest Destiny echoes an eerily similar situation.  Under Manifest Destiny, touted by American presidents throughout the 19th century, the land west of the Mississippi River was seen by Americans as their god-given right to own and rule over and civilize.  American institutions and values were perceived as the "right" institutions and values - by expanding (read: conquering) westward, the Americans believed that they were in fact doing the people who were already living there a favor.  Much like Athens wanted to "preserve [the Melians] for [their] mutual advantage" (104), the Americans believed their conquest of land in the west to be not one of selfish greed, but rather one of nobility and redemption.  By bringing American society and ways of life to the so-called barbaric and uncivilized peoples of the west, many of whom had been living there for centuries, the Americans would be helping them out while also expanding the boundaries of the United States.  Additionally, like with Athens, there was a domestic pressure to conquer.  Just as Athens was afraid of being perceived of as weak, and losing its grasp on power, so too did the United States feel compelled to conquer weaker civilizations in order not to be perceived as weak.  During the post-independence time of Manifest Destiny, the United States was trying to assert itself as a world power, akin to that of Great Britain, France, etc.  Much like Athens was fighting a war against Sparta & Friends, it could be argued that the United States was fighting a war of its own, a war to establish legitimacy in the international sphere.  The only logical way to do this was to expand its boundaries and to conquer.  It did not matter that this campaign was unjust and cruel.  Just like with Athens, since the United States was vastly superior to those that stood in its way, justice was just a figment of their imagination.  

The Flaws in Realism

              Offensive realism, one of the major theories in international relations, operates under the idea that states are constantly working towards becoming the most powerful state while living in fear that another state may attack at any point. In Mearsheimer’s The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, he argues that the means to achieving this goal is by building military power, thus proving to be above other weaker states. However, this theory, like any theory, has its flaws, as it fails to account for the unpredictability of humans, the nature of humans, and conflict resolution.

             The first claim Mearsheimer presents that is erroneous is that all states act rationally. This in and of itself poses an unstable argument, as people are unpredictable, and not necessarily rational actors. While it may be sensible to try and become powerful and stable in case of a conflict with another state, it is impossible to say that all states would act in this manner. Moreover, the rational decision is subjective. What appears to be the rational choice to one leader may seem irrational to the next. As a result, there is no way to concretely say every state will always make the rational decision, creating a hole in the offensive realist theory.

            Not only is the definition of rationality different depending on the context, but Mearsheimer also explains that according to realism states are constantly under threat by other states. It is true that people are unpredictable and there is no way to definitively say what another state might do. However, this theory assumes that humans are inherently selfish or even evil. Human instinct may be to be self-centered in order to survive, but this does not mean states cannot work together, as well. The concept of maintaining independence and trusting no one in trying to survive is outdated in this modern world where powers regularly work together to create better economies. Globalization has brought states closer together, and as humans are not always selfish, realism is not always applicable.

            Finally, realism implies to some extent that all rivalries among states are followed by war. Yet in today’s world, where people seem to be just as close to those half way around the world as they are to their neighbors, states frequently face conflicts with other states that are resolved through means other than violence. An exchange of documents can resolve an issue in present times, whereas in offensive realism war is the primary resolution to a problem.

            While there are several points in realism that do explain the way states operate, it seems like it is becoming increasingly irrelevant as time passes. The theory has many weaknesses as it fails to account for factors such as globalization and an ever-changing human population. Mearsheimer’s support for offensive realism may have made more sense in another time, but is now obsolete. 

Sources:

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton,

2001, p.29-54.

The Struggle For Power: How Hard Power Creates Soft Power

            Power, as defined by Merriam Webster, is “the ability or right to control people or things; political control of a country or area”. The presence of power can determine whether the country is going to thrive or not. As discussed in class, two of the most prominent types of power are hard and soft power. Hard power is the more tangible form of power, such as military or economic power. Soft power is based in persuasion, where states seduce one another into following their ideals. In discussion, we talked about the separation between the forms of power. However, I believe that soft power is derived from a country’s hard power, where one could not have the first without the latter. States with strong hard power influence have the ability to both exert soft power pressures and trump the soft pressures of other states.

            One instance of a state with hard power using their soft power-influence is the United States. In discussion, we talked about relations between the United States as Mexico. The question was posed as to if the U.S. asked Mexico to do something (i.e. enact a domestic policy), whether Mexico would feel obligated to listen to the request. Some argue that the soft power influences the U.S. has would persuade Mexico to do what they see is fit because the Mexicans idealize the U.S. However, I believe that the penultimate reason the U.S. has the soft power over Mexico is because of their strong hard power influence. Mexico knows that the United States has the ability to cripple Mexico in a myriad of ways if they do not adhere to the U.S. wishes. This could include halting trade and closing the borders through military force. Although this may not be perceived as the source of power, the soft power the United States has over Mexico comes from the underlying hard power pressures.

            The struggle of hard versus soft power can also work in opposite directions, where the country holding the hard power ultimately prevails. An example of this is seen in with the United Kingdom. The U.K. is one of the perennial members of the European Union. When the EU attempted to introduce widespread integration among various policy areas, it was met with strong apprehension from the U.K. One particular area that saw negative feedback was in the common currency area. Although there were issues on both sides, the U.K. ultimately decided they did not want to join the currency union. Rather than try to persuade the U.K. to join the union through sanctions, the EU allowed the country to continue using its own currency. I believe that it is important to recognize that in this situation hard power trumps soft power. The EU possessed soft power in that it created economic stability in the region and it encouraged many countries to agree to a common currency. On the other hand, the U.K. possessed hard power of a strong economy that assists the countries it is allied with. If the U.K. were not in the EU, the union’s stability would diminish. The economic strength of the U.K. serves as a form of hard power that undermines the soft power of the EU.

            Finally, soft power would not exist without hard power because hard power makes a state seem more “seductive” (to use class terms). As discussed in class, the English media company Monacle has done research as to which countries have the highest amount of soft power. The names on the list include Germany, the U.S., Japan, and Switzerland. What all of these states have in common is that they all maintain strong forms of hard power, whether it be through booming economies or large military capabilities. The ability for these countries to maintain persuasion of soft power is through their hard power influences. States who do not have such power idealize these nations and want to be similar to them, so they are inclined to follow their influence. However, when push comes to shove, these nations also have the ability to exact their will on the smaller nations if need be.

            The struggle for power is one that can be seen across history, and has been the cause for almost all major conflicts. In International Relations, power is a large factor in deciding how nations enact policy both domestically and abroad. Many nations possess soft power influence, where persuasion is key to getting another nation to follow your beliefs. In the end, the access to this soft power lies in the country’s ability to garner hard power. Hard power ultimately is the underlying force behind a country’s power of persuasion and seduction over other nations

A Feminist Approach to the Ebola Crisis

According to the World Health Organization, more than 3,000 people have died as a result of the current Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and more than 6,500 cases have been reported (Wall Street Journal). The Centers for Disease Control predicted than in a worst-case scenario, cases could reach 1.4 million within the next four months (New York Times). However, this story has been largely overlooked in the United States, overshadowed by the conflict with ISIL, NFL turmoil, the disappearance of Hannah Graham, and other stories. This is because the United States operates under classic principles of realism and liberalism, and therefore, issues that do not directly affect our physical or economic security do not receive much attention. However, applying feminist theory to the Ebola crisis would encourage American intervention in the crisis, gaining us respect and power, and therefore protecting our own interests.

In relation to the Ebola crisis, realists would argue that the United States has no stake in the situation, since the disease does not at this time pose a threat to our physical survival. The countries affected are not great states, and therefore do not impact our actions. They would also claim that since gaining and maintaining military power is our highest priority, intervening in the crisis would offer no payoff. In fact, by intervening, we would be decreasing our power in relation to other states that are not intervening. Liberal internationalists are often more favorable toward intervention because it allows us to push liberal ideas abroad. They would also say that intervening would benefit the United States if it offers us any absolute gain in power. However they would also oppose this action because they focus heavily on economic benefits. Intervening in this crisis would drain our economic resources and offer no economic benefits. Since liberalists also assume people and states to be rational actors, they would suggest that the risks involved in intervention make the action irrational. American realism and liberalism are also shaped by constructivist ideas. A constructivist approach would highlight the fact that the people affected by the Ebola virus are heavily “other.” They are located thousands of miles across the Atlantic Ocean, they do not live like we do, and they have dark skin. Therefore, we do not consider them to be like us, and think they are less deserving of our help.

However, IR feminism views security not just as the physical and economic security of the state, but also as the security of humans everywhere. Feminists would argue that Ebola is not an African issue, but a human issue, and therefore affects the United States even though it is not currently a direct threat to Americans. Tickner states, “to suffer a lower life expectancy by virtue of one’s place of birth is a form of violence that can be as devastating as war” (Tickner 21). Therefore, feminists would argue that we are just as obligated to act on behalf of the less fortunate people suffering from Ebola as we are to intervene on behalf of innocent people suffering in war-torn countries. By doing so, we would demonstrate both our “ability to tolerate cultural difference…and the potential for building community in spite of those differences” (Tickner 19), as well as our “appreciation of ‘the other’ as a subject whose views are as legitimate as our own” (Tickner 23).  

I believe successfully intervening in this crisis would gain us respect in the international community. While there would surely be many domestic opponents of intervening in this issue, I think other states would admire our willingness to take proactive steps to assure not only our survival but the survival of all people. This would improve our reputation and increase our credibility and influence, increasing our soft power as other states try to emulate our actions. This would be extremely valuable to the United States as it interacts with other international parties.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/ebola-virus-has-killed-more-than-3-000-people-says-who-1411894026

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/health/ebola-cases-could-reach-14-million-in-4-months-cdc-estimates.html?_r=1