Select Business &

Technology College
Global Trends course handout

Course title: Global Trends

Academic year: 2012

Chapter one
1.1. Conceptualizing Nationalism, Nations and States
Definition of nationalism
Nationalism is the doctrine that asserts the nation as the basic political unit in organizing society.
Nationalism is the most influential force in international affairs. It has caused the outbreak of
revolutions and wars across the globe. It is noted as a factor for the collapse of age old empires,
marker for new borders, a powerful component for the emergence of new states and it is used to
reshape and reinforce regimes in history.

Nationalism can be also defined as "loyalty and devotion to a nation, especially a sense of
national consciousness," and "exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis
on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational
groups."

Nationalism connects individuals

 They become sentimentally attached to the homeland

 They gain a sense of identity and self –esteem through their national identification
 They are motivated to help their fellow nationals and countries

In general nationalism is a political doctrine, a belief that nations should be self-governing.

Nationalism advocates the right of people who defined themselves as nations to establish their
own independent state.

The revolutions that took place in Britain‘s North American colonies in 1776, and in France in
1789, provided models for other nationalists to follow. ‗We the People of the United States‘ –
the first words of the Preamble to the US Constitution – was a phrase which itself would have
been literally unthinkable in an earlier era. In France, the king was officially the only legitimate
political actor and the people as a whole were excluded from politics. In addition, the power of
the aristocracy and the church remained strong, above all in the countryside where they were the
largest landowners. In the revolution of 1789, the old regime was overthrown and with it the
entire social order. The French nation was from now on to be governed by the people, the nation,
and in accordance with the principles of liberté, égalitéetfraternité– liberty, equality and
brotherhood.

Is nationalism inherently racist? No. A nation, according to Benedict Anderson, is a “spiritual

unity.” It is a tendency of cultural imagination to conceive of one’s self as part of a larger whole
of people whom one will never, personally, meet. For Anderson, it is enabled, historically, by
the widespread existence of print media and the increasingly widespread occurrence of reading
(initially, newspapers). It almost always masks prior internal differences and conflicts even in its
more grassroots and organic forms, as a necessity in order to enable us to “imagine” ourselves as
sharing something significant in common.

While nationalism is decidedly not racist, inherently, it has, at times, been associated with
extreme ethno-nationalism, as in the cases of Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. In such
cases, it has usually been associated with fascist policies in which opposition, defined by racial
or other categories, is singled out for eradication, physical and/or other forms of extreme
oppression.

Definition of nation

In common jargon, the words nation, state ‘and country ‘are used interchangeably and this is not
correct. In international politics, it is also common but incorrect to refer the Chinese‘, the
Americans ‘and the Russians ‘as nations‘. Hence, the question remains: what is a nation?
According to Heywood, nations are historical entities that evolve organically out of more similar
ethnic communities and they reveal themselves in myths, legends, and songs (2014).

 According to J. W. Garner- “A nation is a culturally homogeneous social group which is

at once conscious and tenacious of its unity of psychic life and expression.”
 So Lord James Bryce said- “Nation is a union of men having racial or ethnographic
significance”.
 According to J. K. Bluntschli- “Nation is a union of people bound together by language
and customs in a common civilisation which gives them a sense of unity and distinction
from all foreigners.”

In all such definitions most of the political thinkers emphasise that every society which has
enough of a distinct tradition to be called a character has a natural right to political
independence and what is called, in the jargon of the hour, self-determination. John Stuart
Mill thinks that any portion of mankind may be said to constitute a nation if they are united
among themselves by common sympathies.
Nation ,from the Latin `nasci` which mean` to be born` are a complex phenomenon that are
shaped by a collection of cultural, psychological and political factors.

 Politically- regard themselves as a natural political community

 Culturally-bound together by a common language, history, religion and tradition
 Psychologically- distinguished by a shared loyalty or affection in the form patriotism

Nation constitutes a community of people joined by a shared identity and by common social
practices. Communities of various kinds have always existed but they now became, for the first
time, a political concern. As a new breed of nationalist leaders came to argue, the nation should
take over the state and make use of its institutional structures to further the nation‘s ends. In one
country after another the nationalists were successful in these aims. The nation added an interior
life to the state, we might perhaps say; the nation was a soul added to the body of the early
modern state machinery.

nation as: ‘a human group conscious of forming a community, sharing a common culture,
attached to a clearly demarcated territory, having a common past and a common project for the
future and claiming the right to rule itself’. So awareness, territory, history and culture, language
and religion all matter. However, it is rare in the real world to find a case of a nation with a clear-
cut and homogenous character in terms of this list of possibilities. Each nation is unique in the
(alleged) makeup of its special character and worth. One crucial question is whether – and to
what extent – a group must be aware of its alleged distinctiveness from other groups, in order to
be classed as a nation. One could argue that a nation can objectively be defined as a group of
people which possesses a shared and distinct, historically persistent cultural identity, and which
makes up a majority within a given territorial area. If that is the case, then one could argue that
even if such a ‘nation’ is not pushing for a right to self-determination (in any form), it
nevertheless is a nation.

In international politics, nevertheless, the implication of nationalism and its essence is highly
questioned. Especially in the contemporary period, nation states are put under pressure and their
role in world politics is significantly challenged. However, there is also an emerging narrative
which advances the idea that a revival of nationalism is happening across the world with the
post-cold war assertions of religion, culture and ethnicity as potent forces in world politics –
hence we have S.P. Huntington‘s ‗clash of civilizations‘ as an alternative to Francis Fukuyama‘s
‗End of History‘ thesis on world politics.

There are other would-be objective approaches to what might signify nation-ness, including
statehood, ethnicity and naturalness.

 Statehood. This view holds that if a group has its ‘own’ state then it constitutes a nation.
The common term ‘nation-state’ taps into this sense of nation. But this approach seems a
little too neat, and begs many questions. For a start, it would mean that there can be no
non-state nations, freezing into place the existing configuration of states that makes up
the political map of the world. Defining nation-ness in terms of statehood, although
common, rather rigs the game – why should all non-state ‘nations’ have their aspirations
dismissed purely by definition?

 Ethnicity. Some interpret the principle of national self-determination as meaning that

each ‘ethnic’ group forms a nation, and that each nation should be presumed to have a
right to political self-determination. But who is to locate – and worse, to police – where
the boundaries of one ethnicity stop and those of another begin?

 Naturalness. Mountains and rivers, for example, are sometimes thought to provide
‘natural’ borders. But, just as much as they divide and separate peoples, mountains and
rivers and other features of the natural landscape can bring people together and create
common interests and a common sense of community. There is no single or correct way
to ‘read’ the social meaning of natural landscapes.

E. H. Carr on traits of nation:

(i) The idea of common government whether as a reality in the present or past or as an aspiration
of the future;

(ii) A certain size and closeness of contact between all individual members;

(iii) A more or less defined territory;

(iv) Certain characteristics of which the most predominant trait is language;

(v) Some common interests of the individual members;

(vi) Some common feelings associated with the idea of nation in the minds of the individual
members.

Although we use the two terms nation and state to mean the same thing, in actuality there is
some difference.

Nation is one of feeling while state is one of reality. We know that a state is composed of
population, territory, sovereignty and government. Whenever these four elements are available a
state is constituted.

Absence of any of them negates the statehood. A state may have more than one nation. For
example, before the First World War, Austria and Hungary, two distinct nations, made one state,
though there was no element of unity between Austria and Hungary.

Again, the basis of the two concepts is different – a nation is based on the consciousness of unity
because of psychological or spiritual feelings. But in a state there is a political unity.

A State is an independent, sovereign government exercising control over a certain spatially

defined and bounded area, whose borders are usually clearly defined and internationally
recognized by other states.

 States are tied to territory

 Sovereign or state as absolute ruler over territory
 Have clear borders
 Defends and controls its territory within those borders
 Is recognized by other countries (diplomatic recognition, passports, treaties, etc.)
 States have bureaucracies staffed by state’s own personnel
 Has a national bureaucracy staffed by government personnel (legal system, educational
system, hierarchical governmental units, etc.)
 States monopolize certain functions within its territory (sovereign)
 Controls legitimate use of force within its territory
 Controls money at national scale (prints currency; collects taxes)
  Makes rules within its territory (law, regulations, taxes, citizenship, etc.)
 Controls much information within its territory
 States try to form nations within their borders (through symbols, education, ‘national
interest,’ etc.).

1.2. Understanding International Relations

International relations is not merely a field of study at university but is an integral aspect of our
(increasingly international) everyday lives. We now live in a world where it is impossible to
isolate our experiences and transactions from an international dimension. If an Ethiopian student
watches the sitcom Friends or the soap opera Neighbors, they are both learning about and
participating in a culture different from their own. If a student flies from Addis to Washington
DC or London they are subject to international air space agreements and contributing to global
warming. If a student chooses to buy a fair-trade coffee they are making a conscious decision
about contributing to a state and a people‘s development. Should you work for an inter-national
company or international organization, or even if you work for a locally based company there
will inevitably be an international dimension to the functioning of the company as it negotiates
the myriad of regional laws, international trade laws, international employment laws and tax
laws. The limits to how international relations will continue to impact your life is tremendous.

Studying international relations enables students and professionals to better comprehend the
information we receive daily from newspapers, television and radio. People not only live in
villages and towns, but form part of the wider networks that constitute regions, nations and
states. As members of this world community, people have to be equally aware of both their rights
and their responsibilities – and should be capable of engaging in important debates concerning
the major issues facing the modern international community. One crucial feature of the world in
which we live is its interconnectedness – geographically, intellectually and socially – and thus
we need to understand it.

Originally, the study of international relations (a term first used by Jeremy Bentham in 1798)
was seen largely as a branch of the study of law, philosophy or history. However, following the
carnage of the First World War there emerged an academic undertaking to understand how the
fear of war was now equal only to the fear of defeat that had preceded the First World War.
Subsequently, the first university chair of international relations was founded at the University of
Wales in 1919. Given such diverse origins, there is no one accepted way of defining or
understanding international relations, and throughout the world many have established individual
ways of understanding international relations. Any attempt to define a field of study is bound to
be somewhat arbitrary and this is particularly true when one comes to international relations.

Today, international relations could be used to describe a range of interactions between people,
groups, firms, associations, parties, nations or states or between these and (non) governmental
international organizations. These interactions usually take place between entities that exist in
different parts of the world – in different territories, nations or states. To the layperson
interactions such as going on holiday abroad, sending international mail, or buying or selling
goods abroad may seem personal and private, and of no particular international concern. Other
interactions such as choosing an Olympics host or awarding a film Oscar are very public, but
may appear to be lacking any significant international political agenda. However, any such
activities could have direct or indirect implications for political relations between groups, states
or inter-national organizations. More obviously, events such as international conflict, inter-
national conferences on global warming and international crime play a fundamental part in the
study of international relations. If our lives can be so profoundly influenced by such events, and
the responses of states and people are so essential to international affairs, then it is incumbent on
us to increase our understanding of such events.

International Relations is concerned with relations across boundaries of nation-states. It

addresses international political economy, global governance, intercultural relations, national and
ethnic identities, foreign policy analysis, development studies, environment, international
security, diplomacy, terrorism, media, social movements and more. It is a multidisciplinary field
that does not restrict students to one approach and employs a variety of methods including
discourse analysis, statistics and comparative and historical analysis.

International relations have encompassed the globe. There is or are now:

 a worldwide system of communication regulated by international organizations (such as

the Universal Postal Union, International Telecommunication Union, and
 Intergovernmental Copyright Committee), involving mail, telegrams, radio, television,
newspapers, periodicals, and books;
 a global transportation system involving international shipping lines, and especially, the
airlines regulated by the International Civil Aviation Organization;
 an extensive worldwide trade and division of labor, with states and multinational
corporations specializing in extractive industries, forestry, fishing, food crops, or
manufacturing;
 international social norms that frame the variety of interaction among states and
international groups, some of which have the status of international law;
 a stratification system recognized by all and dividing states into those with wealth, power
or prestige, and those without;2
 a culture, of which the dominant language is English, with norms emphasizing the
sovereignty, independence and equality of states, and valuing truth,4 education and
knowledge, development, and government intervention, regulation, and planning
Although international relations has taken on a new significance because of our
increasingly interconnected world, it is certainly not a new concept. Historically, the
establishment of treaties between nations served as the earliest form of international
relations.
The study and practice of international relations in today’s world is valuable for many
reasons:
 International relations promotes successful trade policies between nations.
 International relations encourages travel related to business, tourism, and immigration,
providing people with opportunities to enhance their lives.
 International relations allows nations to cooperate with one another, pool resources, and
share information as a way to face global issues that go beyond any particular country or
region. Contemporary global issues include pandemics, terrorism, and the environment.
 International relations advances human culture through cultural exchanges, diplomacy
and policy development.
The practice of international relations is valuable in a wide array of settings. Some
examples inlcude:
 Humanitarian organizations
 o Action Against Hunger
o Oxfam International
o World Food Programme
 Government agencies
o Department of State
o Department of Homeland Security
o Department of Commerce
 International corporations
o General Electric
o BP
o Exxon Mobile
o Toyota
o Nestle
o Siemens
 Media outlets
o BBC
o Washington Post
o The Guardian
o Der Spiegal
o New York Times
o Forbes
o Wall Street Journal
 Intergovernmental organizations
o World Trade Organization
o United Nations
o NATO
 International communications
o Amnesty International
o Freedom House
o Human Rights Watch
 o Reporters Without Borders
 Research centers/Think tanks
o Brookings Institution
o Center for International Policy
o Council on Foreign Relations
o Global Public Policy Institute

International relations may be an offshoot of political science, but this field of study is
exceptionally in-depth in its own right. As our global society evolves and expands, international
relations will evolve and expand along with it as we continue to explore new and exciting way to
link our complex world.

For example, traditional dimensions of international relations related to international peace and
prosperity include topics such as international diplomacy, arms control, and alliance politics.
Contemporary studies in international relations, on other hand, include topics such as
international political economics, environmental politics, refugee and migration issues, and
human rights.

Examining the Levels of State Behavior

Professionals studying international relations often determine the level at which they will analyze
a state’s behavior:

 System Level Analysis: System level analysis looks at the international system; more
specifically, how the international system affects the behavior of nation states, with the
key variable being that the international system includes the power of each state rather
than being independent of them.
 State Level Analysis: State level analysis examines how a state’s characteristics
determine its foreign policy behavior. This type of analysis often views states as having
cultural characteristics based on their religious or social traditions, and their historical
legacy, and includes an analysis of economic and geographic factors.
 Organizational Level Analysis: Organizational level analysis examines how
organizations within a state influence the state’s foreign policy behavior. In other words,
 organizational level analysis views that organizations—not states—make the decisions
that create a state’s foreign policy.
 Individual Level Analysis: Individual level analysis views the leaders of states as being
the largest influencers of foreign policy.

Participation in international relations or politics is also inescapable. No individual, people,

nation or state can exist in splendid isolation or be master of its own fate; but none, no matter
how powerful in military, diplomatic or economic circles, even a giant superpower, can compel
everyone to do its bidding. None can maintain or enhance their rate of social or economic
progress or keep people alive without the contributions of foreigners or foreign states.
Everypeople, nation or state is a minority in a world that is anarchic, that is, there is an absence
of a common sovereign over them. There is politics among entities that have no ruler and in the
absence of any ruler. That world is pluralistic and diverse. Each state is a minority among
humankind. No matter how large or small, every state or nation in the world must take account
of ‗foreigners‘.

On the other hand, there are legal, political and social differences between domestic and
international politics. Domestic law is generally obeyed, and if not, the police and courts enforce
sanctions. International law rests on competing legal systems, and there is no common
enforcement. Domestically a government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In
international politics no one has a monopoly of force, and therefore international politics has
often been interpreted as the realm of self-help. It is also accepted that some states are stronger
than others. Domestic and international politics also differ in their underlying sense of
community – in international politics, divided peoples do not share the same loyalties – people
disagree about what seems just and legitimate; order and justice. It is not necessary to suggest
that people engaged in political activity never agree or that open and flagrant disagreement is
necessary before an issue becomes political: what is important is that it should be recognized that
conflict or disagreement lies at the heart of politics. To be political the disagreement has to be
about public issues.

Scholars and practitioners in international relations use concepts and theories to make their study
more manageable. This, however, was complicated due to the emergence of major philosophical
disputes about the fundamental nature of international relations: the Hobbesian versus the
Lockean state of nature in the seventeenth century; and the Realist versus Idealist debate of the
first part of the twentieth century. Hobbes, writing in 1651, interpreted the state of society to be:
‗continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish,
and short‘. The concepts articulated by Hobbes still reverberate in many modern fundamental
assumptions about the nature of the system and of human beings.

Whereas, Locke took a more optimistic view and suggested that sociability was the strongest
bond between men –men were equal, sociable and free; but they were not licentious because they
were governed by the laws of nature. He was clear that nature did not arm man against man, and
that some degree of society was possible even in the state preceding government. Three and a
half centuries later the differing perceptions and assumptions concerning human nature that
influenced Hobbes and Locke are still able to divide approaches to the study of the nature of
international relations.

1.3. The Nature and Evolution of International Relations

International politics was a matter of relations between states and no other political units. All
states were sovereign, meaning that they laid claims to the exclusive right to rule their own
territories and to act, in relation to other states, as they themselves saw fit. All states were
formally equal and they had the same rights and obligations. Taken together, the states interacted
with each other in a system in which there was no overarching power. Sovereignty and formal
equality led to the problem of anarchy.

On the other hand, most of what happened in Europe before the nineteenth century was of great
concern to the Europeans but of only marginal relevance to people elsewhere. Europe certainly
had a significant impact on the Americas, North and South. However, it had far less impact on
Asia and relations with Africa were largely restricted to a few trading ports. The large, rich and
powerful empires of East Asia were organized quite differently than the European states, and
international politics followed different principles. The same can be said for other parts of the
world such as the Indian subcontinent, Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world.
And yet, it was the European model of statehood and the European way of organizing
international relations that eventually came to organize all of world politics.
It was only in the nineteenth century that relations between Europe and the rest of the world were
irrevocably transformed. The reason is above all to be found in economic changes taking place in
Europe itself. At the end of the eighteenth century, new ways of manufacturing goods were
invented which made use of machines powered by steam, and later by electricity, which made it
possible to engage in large-scale factory production. As a result of this so called ‗industrial
revolution‘, the Europeans could produce many more things and do it far more efficiently. As
cheap, mass-produced goods flooded European markets, the Europeans began looking for new
markets overseas.
Towards the end of the nineteenth century, other European countries joined in this scramble for
colonies, not least in Africa. Colonial possessions became a symbol of ‗great power‘ status, and
the new European nation-states often proved themselves to be very aggressive colonizers. France
added West Africa and Indochina to its growing empire, and the Germans and Italians also
joined the race once their respective countries were unified. This explains how, by the time of the
First World War in 1914, most parts of the world were in European hands. There were some
exceptions to this rule – China, Japan, Siam, Persia, Ethiopia and Nepal, among others – but
even in these ostensibly independent countries the Europeans had a strong presence.

1.4. Actors of international relations in International Relations

State Actors

International Relations (IR) traditionally focused on interactions between states. However, this
conventional view has been broadened over the years to include relationships between all sorts of
political entities (‗polities‘), including international organizations, multinational corporations,
societies and citizens. IR captures a vast array of themes ranging from the growing
interconnectedness of people to old and new forms of security, dialogue and conflict between
visions, beliefs and ideologies, the environment, space, the global economy, poverty and climate
change. The sheer number of actors and issues that are relevant to IR can be overwhelming. This
can make it seem like a daunting task to not just study various aspects of IR but to try to grasp
the bigger picture.

Non-State Actors
Our every day lived experience is influenced by global firms, international governmental
institutions, and non-governmental organizations that necessitates the remit of our investigations
in order to account for the diversity of actors and forms of inter-actions which take place in
global politics. Considered in terms of the dynamics of change and how we provide explanations
of change, the question begins to shift attention back to an earlier problematic, namely the
capacity to make a difference. When thought of in terms of ‗capacity‘, the ‗agency‘ of states is
as much as that of the UN or Amnesty International, for each acts within a wider whole, whether
this is conceived in terms of the international political economy or the international legal order,
or indeed the anarchical international system.

Similarly, multinational corporations (MNCs) – often with headquarters in one state and
operational capability in a range of others – contribute significantly to international relations.
Additionally there are other trans-governmental organizations where the relations between
players are not controlled by the central foreign policy of the state – such as the exchange rate of
a state‘s currency being determined by the money markets.

1.4. Theories of International relation

Realism in International Relations

Realism is a straightforward approach to international relations, stating that all nations are
working to increase their own power, and those countries that manage to horde power most
efficiently will thrive, as they can easily eclipse the achievements of less powerful nations. The
theory further states that a nation’s foremost interest should be self-preservation and that
continually gaining power should always be a social, economic, and political imperative.

The nature of realism implies that seeking a moral high ground is a goal that governments cannot
always achieve and that deceit and violence can be highly effective tools for advancing national
interests. With homeland defense elevated to the highest priority, remaining morally righteous in
the eyes of international organizations can take a backseat to enforcing foreign policy that will
improve the nation’s global stature. In modern times, realism is evident in the foreign policies of
China and Russia. The relationship between Russia and Syria is one that has raised eyebrows in
Europe and around the world; despite the bloody civil war in Syria—and the international
community’s pleas for intervention—Russia has maintained strategic relations with the
government of Bashar Al-Assad in order to protect Russian interests in the region. Similarly,
China continues its diplomatic and economic association with North Korea in spite of the latter’s
abysmal human rights record and aggressive nuclear testing. Chinese encroachment into the
South China Sea and Russia’s incursions into Ukraine also highlight the two countries’
aggressive—and at times violent—realist political approach to international affairs.

Liberalism

Also called “liberal internationalism,” liberalism is based on the belief that the current global
system is capable of engendering a peaceful world order. Rather than relying on direct force,
such as military action, liberalism places an emphasis on international cooperation as a means of
furthering each nation’s respective interests. Liberalists believe that the negative consequences of
force—such as economic losses and civilian casualties—far exceed its potential benefits.
Therefore, liberal politicians generally prefer the use of economic and social power in achieving
their national goals (for instance, obtaining the agreement of a neighboring country to help
secure a border). In today’s globalized society, using economic tactics—such as bilateral trade
agreements and international diplomacy—can be more effective in advancing political interests
than threatening force. As liberalism has become more rooted in international cooperation
through the establishment of organizations like the United Nations, realism has started to wane
as a viable political strategy. It can be argued that the liberalist tradition, perpetuated by the
United States, has become the dominant system in international relations, with established values
and international institutions in place to regulate this order.

Constructivism

Constructivism rests on the notion that rather than the outright pursuit of material interests, it is a
nation’s belief systems—historical, cultural and social —that explain its foreign policy efforts
and behavior. For example, since German aggression served as the primary catalyst for the
Second World War, Germany deploys its armed forces outside of German borders only when its
government is certain of the need to intervene in instances of genocide or conflict that threatens
to spill over into other nations. This has been demonstrated by the country’s foreign policy
following the first and second Gulf War (the latter of which Germany refused to participate), as
well as its reluctant participation in United Nations-led operations in Somalia and Yugoslavia.

Constructivists also argue that states are not the most important actors in international relations,
but that international institutions and other non-state actors are valuable in influencing behavior
through lobbying and acts of persuasion. For this reason, constructivism has become a popular
and important theory in recent decades as non-state actors like international organizations such
as Amnesty International, play a role in promoting human rights and making them an
international standard to which countries are expected to conform

Marxism

Karl Marx was a Prussian philosopher and economist whose works posited that societies could
escape the self-destructive nature of capitalist socioeconomic systems by implementing socialist
theory into their policies, both locally and abroad. Marxism, a theory that closely analyzes social
classes, aims to dismantle the capitalist structure of the international system, as it states that
capitalism is no longer practically sustainable in the modern world. Marx believed that private
property should be replaced by cooperative ownership, with the emphasis placed entirely on
satisfying human needs for consumption, rather than creating private profit. Under an ideal
socialist international regime, societies would work together to ensure that basic human needs
were met on a global scale. Marxism was a dominant political ideology during the Cold War and
inspired socialist revolutions in countries such as China, Vietnam and Cuba. Marxism’s
influence can still be felt today, with Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung encouraging
students to study Marxism in exchange for free tuition. The Marxist revival is not exclusive to
current and former communist nations; The 2017 Marxism Festival was hosted by the Socialist
Workers Party in London and attracted thousands of activists from across the world. As the
global population continues to grow and sustainability becomes increasingly precarious,
Marxism remains a relevant topic of discussion for those who advocate the prioritization of
human needs over private benefit.

Offensive Realism
Offensive realism is a covering term for several theories of international politics and foreign
policy that give analytical primacy to the hostile and unforgiving nature of the international
system as the cause of conflict. Like defensive realism, some variants of offensive realism build
upon and depart from Waltz's neorealism. Offensive realism holds that anarchy (the absence of a
worldwide government or universal sovereign) provides strong incentives for expansion. All
states strive to maximize their relative power because only the strongest states can guarantee
their survival. They pursue expansionist policies when and where the benefits of doing so
outweigh the costs. States face the ever-present threat that other states will use force to harm or
conquer them. This compels them to improve their relative power positions through arms build-
ups, unilateral diplomacy, mercantile (or even autarkic) foreign economic policies, and
opportunistic expansion. Ultimately every state in the international system strives to become a
regional hegemon - a state that enjoys a preponderance of military, economic, and potential
power in its part of the globe. Offensive realists however, disagree over the historical prevalence
of hegemonic regional systems and the likely responses of weaker states to would-be regional
hegemons (e.g., balancing, buck-passing, or bandwagoning).

ParallelismTheory
Based on a fusion of Weberian and Freudian concepts, Parallelism argues that, at the macro
level, states fall into two general categories, paternal and fraternal, and that the struggle between
the two types characterizes international relations. In the ancient world, paternal systems were
predominant because they were militarily superior, but since the rise of the nation-state, fraternal
states have become predominant. The engine of historical change is the revolution-hegemonic
war cycle, which brings paternal and fraternal systems into conflict with one another.

PeripheralRealism

A foreign policy theory arising from the special perspective of (Latin American) peripheral states
and represented by the work of Carlos Escude, for example. This view of international relations
regards the international system as having an incipient hierarchical structure based on perceived
differences between states: those that give orders, those that obey, and those that rebel. The
peripheral approach introduces a different way of understanding the international system: that is,
from the unique viewpoint of states that do not impose 'rules of the game' and which suffer high
costs when they confront them. Thus, the foreign policies of peripheral states are typically
framed and implemented in such a way that the national interest is defined in terms of
development, confrontation with great powers is avoided, and autonomy is not understood as
freedom of action but rather in terms of the costs of using that freedom.
Pluralism
A tradition in international relations that argued that politics, and hence policy, was the product
of a myriad of competing interests, hence depriving the state of any independent status. Pluralism
can be seen to derive principally from a liberal tradition, rooted in Locke's 'Second Treatise of
Government', and to pose an anti-realist vision of the centrality of the state in world politics.
Pluralists make four key assumptions about international relations. Primarily, non-state actors are
important entities in world politics. Secondly, the State is not looked upon as a unified actor,
rather, competition, coalition building, and compromise between various interest groups
including multinational enterprises will eventually culminate into a 'decision' announced in the
name of the state. Thirdly, pluralists challenge the realist assumption of the state as a rational
actor, and this derives from the second assumption where the clash of competing interests may
not always provide for a rational decision making process. Finally, the fourth assumption
revolves around the nature of the international agenda, where it is deemed extensive by the
pluralists and includes issues of national security as well as economic, social and environmental
issues.They also contend with the predominance of a physical conception of power inherent in
realism.
Positivism
Positivism is sometimes used to denote a “scientific” approach, but positivism is far more than
this. It asserts that science can only deal with entities that can be directly experienced. Positivism
is based upon an empiricist rejection of value judgements and argues that science must be
confined to the “is” rather than the “ought.” Positivism can be traced back to the empiricism of
Hume, but in the nineteenth century it was developed by Comte (1798–1857) who sought to
integrate all sciences into an overarching system of what he called ‘positive philosophy’.
Positivists have generally taken natural sciences as their model. Positivists seek to stress the
quantitative aspects of political and social life, and behavioralism is attracted to a positivist view
of science. The attempt to separate facts from values denies that facts are relational, and it is out
of the relationships that facts presuppose, that values emerge. The fact that patriarchy oppresses
women and privileges men has obvious value implications, and attempts by positivist social
scientists to devise a ‘value-free’ language have not been persuasive. Moreover, it is a myth that
the natural sciences are value free.

Chapter Two
Understanding Foreign Policy and Diplomacy
2.1. Introduction
Foreign policy of a state is the actions, decisions and goals that states pursue towards the outside
world. It is shaped by both external/systemic factors and internal factors. International regimes,
international organizations, the prevalence of great powers at international level are some of
systemic factors that impinges on the foreign policy of a state. Internally, the economic,
technological and military capabilities of states heavily affect foreign policy. On top of these, the
idiosyncrasy of leaders contributes much in affecting the foreign policy making and
implementation of a country.
After the treaty of Westphalia and the end of the First and SecondWorld War, the international
system has witnessed an increasinggrowth in the development of nation states. The end product
of thisdevelopment is thus, the creation of an interaction between thesenation states. In addition,
the establishment of United Nations and theprocess of decolonization that has liberated many
states into sovereignentities have further provided the impetus to interrelationships amongstates.
Such has resulted into the formation of ‘foreign policies’. Withthe aim of determining and
identifying the decisions, strategies, andends of interaction of a state with another .
The term foreign policy has been defined in various ways byscholars; however, they are certain
that it is concerned with behavior of a state towards other states. Hermann for instance, defined
foreignpolicy as “the discrete purposeful action that results from the political level decision of an
individual or group of individualsobservable artifact of a political level decision. It is not the
decision,but a product of the decision.” By this, it can be seen that Hermann defines foreign
policy as the behaviour of states.
In much international relations scholarship, foreign policy is a taken-for-granted term, defined
for example as “the sum of official external relations conducted by an independent actor (usually
a state) in international relations” . This kind of understanding underpins most foreign policy
analysis, regardless of whether the focus is on studying the content of foreign policy, the pursued
policy, or the process leading up to such policy. Such a conceptualization has also been
considered as historically commonsensical in much academic work. From the notion of foreign
policy as perpetually different follows a specific need for secrecy in the handling of it. The need
for secrecy has two causes in the literature. First, public opinion is fickle and uniformed and thus
untrustworthy. Second, open discussion allows for internal dissent, which weakens the state in
international interaction. The basic assumptions are that polities have always had foreign policies
and that the fundamentally different character of foreign policy demands secrecy.

2.2. Defining National Interest

National interest is the raison de`tat, (the reason of state), to justify its actions and policy towards
other states at international level. National interest refers to set of values, orientation, goals and
objectives a given country would like to achieve in its international relations. It has been the
main driving force that determines the contents of foreign policy. However, there are
controversies on the exact meaning, scope and contents of national interests. So, this section is
devoted to examining the meaning and debates of national interest. It also discusses realist and
idealist interpretations of national interest.
National Interest’ is a key concept in International Relations. All the nations are always engaged
in the process of fulfilling or securing the goals of their national interests. The foreign policy of
each nation is formulated on the basis of its national interest and it is always at work for securing
its goals. It is a universally accepted right of each state to secure its national interests. A state
always tries to justify its actions on the basis of its national interest. The behaviour of a state is
always conditioned and governed by its national interests. Hence it is essential for us to know the
meaning and content of National Interest.
“The meaning of national interest is survival—the protection of physical, political and cultural
identity against encroachments by other nation-states”—Morgenthau.
Protecting National Interests
The working definition for foreign policy states, in part, that foreign policy is designed to help
protect a country’s national interests; the Irish definition states, again in part, that foreign policy
is the pursuit by a state of its interests. Each sovereign country can be expected to have different
national interests and thus a different foreign policy focus because external policy reflects
interests or concerns internal to the country pursuing them, according to the Republic of
Ireland’s White Paper on Foreign Policy (1996). Logically, then, the protection of national
interests through foreign policy is the protection of internal interests.
The working definition for foreign policy states that foreign policy, in addition to protecting
national interests as mentioned earlier, is designed to protect a country’sideological goals; the
Irish definition states that foreign policy, in addition to pursuing national interests, is the pursuit
by a state of itsvalues in the external environment. According to Latham (2002), the term values
refers to subjective views of individuals about what is worthy or important. He continues that in
politics, [values] are views about the ends that social institutions ought to advance, and the
virtues they ought to embody. As government is a social institution, values are the views
governments should advance and virtues they should embody. Some examples of national values
include freedom, democracy, free economies, and human dignity (The Hutchinson Encyclopedia, 2003).
In addition, some national values can be discerned from the articulation of national interests. For
instance, referring to Canada’s national interests, one might conclude that Canada’s values include
human rights, peace, and environmental harmony.
National values can be promoted by various means ranging along a continuum from active to
passive. As an example, the United States, in promoting democracy, has used military actionthe
most active meansand has modeled democratic behaviorsthe most passive means. In between
these two extremes, the United States has used other approaches including diplomacy, foreign
aid, international broadcasting, and even covert political manipulations.
National interests are a public declaration of a country’s needs and intentions based
on an assessment of the current situation. Such a declaration performs several key functions.
Firstly, it establishes a hierarchy of foreign policy priorities to avoid the ineffective use
of resources and overextension. This was the main purpose of the report prepared by the
Commission on America’s National Interests, which did not invent anything new, but simply put
well-known interests in order of priority, substantiating their choice.
Secondly, an official or semi-official statement of national interests puts reasonable constraints
on the government, which often uses foreign policy to gain political advantage over the
opposition. In addition, clearly stated national interests provide society with strict criteria for
evaluating the policy conducted by those who make foreign policy decisions.
Thirdly, national interests ensure both continuity and timely adjustment of key aspects of the
policy. It is particularly important that proper definitions contained in official documents prevent
the state from turning foreign policy into a continuation of domestic policy. Regardless of how
well democratic institutions are developed, in the majority of countries numerous actors with
private interests seek to push them to the national level and garner government support. In this
respect, national interests are a system of interconnected and logically coherent statements
on what can be beneficial for a particular state in a given period of time.
In a harmonious system of national interests, one cannot easily manipulate its parts. In fact,
in most cases one or several interests cannot be restated without affecting the others, as those
«retouched» for the sake of some immediate goals or influential groups will undoubtedly collide
with other national interests. Kommersant international affairs observer Yelena Chernenko has
rightfully noted that Russia cannot give up on its commitment to the inviolability of borders and
state sovereignty without correcting the underlying doctrinal principles of its foreign policy.
Finally, a country pronounces national interests publicly in order to be more predictable to the
outside world. The state largely restricts itself by declaring its interests and readiness to pursue
them by all means, while pledging to refrain from actions that would clearly be at odds with such
declarations. Such firmness in pursing these interests is usually accompanied by attempts
to explain why they do not threaten other countries and can on the whole be acceptable to them.
The declaration of national interests as a foreign policy instrument can be effective if there
is a balance between a state’s ambitions and its guarantees to refrain from zero-sum games. For
instance, if national interests are stated in a manner that multiplies influential opponents and
increases international resistance to a country’s foreign policy, then this can hardly be the best
way to do it.
Any violation of declared national interests can result in serious external consequences. In fact,
how can anyone trust existing or future declarations if the authors themselves ignore them
so easily? What would be the price of mistrust? An exorbitantly costly arms race is just one
of the most common consequences a major power that has lost the trust of the rest of the world
(or its part) in its declared interests or intentions can face.
2.3. Components of National Interest:
In describing the national interests that nations seek to secure a two-fold classification is
generallymade:
(A) Necessary or Vital Components of National Interest and
(B) Variable or Non-vital Components of National Interests.
(A) Necessary or Vital Components:
According to Morgenthau, the vital components of the national interests that a foreign policy
seeks to secure are survival or identity. He sub-divides identity into three parts: Physical identity.
Political identity and Cultural identity.
Physical identity includes territorial identity. Political identity means politico- economic system
and Cultural identity stands for historical values that are upheld by a nation as part of its cultural
heritage. These are called vital components because these are essential for the survival of the
nation and can be easily identified and examined. A nation even decides to go to war for securing
or protecting her vital interests.
A nation always formulates its foreign policy decisions with a view to secure and strengthens its
security. The attempts to secure international peace and security, that nations are currently
making, are being made because today the security of each state stands inseparably linked up
with international peace and security. Security is, thus, a vital component of national interest.
Each nation always tries to secure its vital interests even by means of war.
(B) Non-vital or Variable Components of National Interest:
The non-vital components are those parts of national interest which are determined either by
circumstances or by the necessity of securing the vital components. These are determined by a
host of factors—the decision-makers, public opinion, party politics, sectional or group interests
and political and moral folkways.
“These variable interests are those desires of individual states which they would, no doubt, like
to see fulfilled but for which they will not go to war. Whereas the vital interests may be taken as
goals, the secondary interests may be termed as objectives of foreign policy.”
Classification of National Interests:
In order to be more precise in examining the interest which a nation seeks to secure, Thomas W.
Robinson presents a six fold classification of interests which nations try to secure.
1. The Primary Interests:
These are those interests in respect of which no nation can compromise. It includes the
preservation of physical, political and cultural identity against possible encroachments by other
states. A state has to defend these at all costs.
2. Secondary Interests:
These are less important than the primary interests. Secondary Interests are quite vital for the
existence of the state. This includes the protection of the citizens abroad and ensuring of
diplomatic immunities for the diplomatic staff.
3. Permanent Interests:
These refer to the relatively constant long-term interests of the state. These are subject to very
slow changes. The US interest to preserve its spheres of influence and to maintain freedom of
navigation in all the oceans is the examples of such interests.
4. Variable Interests:
Such interests are those interests of a nation which are considered vital for national good in a
given set of circumstances. In this sense these can diverge from both primary and permanent
interests. The variable interests are largely determined by “the cross currents of personalities,
public opinion, sectional interests, partisan politics and political and moral folkways.”
5. The General Interests:
General interests of a nation refer to those positive conditions which apply to a large number of
nations or in several specified fields such as economic, trade, diplomatic relations etc. To
maintain international peace is a general interest of all the nations. Similar is the case of
disarmament and arms control.
6. Specific Interests:
These are the logical outgrowths of the general interests and these are defined in terms of time
and space. To secure the economic rights of the Third World countries through the securing of a
New International Economic Order is a specific interest of India and other developing countries.
2.4. Methods for the Securing of National Interest
To secure the goals and objectives of her national interest is the paramount right and duty of
every nation. Nations are always at work to secure their national interests and in doing so they
adopt a number of methods.
The following are the five popular methodsor instruments which are usually employed by a
nation for securing her national interests in international relations:
1. Diplomacy as a Means of National Interests:
Diplomacy is a universally accepted means for securing national interests. It is through
diplomacy that the foreign policy of a nation travels to other nations. It seeks to secure the goals
of national interests. Diplomats establish contacts with the decision-makers and diplomats of
other nations and conduct negotiations for achieving the desired goals and objectives of national
interests of their nation.
2. Propaganda:
The second important method for securing national interest is propaganda. Propaganda is the art
of salesmanship. It is the art of convincing others about the justness of the goals and objectives
or ends which are desired to be secured. It consists of the attempt to impress upon nations the
necessity of securing the goals which a nation wishes to achieve.
“Propaganda is a systematic attempt to affect the minds, emotions and actions of a given group
for a specific public purpose.” —Frankel
It is directly addressed to the people of other states and its aim is always to secure the self-
interests—interests which are governed exclusively by the national interests of the propagandist.
Economic Means:
The rich and developed nations use economic aid and loans as the means for securing their
interests in international relations. The existence of a very wide gap between the rich and poor
countries provides a big opportunity to the rich nations for promoting their interests vis-a-vis the
poor nations.
The dependence of the poor and lowly- developed nations upon the rich and developed nations
for the import of industrial goods, technological know-how, foreign aid, armaments and for
selling raw materials, has been responsible for strengthening the role of economic instruments of
foreign policy. In this era of Globalisation conduct of international economic relation has
emerged as a key means of national interests.
4. Alliances and Treaties:
Alliances and Treaties are concluded by two or more states for securing their common interests.
This device is mostly used for securing identical and complementary interests. However, even
conflictual interests may lead to alliances and treaties with like-minded states against the
common rivals or opponents.
5. Coercive Means:
The role of power in international relations is a recognized fact. It is an unwritten law of
international intercourse that nations can use force for securing their national interests.
International Law also recognizes coercive means short of war as the methods that can be used
by states for fulfilling their desired goals and objectives. Intervention, Non-intercourse,
embargoes, boycotts, reprisals, retort ion, retaliation, severance of relations and pacific biocides
are the popular coercive means which can be used by a nation to force others to accept a
particular course of behaviour or to refrain from a course which is considered harmful by the
nation using coercive means.

2.5. Diplomacy and State Building in Ethiopia

  Foreign policy of Ethiopia during the imperial regime

As one of only two African states that have never been permanently colonized (the other is
Liberia), Ethiopia has a long diplomatic tradition. Tewodros II, who reigned in the mid-
nineteenth century, was the first modern Ethiopian leader to try to develop a foreign policy that
transcended the Horn region. His successor, Yohannis IV, followed a less dynamic course and
was greatly troubled by European expansionism in general and penetration by Italy in particular.
Menelik II, who succeeded Yohannis in 1889, failed to find a peaceful solution to Italy's
encroachments. He had greater success, however, in the military sphere, defeating the Italian
army at Adwa in 1896.

Menelik died in 1913, and it was not until 1930 that another strong emperor, Haile Selassie I,
assumed the throne. Haile Selassie quickly demonstrated that he was committed to the creation
of a strong, modern, bureaucratic empire that would command unquestioned international
respect. As early as 1923, while serving as regent, he negotiated Ethiopia's admission into the
League of Nations.

After World War II, Haile Selassie achieved considerable international success primarily because
of his active participation in the UN, his alignment with the West, and his vocal support for the
African independence movement. As a UN member, Ethiopia committed troops to the
peacekeeping mission in Korea from 1950 to 1953 and to the Congo. Moreover, Ethiopia's
military and diplomatic relationship with the United States provided it with a superpower ally.
Finally, Haile Selassie took the lead in pressing for a resolution establishing the territorial
integrity of the independent states of Africa. Over the years, he developed a reputation as a sage
voice of moderation on a continent filled with militant nationalists. It was in this capacity that he
offered to host the headquarters of the OAU upon its founding in the early 1960s, once again
demonstrating his diplomatic acumen.

 The Foreign Policy of the Derg

Ethiopian foreign policy under the military Regime (1974-1991) Military regime held the throne
in 1974, as a result, different factors that lead to the demise of the imperial regime. In the 1960’s,
armed conflicts arose in different regions of the empire and students nurtured the ideas which
provided the ideological ammunition for resistance against the imperial regime and this
aggravates the uprising in different provinces of the country which paved the way for the demise
of the imperial regime .
The formulation of Ethiopian foreign policy under the military regime was influenced by the
Marxist-Leninist ideology and Marxist concepts of society and the alignment of forces even
though the essence of foreign policy is similar to that of his predecessors but unlike its
predecessors the Derg’s foreign relation and policy solely depend on the Soviet Union since the
military regime consider the USSR the natural ally of Ethiopia . Beside this, Ethiopian foreign
policy under the Derg regime was also an ideology based which is socialism and the foreign
policy orientation of the regime was outside-in approach (siege mentality approach) which was
all about externalizing the problem of the country especially like his predecessors he considered
the neighboring states of Ethiopia as historical enemy of the country and personal diplomacy was
also what defined the foreign policy of the country during Dergregime .
The foreign policy of Ethiopia did not change immediately upon the demise of the imperial
regime. Initially, the country's new leaders maintained the general thrust of the foreign policy
developed under Haile Selassie and concentrated mainly on consolidating their rule.
Nonetheless, the Marxist ideology of the Derg and its civilian allies made conflict with Ethiopia's
superpower patron, the United States, inevitable.
By the mid-1970s, Kagnew station, the communications monitoring base in Asmera granted
under terms of the 1953 Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement between Ethiopia and the United
States, had largely lost its value. Advances in satellite technology had rendered land-based
facilities like Kagnew station less important for long-range communications monitoring. Yet the
United States felt the need to maintain a presence in this strategically important part of Africa,
particularly because the Soviet Union was beginning to become active in the area. The
administration of President Gerald Ford (1974-77) wanted to avoid an embarrassment similar to
that experienced by the United States in Angola in 1975, when covert United States aid to
anticommunist combatants failed to dislodge the pro-Moscow Popular Movement for the
Liberation of Angola. Even though President Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
indicated uneasiness with Ethiopia's violations of human rights and growing leftist tendencies,
they did no more than cautiously encourage the Derg to moderate its human rights policies.
The United States began to express concern over the Derg's human rights violations when on
November 23, 1974, a day that came to be known as "Bloody Saturday," fifty-nine officials who
had served in the old regime were executed. Official United States concern intensified two
months later when the Derg mobilized a force consisting of regular military units and the hastily
assembled People's Militia in an effort to resolve the Eritrean question through military means
(see People's Militia, ch. 5). But Eritrean forces attacked first, surprising the Ethiopian forces in
their base camps and scoring an impressive victory.
Whereas the administration of President Ford had been reluctant to impose sanctions on Ethiopia
because of its human rights record, President Jimmy Carter made human rights a central concern
of his administration (1977-81). On February 25, 1977, Carter announced that because of
continued human rights violations, certain governments that were receiving Washington's
military aid (including Ethiopia) would receive reduced assistance in the following fiscal year.
Consequently, the Derg began to cast about for alternative sources of military assistance. Among
the countries Ethiopia turned to were China and the Soviet Union. At first, the actual assistance
provided by these superpowers was minimal, and the United States maintained its presence in the
country. However, relations between the United States and Ethiopia deteriorated rapidly. By
April 1977, Mengistu had demanded that Washington close down Kagnew station and most other
installations; only a small staff was allowed to remain at the United States embassy. By then, the
first supplies of Soviet military hardware had begun to arrive.
Having its military presence in Ethiopia ended, and with tensions mounting in the Middle East
and Iran, the United States began to cultivate alliances in northeast Africa that could facilitate the
development of a long-range military strike capability. These developments coincided with an
escalation of tensions in the Horn region in general. The United States eventually began the
systematic pursuit of a strategy that amounted to encircling the Arabian Peninsula. The United
States asked Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Somalia, and Oman to allow their territories to be used as
staging grounds for the fledgling Rapid Deployment Force (RDF), which later became the
United States Central Command. The Soviet Union's clients in the region--Ethiopia, Libya, and
the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen (South Yemen)-- perceiving Washington's action as
a threat, signed a tripartite agreement in 1981 and pledged to repulse any effort to intervene in
their respective countries. However, this alliance never played a significant role in the region.
 Foreign policy of Ethiopfrom1991 - till now
With EPRDF‘s ascent to power the country adopted a new foreign policy orientation and
objectives. In the post 1991 period, Ethiopia‘s foreign policy is driven primarily by the quest to
ensure national interest and security. As such, one of the goals of the foreign policy is to ensure
the survival of the multi- national state. National interest of the country is understood in terms of
realizing the real interest of the people mainly democracy and development. It refers to the
primary interest of the people to live freely from poverty, disease and ignorance. In this regard,
foreign policy has been considered as an instrument to solve the domestic problems of the
country, including; lack of good governance, instability and lack of economic development. If
the equality and democratic rights of nations, nationalities, peoples and individuals are not
realized, then conflicts can happen leading to instability and eventual disintegration. These are
also considered as factors that damage national image and pride. These domestic problems were
identified as the main challenges to ensuring the survival and national interest of the people.
Even though there are changes in foreign policy approach and orientation under the EPRDF
regime, domestic, regional, and global political environment remains the factors that determine
and shape the nature, style, and objectives of the foreign policy of Ethiopia under the EPRDF
regime. The EPRDF government redefined foreign policy objectives, national interest, and
foreign policy orientation and approach of the country especially through adopting the Foreign
Affairs and National Security Policy and Strategy in 1996 and revising it in 2002 which clearly
identify the threats of national survival. Accordingly, economic backwardness, and nature of the
political system (absence of democracy and good governance) portrayed as twin existential
threats. Domestic problems such as grave democratic deficit; sectarian politics; corruption; the
absence of constitutional accountability, judicial review and parliamentary oversight; the
violation of human rights; and extreme poverty, all of which pose a threat to internal peace and
security.