Ivan Vega 26 Feb 12 Alternatives to realism There is never one answer to explain world affairs.

One theory cannot be the sole answer to explain any problem. It may apply to a majority of issues at stake, but underneath there maybe hidden intentions or motives that have yet to be discovered. This is evident in the Yugoslav wars of 1991 through 1999. International Relations theories of Realism only explains actions of countries who hope to gain power by pushing national interest. The theory of Liberalism can explains how countries put the individual above all and pursue peace. How can these two theories explain why the country of Yugoslavia fell apart? There is more than just one answer and by learning from this, the international community can ensure that atrocities like this will never happen again. The Yugoslav war was different that many wars the world had seen. United by one body , the European nation who hosted the Olympics exemplifying unification of different identities was now under fire. With the surge of nationalism the country fell apart rather quickly. Contrary to wars fought over resources or countries, this conflict had horrific ramifications involved. By making the state and the nation commensurate with each other in theory, (nationalism) reduces practically to a subject conditional all other nationalities that may be within the country.. According, therefore, to the degree of humanity and civilization in that dominant body which claims all the rights of the community, the inferior races are exterminated or reduced to servitude. (Ethnonationalism) This is exactly what happened. Each of the 4 different nationalities retreated and began to fight one another. The world stood by and watched with horror. That's precisely what the United States did. Their actions precisely lined up with what realist theory predicted. Realism is great explanation tool for basic conflicts and when all the facts are presented. As for the Yugoslav, when the conflict first came up when the Serb nationalism surged the worldwide community to did not know to act. On that same token, the United States did follow realist theory protocol by not involving itself in the conflict. A realist theory of international politics, then, will guard against two popular fallacies: the concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences. (Hans J. Morgenthau). Even though innocent people were being murdered and the threat of thousands more facing danger , the United States had no reason to get itself involved. The United States had no interests in that part of the world. It's power was not at stake, therefore it had no reason to do anything. It stood by as the country fell apart. America did not lose lives or money at the start of the conflict. What realism cannot explain, is why the United States began giving aid to those refugees after the war in Bosnia started? Once a nation begins carrying for individuals it steers itself away from the interests of the state. Thucydides stated the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept ( Thucydides). By giving aid, America became weaker. Even though the intentions were obvious (to help people in need) America had no reason to do this in a realist's eyes. Realism alone could not explain it. This was not the only time realist theory could explain America's action's. When a country goes to war, in a realist's eyes, is to win, because it will ultimately benefit the nation. Towards the end of the Yugoslav conflict America was responsible for a Humanitarian war. The president was quoted by saying to an American Air force base in Germany that the war in Kosovo he thanked Madeline Allbright for being able to redeem the lessons of your life by standing up for the freedom of the people in Balkans. This statement goes against realist thought. She was even criticized by her mentor Peter Krough he accused her of basing American foreign policy on humanitarian principles while ignoring primary strategic interests such as integrating Russia and China. The two problems are the fact that the United States was conducting a humanitarian mission and secondly to ally itself with countries that do not share the same interests (humanitarian). In all respect, the Yugoslavia conflict was one that the United States had no part in inlcuding itself in. Even in an realist perspective,

including itself in an international role in the international community was detracting from it's very purpose of pursuing it's own national interests. According to Goldsetin and Peevehouse Realism (or political realism) is a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power. In this conflict, United States had nothing to gain, therefor the realist theory doe not apply itself to this conflict. It does however prove that realism doesn't apply and that liberalism theories can better explain America's role in helping the people of this region, though it can't fully explain it from that perspective. That other type of explanation comes in the form of another international relations theory known as Liberalism. Instead of focusing on the state, liberalism puts priority to the individual. In retrospect, realism was concerned with the sovereignty of the state, and instead, liberalism holds it with the individual. John Stuart Mill, one of the founders of liberalism said in his book On Liberty The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amendable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, is of right, absolute. Over himself, his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. (Mill) The idea behind liberalism is as best described as an alternative to realism Unlike realism,, place importance on the domestic and individual levels of analysis in explaining state behavior (Goldstein) Instead of relying on exploitation of state's actions by what their interests are, liberalism hopes find ways of explaining through the individual. The most an individual wants is peace. Even though according to Order of the new Millennium states that Westphalia supposed the use of ad hoc collective defense alliances to maintain peace (Pretice hall) Liberalism holds the individual responsible for peace instead of Alliances. Immanual Kant believed that peace and cooperation was possible in a reciprocity principle States could develop the organizations and rules to facilitate cooperation, specifically by forming a world federation resembling today's United Nations. This answer forms the basis for present day liberal institutionalism. Liberalism does not stop there. Though it's focus is on peace and cooperation, there are other forms of it. One of those types is post modernism, though not originated as an international relations theory, it has found ways to explain actions by nations that no other theory has been able to. The best way to describe it is A central idea of post modernism is that there is no single, objective reality but a multiplicity of experiences and perspectives that defy easy categorization. Best explanation is by stating that a narrative is applied to all actions. One keen example is how the United States reacted to the attacks on 9/11. By following the same tactics used by the attacks on pearl harbor, America pitted us against them and therefore was able to justify an attack on terrorism. This narrative can be put hand in hand with how the Spanish handled their bombing of the Madrid train bombing. Instead of following in America's footsteps, it fought terrorism similar to how the untouchables handled taking down Al Capone. Neither country has a had a terrorist attack since. (Karp) On the same note, there is no other international relations theory can explain how this is done. In realist thought, America cannot fight an ideal or terrorism it is not a nation nor a interest. And in a liberalism approach, the state was concerned with the safety of the individual. By explaining their actions through narrative, it can explain a variety of items such as The Soviet Union, for example was treated by realists as a single actor with a single set of objective interests.....Realists were amazed when the Soviet Union split into 15 pieces, each containing its own fractious groups and elements. It became clear that the unitary state called the Soviet Union had masked (and let realists ignore) the divergent experiences of constituent republics, groups and individuals. Post modernism succeeds where realism fails when it comes to explaining actions. In the days of the Treaty of Westphalia, it was easy to judge a countries intentions as well as their motives. In the day where individuals, ethnic groups and ideas can be stronger than the state, this is no longer the case. It helps explain the deterioration of the country of Yugoslavia and how to nation of Kosovo was able to hold on to itself while the country it was under fell apart. Yugoslavia was a country that according to the rest of the world, was a beacon for ethnic diversity. Their leader Tito ruled the country with a tight grip Tito conducted his ethnic and religious caophoy with a blend of diplomatic skill and occasional brutality. His leadership remained unquestioned throughout his long reign. (138) He ruled from 1945 to 1980 until his timely death. However after his

death was when the truth began to unravel. In March 1981 Albanaian Modlem students touched off demonstrations demanding a larger political role for their compatriots. Anti Serb rallies became so massive that the Yugoslav arm needed to intervene. This was a sign of things to come, and all that was required was a person to exploit the fact that a lot of cultural and ethical tension still occurred on what was once considered a peaceful nation. It was now clear that Realism is a biased model that creates a narrow and one sided story for the purpose of promoting interests of powerful actors. In this case, what was brewing was a human disaster of World War Two like proportions. No countries and not even the United Nations could see it coming. The facts hadn't unraveled itself at the time period, which explains their slow response. But now in this day, with all the facts laid out, it proves that it was easy for someone like Slobodan Milosevic to gain such rapid power in such a short amount of time. It was only a matter of time before the countries began to secede from Yugoslavia in a domino like fashion. The international community stood by in horror as he used ethnic cleansing techniques to unify the country under his control. In a post modern theory it did not make sense at the time, because country's did not know what Milosevich's intentions were. The United Nations finally acted and sent peace keepers But by the time UN troops arrived, the deed was done and the UN was unable to turn back to the clock. All the blue helmets could do was patrol the new boundaries resulting from Serbian incursions into Croat territory. Why did the United Nations fail to act? Even though in today's day, from gathering all the facts it was clear that Milosevic's goal was to unify the country by any means possible. If the world could predict a genocide it would, but since it could only go off the information it had, by the time it could, it was already too late. That is one fatal flaw with theories. All the facts must be in order in order to predict the outcome of another state. On the same token, prediction can be found in the form of symbolism or subtext hidden meanings. Along with waiting to act, it allowed for other countries that step up its act as a response to the atrocities that were to follow in the Bosnia war. The long Serbian siege of Sarajevo was without a doubt the most widely publicized event of the war in Bosnia. A European journalist described as a European city was being reduced to nothing. By having journalists report on the atrocities committed by the serbs it produced a greater sense of awareness throughout the world. With that, came more attention to a problem that was beginning to take the lives of hundreds of thousands of Europeans. However, it took more than just a siege to finally make the whole world take action. The world understood that great atrocities were being committed but need a catalyst to push for action. A symbol, a rallying cry that would prompt leaders to answer their people as to why they haven't acted when women and children are being blown to bits in a market. That's exactly what happened. It was a bomb that landed in Sarajevo's market square on February 5, 1994 that finally prompted the international community to rouse itself form its inertia and try to intervene....but this was highly visible hence of great symbolic value. It finally made the western powers stand up to the Bosnian Serbs, albeit with agonizing slowness.( ) This finally prompted America and France to threaten them with air strikes. It was a classic example of heroes finally coming to save the day. At the cost of hundreds of lives being lost that day before, the symbolism of that event carried enough weight to allow action to take place. Post modernism explains that perfectly, because both France and America played the part of the hero. Had they intervened before, they would have sided with one race over another, and instead they chose now to help the victim rather than the victor. With the modern age of television, internet and photos, the world can now use symbols to attract world wide attention, and in some cases save a country from cleansing. Post modernism theory proved instrumental in Milosevic's failure to crush the KLA and to change the ethnic balance of Kosovo with the kurds. When photographs of thousands of Albanians herded like cattle into trains leaving Pritina for the Macedonian border reached Western Television screens, the response was electric. Packed with hopeless people screaming in despair, the trains were all too reminiscent of the Nazi Holocaust. Western resolve hardened almost overnight and the result was a renewed determination by the alliance memebers to see the air war through to a successful conclusion. ( ) By putting the individual first, paralleling past atrocities with the present day, it was clear that world conflicts would be fought no longer with

dominance. Even with Milosevic's powerful army and strong armed tactics, there were useless to a country that was backed by an international community This was a double a win, because with the world attention on the once known Yugoslavia, the world wanted answers and people to pay for the thousands of refugees misplaced and lives lost. The International War Crimes Tribunal in Hague indicted the Serb leader and four of his closest associates for war crimes and crimes against humanity.( ) This was a victory for the international community, because now even people who were responsible for states now had to answer to someone above them. There was no way to predict the outcome of the now-once nation of Yugoslavia. It proved that the world was still changing and even with theories could explain why certain countries act the way the they do, it can be costly. The time spent waiting to see what happens has proved that it could lead hundreds, if not even thousands of lives lost. Post modernism is a double edged sword theory. It praises those countries who act on the information it knows. But it can be disastrous because symbols can be misused or misinterpreted. And even worse, if one waits to long to decipher them, it can lead to disaster. However, learning from instances such as the disintegration of Yugoslavia, it further proves that all theories, are in a sense theories. And with more knowledge, the better we can make informed and better decisions on world matters.