<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The rising importance of power politics
Review: Although Carr repeatedly addressed the interdependence relationship between power, economy and morality, I still believe that power has an overwhelming role in international politics. The United States launched the war on Iraq, which ignored the international public opinion that against war and gave up the opportunity to resolve the crisis through the United Nations. This happened only because of the superiority of the United States.
What the trend of international order I get from this book is, the rising importance of power. Power determines the international order, the greater the power the state has, the weaker the role of economy and morality in politics.
The Cold War is the best example to illustrate the growing importance of power. After the Second World War, the powers finally discovered the invalidity of the utopian's school of thought. International order should be maintained by super-state as what Carr predicted. The United States and Soviet Union started to manipulate the international order rather than by the vague concept of morality. Thus, the United States and the Soviet Union used different means, for examples, economic assistance, ideology and military power, to maintain the international order, which was favoured their national interest. On the same time, with the limited capability of power, France extended her influence in African countries while China aimed to win the support from the Third World.The Cold War not only shows the rising role power, but also demonstrates that states start to act pro-actively after the two world wars rather than passively from the past.
Disappointingly, what Carr predicted the super-state is not able to solve the question of "impartiality", thus the international order will be determined by the capability of power among the states. What I have mentioned above, the United States acts on her national interests, just like the war on Iraq and possibly Iran later on. It is hard to justify whether the war on Iraq is moral or correct, especially there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And Iran is not yet proved to use her nuclear facilities to make weapons. On the one hand, what the United States is doing, in a realist approach, quest for oil and crack down terrorists in the name of the "Democratization of Middle East", which fits the international moral aspiration. On the other hand, China also quests for oil in Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe in the name of sharing the common view with the above countries that "We don't believe that human rights should stand above sovereignty" (Mooney). It is hardly to find any state that will seek for impartiality in solving disputes except the utopian's "world government", the fact is, disputes is usually solved by power.
It is also a caricature that power becomes overwhelmingly important for the United States neglects the international law that she was enthusiastic to set up before. Posner commented that "The watershed moment came when the court found the United States had violated international law by mining Nicaraguan harbours in 1984. America, which had long been the court's champion, rejected the judgment and withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction" (Posner).
Even Carr regarded his conclusion "This, too, is a utopia" , that his criticism on the gap between theory and practice may provide a map for reforming League of Nations, a peaceful international order base on the balancing relationship of politics, economy and morality under international institution and a super-state. However, it seems that the existing international relations too emphasize on power politics today, and will continue in this way in the future.
Bibliography
Mooney, Paul, "Beijing's delicate balancing act in Africa", in International Herald Tribune, 19 Jan 2005, p.6
Posner, Eric A., "The international court in decline" in International Herald Tribune, 13 Jan 2005, p. 6
Rating: 
Summary: Classic
Review: I had to read this book for an International Relations class and it was excellant. I found myself deeply engrossed in Carr's depiction of the twenty years between 1919 and 1939What is really amazing is the fact that he wrote it before World War II and yet he predicted what would happen so well. I would recomend this book to everyone.
Rating:
Summary: Classic
Review: I had to read this book for an International Relations class and it was excellant. I found myself deeply engrossed in Carr's depiction of the twenty years between 1919 and 1939 What is really amazing is the fact that he wrote it before World War II and yet he predicted what would happen so well. I would recomend this book to everyone.
Rating:
Summary: Tricky, but insightful and ahead of its time.
Review: Much of the appeal of realism stems from a belief that it's more grounded in reality and pragmatism. In this way, it's often the bias of choice for academics simply because it makes one's ideas appear more legitimate. Here's a case in point: Carr spends nearly the entire book ripping apart utopianism and pluralism, as any "good realist" would be apt to do, only to reach the last chapter where he declares liberalism is the only hope for mankind. So it's clear that he wasn't really a true Realist, but used it for improving his career prospects. It obviously worked, because The Twenty Years' Crisis is considered a classic work in realism. Nonetheless, Carr comes up with some great insights. He correctly predicts the rise of nonstate actors. Though he is wrong in thinking colonization would continue for the long haul in its current form, yet he predicts the move away from expansionism in favor of interchangeable puppet governments and international subversion. Carr has great advice when he says war will continue until nations begin sacrificing for one another, something that U.S. actions in Latin America and the United Fruit Company fiasco chose to disregard. My favorite point is when he says absolute peace is only possible when there is a larger, common threat that subunits can mobilize against. Earth cannot unite against the impending threat from the Planet Mars, for instance. Well, maybe there are no Martians, but perhaps there's someone else out there...
Rating:
Summary: Tricky, but insightful and ahead of its time.
Review: Much of the appeal of realism stems from a belief that it's more grounded in reality and pragmatism. In this way, it's often the bias of choice for academics simply because it makes one's ideas appear more legitimate. Here's a case in point: Carr spends nearly the entire book ripping apart utopianism and pluralism, as any "good realist" would be apt to do, only to reach the last chapter where he declares liberalism is the only hope for mankind. So it's clear that he wasn't really a true Realist, but used it for improving his career prospects. It obviously worked, because The Twenty Years' Crisis is considered a classic work in realism. Nonetheless, Carr comes up with some great insights. He correctly predicts the rise of nonstate actors. Though he is wrong in thinking colonization would continue for the long haul in its current form, yet he predicts the move away from expansionism in favor of interchangeable puppet governments and international subversion. Carr has great advice when he says war will continue until nations begin sacrificing for one another, something that U.S. actions in Latin America and the United Fruit Company fiasco chose to disregard. My favorite point is when he says absolute peace is only possible when there is a larger, common threat that subunits can mobilize against. Earth cannot unite against the impending threat from the Planet Mars, for instance. Well, maybe there are no Martians, but perhaps there's someone else out there...
Rating:
Summary: A very significant update with an excellent introdction, etc
Review: The work itself is too famous to be added with any non-professional accounts. This update, however, a very precious one in a sense, mainly because the fact that the author, E.H.Carr, did make a change from the 1st edition to the 2nd edition is lucidly explained. For some the change Carr had made is critical, since that was deeply concerned with his attitude on appeasement policy, especially the Munich Agreement in 1938. This is why M.Fox includes the both prefaces and his explanation on the difference as well as a well-written introduction to the work and others. I think this is a very important update we have been waiting for.
Rating:
Summary: Realism Lite
Review: When we talk about realism, we often think about Kissinger or Morgenthau, both of which are awfully boring when one really tries to keep focused on their work. But E.H. Carr preceded both these fine gentlemen, and Carr is at his finest here displaying a sarcastic wit and overall nasty tone in ripping apart the overly idealistic liberal position adopted by Wilson, Kellogg or Briand, who really thought that world peace could be had through ineffectual action via international organizations and lots of talking between nations. Carr, in true realist guise (pre-Morgenthau, at least), doesn't elaborate on any principles that could be used to form a coherent theory. But the strengths of this book are in helping those who don't fully appreciate why WW2 came about understand the failure of liberalism, and in entertaining those of us in IR who are bored with the standard IR readings. This book is hilarious, and is certainly worth reading. Just don't expect it to be terribly profound.
<< 1 >>
|
