Just a few notes on International Politics

I hope I’m not violating any copyright law by putting this online. This is for MSLS participants and this is something everybody who cares about politics should appreciate. Political realism is the fundamental theory when it comes to international relations. Thuycidides and Hobbes were the influences, but the modern father of realism is Hans Morgenthau. J. Ticker has summed it up very well in her feminist criticism of it. I won’t go into her feminist criticism of it though because Morgenthau’s the real star today.

Political Realism

1. 1. Politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature, which is unchanging; therefore it is possible to develop a rational theory that reflects these objective laws.
   2. The main signpost of political realism is the concept of interest defined in terms of power which infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. Political realism stresses the rational, objective and unemotional.
   3. Realism assumes that interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid but not with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. Power is the control of man over man.
   4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the tension between the moral command and the requirement of successful political action.
   5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. It is the concept of interest defined in terms of power that saves us from moral excess and political folly.
   6. The political realist maintains that the autonomy of the political sphere; he asks “How does this policy affect the power of the nation?” Political realism is based on a pluralistic concept of human nature… But, in order to develop an autonomous theory of political behaviour, “political man” must be abstracted from other aspects of human nature.

      J. Ann Tickner, “A Critique of
      Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism”

This conception of international relations, or the nature of state-to-state relations in its entirety, rests on power and self-importance rather than cooperation or organization (that’s a liberal theory critique anyway). I am highlighting this because I think that this is an important tool to understand the thought processes of elites in Malaysia, except that they place themselves both in an international context, and a domestic one, especially with regards to Singapore. I’ve seen it being expressed in other terms by Singaporean ministers too.

The other concept that should be well known by all is sovereignty. I’ve learn the concept of sovereignty in PS1101E: Introduction to Political Science, but this is probably the best conception of sovereignty I’ve read so far. Its a bit long, but its clear in getting there.

Sovereignty

“[…] sovereignty is also a bothersome concept. Many believe, as the anthropologist M. G. Smith has said, that ‘in a system of sovereign states no state is sovereign.’ The error lies in identifying the sovereignty of states with the ability to do as they wish. To say that states are sovereign is not to say that they can do as they please, that they are free of others’ influence, that they are able to get as they want… The sovereignty of states has never entailed their insulation from the effects of other states’ action. To be sovereign and to be dependent are not contradictory conditions. Sovereign states have seldom led free and easy lives. What then is sovereignty? To say that a state is sovereign means that it decides for itself how it will cope with its internal and external problems, including whether or not to seek assistance from others and in doing so to limit its freedom by making commitments to them. States develop their own strategies, chart their own courses make their own decisions about how to meet whatever needs they experience and whatever desires they develop. It is no more contradictory to say that sovereign states are always constrained and often tightly so that it is to say that free individuals often make decisions under the heavy pressure of events.”

Kenneth Waltz, “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics”

This is in response to some of the gripes we have with regards to sovereignty as used by elites in Malaysia. Waltz essentially says that sovereignty is deciding for yourself how to respond to dangers, not doing as you please. Therefore, the answer to “Where’s Malaysia’s sovereignty in its airspace?” or “Where is Malaysia’s sovereignty in building a bridge to Singapore?” is really just, its there. Malaysia has all the rights to cope with its claimed rights. The real question that’s trying to be asked is “Where’s Malaysia’s power in control over its airspace?” or “Where’s Malaysia’s power when its not able to build a bridge to Singapore?” — which is also related to the realism piece above.

However, its a really good move to mix up “Sovereignty” with “Power”. The word “power” to the regular person just seems so self-righteous, and not something you want Singapore or whoever you’re dealing with to hear. On the other hand, sovereignty is something that the other country will respect out of courtesy, and to citizens it brings forward ideas of Merdeka, our independence from colonial powers, etc.

Like the parallels that Waltz draws between a person and a state, individual freedom and state sovereignty are both things that should be celebrated and dreaded at the same time. We celebrate our personal freedom, but like Sartre postulates, freedom is the problem of our existence. What do we do when we are free? Do we jump in one direction or another? A more regular saying is freedom entails responsibility.

Similarly, state sovereignty must also imply that it is also a burden: The burden of caring for Malaya, “the white man’s burden”, no matter how misguided, is no longer there. Now the burden is on us, the citizens of the sovereign state of Malaysia. That’s Waltz’s sovereignty. The moment somebody stops carrying that burden is the moment that he or she loses political citizenship (which is not legal citizenship; there’s also another way to lose it, its called disenfranchisement).

In capitalism and modern democracy, the people are divided into different tasks; we have career civil servants and people in the government tasked to safeguard our nation’s welfare. So, the answer of “where is Malaysia’s sovereignty?”also lies in the government’s capacity to respond to international and national problems. By government I mean bureaucracy, elected leaders, MPs, Senators, the civil defence force, and associated wings. Of course the next question is, “How good is Malaysia’s sovereignty?” You answer that for yourself, but make sure you’re not making too many generalizations.

There isn’t really a good ending for this one, I’ll go on and on forever. Maybe this should be my August 31’s piece. Or maybe i’ll write another one. Maybe I’ll say something like, “Two questions like these are the first footsteps in becoming a true Malaysian…” or something like that. Hah.

A few words before the summit

So the summit’s this weekend, and I will more or less be away for the weekend. I’m going to try to write down everything that has happened at the summit which means I might take time off the blog. I might be publishing part of it here but no guarantees. So in the meanwhile, I’ll just make a few comments about the books I’ve been reading.

Malaysia: Recent Trends and Challenges.  Mostly boring stuff. Had the mistake of reading “Population Trends and Patterns in Multiracial Malaysia” first which is basically numbercrunching population growth patterns. The others seem quite promising thought, but never got to them. Will try to.

An Insider’s Guide to the UN. Plan to read this on the bus back.

Introduction to International Relations. Just got re-primered with Realism and its general history. Will need to read up on IPE and liberalism.

I also borrowed another one more book, “The Great Divergence: Hegemony, Uneven Development and Global Inequality”, edited by K.S. Jomo. I’ll try to get one chapter out of Malaysia’s foreign policy tomorrow at the library.

So much to read, so little time!