I'll let y'all folks know what I'm talking about

Abstract

The practice of contemporary international relations is often traced back to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 where the modern state system was developed (this effectively culminated the thirty years war that engulfed Europe). In the study of sovereign states, their contacts and relationships, what is explicitly recognized as International Relations Theory was not developed until after World War I. The history of political thought though, is as old as human societies as the very incidence of man interactions and relationships with other men have created a need for some sort of organizing attempts. In its most basic form, the essence of mans survival has been dependent not only on natural forces but of the very activities of man in the midst of nature. While his existence may see him aspire to fulfill certain needs, he is limited by forces which are beyond his immediate control.

Needing food and security, the ideal actions for the earliest individuals to take was for banding for hunting and self defense against predatory beasts that roamed the earth and also men from other bands who might become threats to their hunting territories in that “state of nature”. The proof of the existence of political thought (as a means of organizing basic social units) even at its most primitive applications during those earlier times saw to the eventual ascendancy of larger populations of peoples and the periods prior to the ancient Chinese and Greek records of early statelike structures. The ability of an authority to effectively assure the security and the relative welfare of the people and the territory would to some significant way determine the future survival of that particular society. While these needs are being met satisfactorily, this authority continue to enjoy legitimacy, otherwise, the people who have come together to make this agreement to cohabit with each other to meet certain ends would readily put in place some other authority which is more disposed to abiding by the principles establishing their social contract. This is idealism at it’s most pristine, the preservation of a peaceful environment where everyone experienced relative freedom, free from fear of force and deprivation as the strength of the state lied in the unity and peaceful coexistence of the peoples.

In any societal system, the ever present reality of threat from hostile peoples seeking any of land, property or subjects, even since the earlier stages of documented history showed that at some point, various peoples faced external aggression from more populated and more militarily endowed peoples from far flung lands. Applying the dictum of survival of the fittest, the quest for control and exertion of power and dominion has been a craving for many a leader and history has proven to us if not often that most of these leaders, while seeking to expand their sphere of influence have failed in the appreciation of the sanctity to peaceful human coexistence and the basic right to life that is inalienable to every human being. The ideal situation of man is to live in peace amongst other men and possess the liberty to pursue happiness in conformity with the collectively agreeable manner.

This ideal is enshrined in most of the constitutions of contemporary states and it is what defines the ideal. Though contemporary human rights is not exactly identical to the principles of natural law, Francisco de Vitoria, Hugo Grotius and John Locke offered the first accounts of universal entitlement to certain rights on the basis of common humanity and Rousseau clearly sought to distinguish between natural liberty and civil liberty. If international relations is viewed in the light of the power struggles that states are wont to engage in, the various dynamics that guide the seeking of power it’s distribution, balance and loss, then the many outcomes of the previous international systems would ultimately bedevil this contemporary system, leading us back to the most salient characteristic of any system, domestic, international or otherwise.

Realistically speaking, man should realize that this is the time to be practical, at a time when the entire world is facing critical times, in terms of her security needs, energy needs, economic needs and ecological needs. Increasingly, the need for ensuring a sustainable existence for all members of the international community (all the earths inhabitants), irrespective of the many divisive factors that cause conflicts becomes a neccessity, as the situation if currently left to perpetuate would ultimately lead to a “critical threshold” wherein the continued existence of man on earth would be threatened not only by increasingly sophisticated weapons but also by the many self-centred interests which tend to highlight a disregard by some towards the sanctity of humanity as a community. . .

Save it for your lecturer.

Is Shehu Umar Yar'Adua an Idealist?

Ajad,

I read your post. Quite honestly, this is thought provoking. In my opinion, public administration require idealism while international relations demand realism. Above everything else, the mix and match of these viewpoints help to create a balanced and sustainable policies that the leaders of a nation can in turn use advantageously to build popularity at home and credibility abroad.

I don't know if Yar'Adua is an idealist or not, I haven't listened to him enough to form a opinion on that. However, if he turns out to be there are prime opportunities for him to gain support and rally the nation loyally to his administration. There are few things I will suggest that he should embark on domestically and I list them below. At the moment, I chose to exclude supporting narratives for the listings.

1. Patriotism and Nationalism
2. A review of the labor law
3. An effective standards and measure board
4. An increase in productive capacity and a way to measure and report it
5. Revive public works departments
6. Plan national infrastructures
7. Establish national welfare system

adjagrade,

If you want to communicate an idea in today's fast moving world, you must be able to crystallize it into a few points. I think you have some sensible things to say but I would rather spend my minutes advising you than read through.

@ adrage:

I'll have to print the article in order to digest it fully.

Hey everybody, thanks y'all for taking time to read through the paper and I appreciate all comments made. Negro, there is an element of reason in what you said concerning realism and its application in international relations, however, the anarchy currently pervading the international environment requires some overarching authority, especially if mutual peaceful coexistence amongst the earths inhabitants is to ever be achieved. The points you raised domestically, I am in agreement a hundred percent and that list is by no means exhaustive to say the least, that is why there is a salient need for a conference of Nigerians to redefine the terms of our composition. In such a forum, all the things highlighted by you would be enshrined in a new social contract and this would be a radical departure from the successive constitutions that have for decades been rammed down our throats.

Dreamy, sorry you found the contents quite long, but it's kinda like an academic discourse, but in a nutshell, this is all I was trying to say about man and his many interactions, right from the microcosm of the home to the level of society right up to the international environment:

1. That man has the capacity to learn and to appreciate the need for some form of effort towards attaining peaceful coexistence.

2. That interaction between men as members of society involves abandoning aggressive tendencies and the application of force.

3. That man has a higher natural awareness over other animal inhabitants of the earth and thus apply reason to achieve certain ends.

4. That learning and peaceful coexistence of societies under the leadership of enlightened rulers is a marked necessity in the structure of society.

5. That human beings are basically good

Ajad,

Quite naturally, relationships are not absolute. From the simplest to the most sophisticated, there is always a leader at the peer level who in turn is being led by someone at the next level higher and this command structure is chained bottom-to-top/top-to-bottom and is repeated or duplicated in every aspect of human interaction. There is a physical explanation to it, where you can talk endlessly about observation of molecular structures and the points of lowest resistance. Of course that would be a model. Except that this observation is present in human behavioral pattern. It's a template in each of us.

The points of lowest resistance are easily influenced, the points of highest resistance are highly impregnable. This is my reason for saying a mix and match approach will bring about a sustainable balance for humanity on the globe. But thats only on the idealist side.

On the realist side and fastforwarding to your point, I will say its all about blood letting. Look at this step action for example "Ego>Branding>Protocol>Tribal>Color>Allegiance>Expansion>Dominance>Conflict>Bloodshed>Ego. It begins in ideology and it ends with ideology. In order for a nation to maintain and enjoy its status as a superpower, it must exist as a polar opposite of another counterbalance powerful nation, otherwise the privilege has no meaning.

Power struggles have been a recurring decimal in the history of International relations, but while most would argue that it is such struggles that have kept the balance of power over successive systems, we seem to disregard that after every conflict, discursive mechanisms end up fine tuning the modalities for peace to prevail. My arguments are based on this, why not engage in exhaustive deliberations instead of engaging in war? The application of war as a tool for diplomacy should have by now become obsolete judging from the sophistication in which the Earth has achieved over the thousands of years of her societal metamorphosis.

In the state of nature, anarchy reigned. It was the survival of the fittest as Darwinians were to call it. But society eventually evolved to achieve law, order. Although the development aspect of stability and it's sustainability is quite relative, we however have a situation where the presence of the state provides that overarching authority within the domestic system. My question is, can this not be replicated on the international level?

The United Nations is supposed to be that symbol today, but we are well aware of the consistent barking without adequate bite that it has displayed in the conflict prevention, resolution and adjudication roles ascribed to it. It is only in cases where independent actors choose to obey international law that they do (e.g. Nigeria ceding Bakassi). Usually, states flout these laws without regard to international sanctions (Israel on the occupied territories, USA on the invasion of Iraq, Sudan's reluctance to hand two indicted citizens over to the ICC etc). If perchance there is a structure (stronger than the UN as presently composed) that can compel these states to follow the rules governing the international system as law, would it not bring about better interaction basis amongst states?

We see similarities in global sporting organizations with independent, sovereign states as member/affiliates e.g. FIFA or even more so, the Court Of Arbitration For Sports whose rulings are strictly adhered to by member states. Can this sporting case study be applied to international relations?

Ideally, yes, the nations of the world can come together and create a mega alliance to address the issues that UN has failed to address but what happens when that mega alliance fails in 50 or 100 yrs from now, then we push for a super mega alliance to address the failures of its predecessor. Here is what I propose - to address the root problems, not side-step away from them.

All the conflicts in the world have the single attribute, directly or indirectly, of territorial space and control. Territorial boundaries, air space, territorial water, fight over which country was first to plant flag in deep sea or in polar regions or even on the moon. To keep others from claims to these territories you enact laws. The laws alone are not going to keep competitors out so you create atmospheres within their own sovereign nation or between others Todsythat will distract them. Most countries are dealing with what started as territorial battle years ago that has now escalated into other domestic turmoils. These problems are monumental and weighing the UN down, add to that the fact that UN does not have an autonomous army that it can use to enforce laws and provide safety around the world.

If we are looking for improvement in relations, there are two instruments available to do that _

1. modify and improve the laws for better transparency and equity;
2. amass weapons and use them as deterrent to keep others at bay from messing with you as well as to keep their hands off your territorial interests.

Survival of the fittest, its the way it has all always been and it is the way it will continue to be. There is no territorial contest in sports, thats why its less bloody. Whichever approach you use to better relations, you are not resolving the root problem, you are only shifting balances in anarchy power. At their ideal best, yes, evolutions produce better conditions for all of humanity, but then at their worst, you'd wish those evolutionary gains can be reversed so we all can return to our simple nomadic lifestyles , where every land is a no man's land.