Importance Of African Perspective On International Relations

Robert Jervis in ‘Security dilemma’ states that “states can neither neglect the possibility that others will become aggressive in the future nor credibly guarantee that they themselves remain peaceful”. He argued that although other motives such as ‘greed, glory and honour’ come into play, much of international politics is

International Relations is a field of politics that takes a look at the interactions that occur in between states in the international arena. Its aim is to explain why certain events have unfolded in certain ways, as a result of how states use their power relatively to each other. Mostly the interactions that International Relations tries to examine or explain, is the conflicts that arise as a result of differing interests that states have. To provide a base for analysis, this essay is going to use the central theory of realism to explain the civil war that occurred in Nigeria in between 1967 to 1970. This essay will seek to explain

Although African countries are facing many severe problems including weak national identities and limited governmental capabilities, war might not be the only way to strengthen the state and develop national identities. When we consider the intense globalization undertaken by the world, collaboration by African unification provides another choice

Huntington’s initial article argued that in the post-Cold War era the fundamental source of conflict would not be ideological or economic, but cultural. He continues by arguing that nation states will continue to be the most powerful actors in global affairs, but the conflicts of global politics that are to occur in the future will happen between

Three levels of analysis, each with its own distinct strength, reveals three different ways of understanding international relations. The first states that all nation-states behave similarly, the second emphasizes the unique internal factors of a nation-state, while the third level of analysis focuses on the individual deciding a state’s course of action. Each level of analysis is useful in the study of international relations. Indeed, used all together, it is not long before arriving at a point where a vast number of explanations for the actions of a country are brought to light. However, to best understand international relations, one level of analysis is more useful than the rest, because it provides the most comprehensive

Modern African states have various problems ranging from corruption, to armed conflict, to stunted structural development. Africa’s ongoing political instability and economic crisis have hindered the improvement of Africa. Thus, the lack of money, advancement in technology, and climate has hampered economic development. Despite European mistreatment and oppression African’s have endured hardships that have encouraged economy, education, and political

It merely addressed the problems within “underdeveloped” countries, without taking into account the effects that colonialism, war, and natural disasters may have had on the ‘development’ of certain nations. The idea that, “the ‘laws of development’ are supposedly the same for all , and ‘win their way through with iron necessity’,” and the emphasis on self-ambition, and self-generated consequences also demonstrate the North American interest. These concepts are very similar, if not identical, to the American idea of equal opportunity. Furthermore, they sought to define these countries by their actions and the individual mentalities of their populations rather than account for outside forces. Such carefully crafted diction, removed the United States from fault, while simultaneously justifying its hand in international

As a veteran remote reporter who has secured more than fifty nations crosswise over five mainlands, Stephen Kinzer has a lot of involvement with worldwide issues and world history and can be legitimately marked as a specialist in these fields. He has filled in as a remote writer for the Boston Globe and The New York Times, as a worldwide relations teacher at Northwestern and Boston University, and as a writer who composes both articles for an assortment of outside strategy sections and his own particular books on instances of American contribution in different nations. His works are perused and regarded over the political range as he tends to cease from embeddings a fanatic predisposition into his accounts. As indicated by Kinzer the United States ought to quit getting to be included with different nations on the off chance that it doesn 't straightforwardly include us. This paper analyzes Kinzer 's contention with the evaluation that interfering in other nations ' business has numerous unexpected outcomes.

The Pan-African significance of the Obama administration, Obama the offspring of a Kenyan engulfed in a bi-racial reality (thus rendering him sensitive to multiculturalism) who fulfills the dream of an oppressed people, has been the perceived unification of both the African continent and the diaspora. However, the term Pan-Africanism comes to stir strong feedback because there is no consensual agreement on what it is. W.E.B. DuBois, in the 1930s, defined Pan-Africanism as a movement aimed at an intellectual understanding and cooperation among all groups of African descent in order to bring about "the industrial and spiritual emancipation of the Negro people."" Other definitions have come in the form of "self-government by African countries south of the Sahara," "the economic, social, and cultural development of the continent, the avoidance of conflict among African states, the promotion of African unity and influence in world affairs," and a personal favorite, "a struggle in which Africans and others of African blood have been engaged since their contact with modern Europe." Although none of these definitions are entirely accurate they, together, frame my understanding of Pan-Africanism as a political movement and philosophical tradition founded on African pride, a consciousness of the past, and a desired unification of continental Africans and all who identify with the diaspora; seeing Africa (and its descendents) as one body even in the presence of differing people,

In the lay man’s world, there are some universally held beliefs that permeate almost every level of society: Africa is poor and its residents desperate for help, the Middle East is unstable and many of its regional actors are religious fanatics, and so on. However, to say that these are universally held beliefs does not necessarily mean that they are true. These beliefs are sometimes grounded upon a certain understanding of culture and identity of those being portrayed. Some of these portrayals are not based on fact, but merely representations created through discourse to advance state and actor interests in regions of activity. This paper seeks to identity the role identity and culture play in international relations (IR) and world

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

In fact, he constantly connects the African case to the broad discussion on Development Studies. Therefore, his book is for everyone an impressive source of inspiration and a tool to understand the current economic and geopolitical situation in the region and in the world.

There are two, key conflicting theories in the study of international relations, idealism and realism, known to scholars as the ‘Great Debate’. Realism, offers an account of international affairs through four central ideas; that states are the key players in international relations, the decentralised international stage is anarchic, actors are rational and self-interested

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.