Diplomacy and StateCraft - Case Study Example

Running Header: Diplomacy and StateCraft Student’s Name: Instructor’s Name: Course Code & Name: Date of Submission: Introduction In the beginning of 2014 the Ukraine government was presented with two economic options. One of the options was to partner with European Union and the U.S. government and changes its economic system. The second option was to take a loan from Russia and retain its economic system. The second option also had a promise of getting fair costs for gases. The Mr. Yanukovych opted to take the Russian option after weighing the advantages. However, the U.S. government refused to accept the rejection and plotted for a coup with intention of planting a government that will adhere to their demands. This made Russia to counter attack by deploying their army in Crimea, seizing Crimea, and establishing and supporting a rebel group in the Eastern part of Ukraine. Since then, the Ukraine has been politically unstable. This paper focuses on employing the best international relation theory among the three theories that include Marxism, realism and liberalism to analyse the actual situation in the ground in the Ukraine. Marxist perspective of International relations According to Marxism, the world is dominated by a class of capitalists who control the production means and governance instruments in their particular societies. These instruments according to Lim (n.d.) include the state as well as its agencies that include the courts, the police and the military. Other instruments include principal religious organizations, educational institutions, and media. This basically means that state is just a puppet of principal class, and thus, it only work to satisfy the interest of a dominant class and not the interest of the citizens. According to Marxism, capitalists are normally in competition with each other and during this time, they can opt to create transnational alliances which eventually form globalized capitalists. The international relational Marxism theory discuses the separation of classes. The theory uses this view to stress on the role economic gap or economy of a country play over other civilization elements. Those who consider the Marxist way of thinking consider that other international theories such as realism are self-serving theories which are utilized by economic leaders to justify the world inequalities. The international relation Marxism is based on the principle that the world division is founded on the economic status instead of political motivations. According to this theory, it is the rich capitalists who developed the state system as a technique to ascertain their riches would continue to develop. From this primary principle, two different theories of international relations were developed. They include dependency theory and world-systems theory (International Relations, 2015). Based on the theory of the world-systems, the globe is divided into semi-periphery, periphery and core countries. The core states are those which are accountable for higher-skill production and work of the highest capital of the world. The semi-periphery and periphery nations are the poor regions of the globe, offering manual labour and raw materials to hold up the richer core nations. However, the individual countries' status is not static. Nations are able to transform between periphery and core nations and vice verse. The Marxism international relations theory of dependency centres on the raw materials distribution from poor nations to the world wealthier nations. This generates benefits for the richer, industrialized nations, and subtracts resources from underdeveloped nations. While a number of theories show that underdeveloped nations are simply in a place of the earlier levels of developed nations, dependency theory is perceived differently. Based on this theory, the countries which are poor and underdeveloped simply contains their own framework. These nations are dependent upon the richer nations for their sustainability. This dependency is controlled by the industrialized nations (International Relations, 2015). Realism Realisms consider international system as anarchy where by states being the main international relations actor is mainly guided by the national interest and power consideration. Thus, according to this notion, there is no power above states which is capable of governing their interaction. This means that states can only get into a relation with another state at will, instead of being dictated to do so by a certain higher entity (Slaughter, 2011, p.1). Moreover, realism presumes that the primary international affair actors are the sovereign states and not multinational corporations, non-governmental organizations, or international institutions. According to realism, international associations are a zero-sum game where states are extra concerned with their comparative gains instead of absolute gains. The persistent competition for influence and power makes conflict unavoidable and cooperation superficial and rare (Acharya, 2007, p.6). Global institutions operate on the edge of great power caprice and whims. Intercontinental order is in no way permanent, it is uphold by manipulating the power balance, with power distinct primarily in military and economic terms. Realism stresses on the restrictions on politics obligatory by human nature as well as the international government absence. They jointly make international associations largely a realm of interest and power (Donnelly, 2000, p.9). A later realism version is known as neo-realism. It emphasizes on the significance of the international system structural properties, particularly the power distribution, in moulding order and conflict, thus, downplaying effect of the domestic politics or human nature in international associations. Recently, a difference between defensive realists and offensive realists. Offensive realists that include Mearsheimer bicker that states are maximisers of power. This implies that they go as far as they can manage with domination as their definitive goal. On the other hand, defensive realists for instance Jack Snyder or Robert Jervis, uphold that states are normally content with status quo in case their personal security is not confronted and therefore, it focuses on maintaining the power balance (Acharya, 2007, p.6). According to Slaughter (2011, p.2), the realistic vision of the globe rests on four propositions. First, according to realists survival is the main objective of each state. Foreign occupation and invasion are therefore the most urgent threat any nation can experience. Even if commitment, strategic culture, or domestic interests set to a state ideals would force more cooperative or benevolent international goals. The international system anarchy systems needs states to constantly guarantee that they contain enough power to protect themselves and expand their material interests essential for endurance. Second, realism considers states to be coherent actors. This implies that provided the survival goal, states will do the best they can so as to maximize their possibility of their future existence. Third, realisms presume that every state has some military ability, and thus no state has a full knowledge of neighbours' precise intent. This implies that the world is uncertain and dangerous. Fourth, realism concludes that in if a world of these huge powers: the nation's huge economic power, particularly military may be decisive. Thus, international relations are perceived as a story of great political power. Liberalism Perspective of International Relation In international politics, liberalism perceives state as the unit of evaluation, but also integrates nongovernmental organizations, international organizations and international law as increasingly essential aspects in the world politics. According to this theory, international relations are an interactions system holding the mutual gain potential. Thus according to liberalism, peaceful and cooperative international behaviours are thus both desirable and possible. Many liberals maintain that democratic capitalism and republic government tend toward augmenting harmonious interstate associations, or advocate for the theory of democratic peace whereby it is believed that liberal democracies are declined inherently to make war over each other. According to U.S. Diplomacy (n.d.), even if liberalism has for considered that political and economic integration yield to peace for so long, a number of scholars have acknowledged offensive military acts over illiberal regimes. Classical liberalism theory is based on three major pillars which include commercial liberalism, republic liberalism and liberal institutionalism. Commercial liberalism is based on the perspective that economic interdependence particularly free trade lowers war prospect by raising its party's costs. Republic liberalism also known as democratic peace presumes that liberal democracies are extra peaceful as compared to autocracies. Moreover, they hardly fight each other. Liberal institutionalism centres on the international organizations contribution in promoting cooperation, managing conflict, and fostering collective security. A modern liberal institutionalism variant is neo-liberal institutionalism (Acharya, 2007. p.11). Liberal theorists have frequently emphasized the exclusive liberal States behaviour via more recent performance which has required to extend the general domestic theory individuality-founded international relations explanation. One of the most important developments in liberal theory has been the occurrence referred to as the democratic peace. The democratic peace depicts the war absence between liberal states, distinct as liberal democracies mature (Slaughter, 2011, p.5). Why the United States Chose to Overthrow an Elected Government in Ukraine Ukraine experienced a silent coup on March 2014 which was highly blamed on the president's intention to allies with Russia rather than the European Union, which was highly interested with this collaboration. Mr. Yanukovych, a pro-Russian was experiencing a great opposition from a huge population which wished their country should collaborate with EU. However, the actual truth is that the U.S conspired to eliminated the Ukrainian president Mr. Yanukovych due to his interest to work with Russians rather than them. Although it was initially reported that Mr. Yanukovych had abandoned his duties and left the country for exile, the president denied the claim and ascertained that the country experienced a silent coup. This coup was basically planned by the United States with assistance of other western nations with intention of placing a president who will be act to address their interest (U.S. Puppet) (Mecawi, 2014). The chaos were initiated by the Ukraine refusal to get into an agreement with EU which was founded on a number of conditions. One was for them to join EU they had to ensure industry privatization and reduce control and subsidies of the government which will permit the European and U.S. financial capital to pounce in and primarily seize the economy. This was refused by the government of Mr. Yanokovych and instead considered Russian offer of a loan without attached austerity strings and reduced natural gas cost. The US and EU dissatisfaction with the government decision resulted to organization of a coup to bring in Neo-Nazi president who would take their offer (Beacham, 2015). The current situation in the Ukraine can easily be explained by the Marxism theory. In this case, the then president Mr. Yanukovych was going against an economic powerful nation by planning to collaborate with Russia which collaborated with their rivals during the Second World War. U.S. being a powerful economic country and hence with both financial, and military power, could not accept defeat. They required Ukraine for business collaborations and they could not lose the opportunity of having a relation with this periphery country that would trade a number of important production raw material and power. Ukraine is an oil producing country and thus, its collaboration with the US and other western nations would benefit them economically, giving them more economic power. Therefore, U.S. needed to get this opportunity to extend its powers to Ukraine. Moreover, U.S. needed to weaken Russia power as a rival just in case they will ever have a chance to be at war with them ever again in the future. According to Marxist theory, capitalist nations tends to use states as their puppet forcing them to do all that is of benefit to them and not to their citizens. Having failed in making Mr. Yanukovych their puppet, the U.S. employed their power to overthrow the president so that they could put another person into his position who could adhere to their demand. The U.S. were just doing this to make a system where their position is recognized. Their main goal is to be able to establish business collaboration with Ukraine. This way, they will be a huge determinant of their economy and thus, they will be able to manipulate the government in the manner they feel best. To effect their plan, the U.S. government which based on the Marxism theory is a capitalized nation, utilized its system to manage the coup. The country deployed its military in all Ukraine border to ensure that there is no any other international force gets into the Ukraine freely to save the situation. It also used both the traditional media and the internet to broadcast massive propaganda regarding the role of Russia in what was happening in Ukraine (Vox, 2014). In addition, the country used its power to block the spreading of a documentary released by Russia showing the U.S. participation in the Ukraine coup (Zuesse, 2014). In so doing, the U.S. managed to convince the world that Russia is behind the current problems in Ukraine while as it was the U.S. who were actually responsible for all that happened in Ukraine. The U.S. is also taking advantage of all this confusion to give a helping hand to Ukraine. It is therefore implementing its initial missions by being there in Ukraine as an international nation with intention of assisting the government in nation to maintain peace and order. Realism is not applicable in this case since the theory talks of the free will of a country to enter or not to enter in an international relationship. The situation in this case goes against the theory in that the plot to overthrow the Ukraine president Mr. Yanukovych was basically done by the international nations after the president exercising his freedom of choosing who he would like to relate with internationally. According to the current situation, it is evident that there is no country which can chose on whether to relate or not to relate with powerful nations. The decision to relate or not to relate with a country based on this case should be made by the powerful nations. When a country refuses to adhere to their demands, the strong nations use their power to destabilize the country and to overthrow the government so as to input an individual who can adhere to their demands. Thus, realism does not have much to explain the current situation. Liberalism also cannot be used in this situation. This because, according to liberalism international relations is an interactions system holding the mutual gain potential and that can coexist in peace. However, based on this a country is not free to chose the relations, and thus it is not always true that the formed relations will result to mutual benefits. By overthrowing the Mr. Yanukovych government, the U.S. will gain the benefit of making an international relation with Ukraine. The U.S. effort to do this is due to the fact that it has already identified a huge number of benefits that it will enjoy from Ukraine. On the other hand, Mr. Yanukovych refusal to collaborate with U.S. and other western nations is due to the fact that he did not see much benefit for his country from that relation. Therefore liberalism is not applicable in this case. U.S. is a powerful nation, and it can only continue exercising its power and taking advantage of the developing nations by making the government its puppet. Thus the current situation can only be explained by the Marxism theory. Response of Russia to the US-Backed Intervention in Ukraine Russia has also reacted to the US plan to dominate Ukraine through the new government. Russia reaction include deployment of its military in Crimea and seizing of that part of the Ukraine. This was done as a way of protecting native Russian, and as a response to the legal president call to assist him in protecting his citizens who he thought were in danger due to the executed coup. In addition, Russia government also established a rebel group in the eastern part of Ukraine where most of its citizens are native Russia. The country has been giving military support to the rebel group and all other support they need to assist them in destabilizing the country and the current government which seems to be pro-Western. The main intention is to ensure that the US does not succeed in their mission to make Ukraine a fascist country with western like style of managing their economic affairs. The theory that can be used to explain the Russian reaction is the realism theory. Realism theory focuses on the state freedom to chose who they would like to interact with. It also talks of state relation with intention of having mutual benefits. Mr. Yanukovych request for assistance from Russia is a clear indication that the country preferred to be associated with Russia. The Russia move to strengthen the rebels inside Ukraine can be considered as a way to assist the Ukraine to regain its strength and its power to make own decisions regarding who the country want to associate with internationally. In addition, Russia feels obligated to protect its natives who live in Ukraine and who are at war with the new western forces invading the country. Although Russia is there to protect its own interest too, the country is highly tied to Ukraine than the western nations. The two were initially joined through the Soviet Union. Moreover, they share a number of economic relations especially in oil production and transportation through pipeline. Allowing western nations to dominate Ukraine would mean that Russia is uncertain about its future business relation with Ukraine and the rest of the world where the oil is exported. Moreover, U.S. has always been wishing to bring down Russia power using all means possible. Thus, their being part of Ukraine will give them more power to destroy Russia. In this regard, Russia need to protect its partnership with Ukraine for mutual benfits. Thus, the best theory among all the three to fit in this situation is the realism theory (Sullivan, 2015). Conclusion The three identified international theories have for long been used to explain different situations in the international states relation. However, in this case the best theory to be employed to explain the U.S. reaction is the Marxism theory. This theory demonstrates how capitalist nation manipulate the developing nations to ensure that they benefit fully from the country resources. The capitalist nations use their systems to rule other nations and to get all they want from other nations. This is exactly what the U.S. has done to Ukraine with intention of taking advantage of its resources. On the second instance the Realism theory is employed to explain the Russian counter reaction for the U.S. behaviour. References Acharya, A, 2007, 'Theoretical perspectives on international relations in Asia,' Conference on International Relations in Asia: The New Regional System. George Washington University. Beacham, J, 2015, ' Russia, U.S. and the crisis in Ukraine, ' [online] Available at < http://www.liberationnews.org/russia-u-s-crisis-ukraine/ > [Accessed on 24 April 2015]. Donnelly, J, 2000, ' Realism and international relations, ' London: Cambridge University Press International Relations, 2015, ' International relations marxism,' [online] Available at < http://internationalrelationsonline.com/international-relations-marxism/> [Accessed on 24 April 2015]. Lim, T. C, n.d, ' Theories of international relations: radical approaches, POLS 427 International Relations. [online] available at < http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tclim/S10_Courses/427s10_marxism.pdf > [accessed on 24 April 2015]. Mecawi, 2014, ' Demonstration - no new U.S. war!' [online] Available at: Retrieved from < http://www.mecawi.org/tag/ukraine/> [accessed on 24 April 2015] US Diplomacy, 2015, ' Theories of international relations,' [online] Available at < http://www.usdiplomacy.org/diplomacytoday/values/theories.php > [accessed on 24 April, 2015]. Slaughter, A, 2011, ' International relations, principal theories, ' International Relations, Principal Theories. [online] available at < http://www.princeton.edu/~slaughtr/Articles/722_IntlRelPrincipalTheories_Slaughter_20110509zG.pdf > [accessed on 24 April 2014] Sullivan, N, 2015, ' Theoretical approaches to international reactions: Realism, liberalism & marxism, ' [online] available at < http://study.com/academy/lesson/theoretical-approaches-to-international-relations-realism-liberalism-marxism.html > [accessed on 24 April 2015]. Vox, 2014, ' What is the Ukraine crisis?' [online] Available at < http://www.vox.com/cards/ukraine-everything-you-need-to-know/what-is-the-ukraine-crisis > [accessed on 24 April, 2015] Zuesse, E, 2014, ' How the Ukrainian civil war started, ' Internet Democracy < http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/ukrainian-civil-war-started.html > Read More