The Nature of International Politics

The Nature of International Politics The startle convention that Thucydides addresses regarding the nature of multinational politics calls into interrogative mood the conclusive goals that each individual entity in the world of international relations throws just abtaboo important. Thucydides states that a country or states ultimate goal is to realize mogul and ruling over other nations. He illustrates this dress hat in The Melian Dialogue through the actions of the warfare-loving Athenians.In their effort to maintain their stance of force out a make upst their meet life-threatenings, they travel to the island of Melos with the goal of conquering the Melians either through force or through the Melian surr laster. The tribe of Melos wish to remain neutral friends of both Sparta and Athens, notwithstanding the Athenians ordain not hear of it. In their eyes, staying on friendly term with a neutral country would be construed as a chump of weakness and fear. The Melians r efuse to surrender, resulting in the ultimate destruction of their society bandage the Athenians gain further rule and power for their empire.However, I believe that this dogma need not to al itinerarys hold true, especially in the basis of war through diplomatic countries such as the united States of America. The United States has always held its principles in the effort to spread democracy and goodity in the international realm. In The Fog of War, John F. Kennedy disproves Thucydides first principle. In the middle of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the last thing Kennedy and his Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, wanted to do was to attack Cuba or go to war with the Soviet Union to gain power or ruling in any sense.They wanted to give out with the f obligationening presence of the Soviet Unions extensive thermonuclear warheads on Cuban soil in the most diplomatic way possible in order to avoid nuclear war. While this was best for the self-interest of the Ameri plenty people , it was also for the benefit for the citizens of Cuba and the USSR, as nuclear war destroys nations. Thankfully JFK had the help of a man named Tommy Thompson on his team who personally knew the Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev. Thompson urged Kennedy to go forward with negotiations with Khrushchev in order to end the Cuban Missile Crisis peacefully.Luckily, it worked. Kennedy and Khrushchev reached an agreement that the Soviet Union would dismantle the weapons as long as the United States would not invade Cuba. Through the peaceful, merely stressful, negotiations, both JFK and Khrushchev went against the international principle that countries completely aim to rule and conquer, and kind of in the arms of a rational governing body most often the countries own self-interest for safety overrules the desire to prove their power over other countries.Thucydides second principle of international politics relates to the approximation that between a world of expansive cultures and vo x populis, there is no international moral code for war and relations between states. In the Melian Dialogue, Thucydides exemplifies this thought through the war practices that the Athenians practiced in regards to the Melian people. While just about may argue that their initial attempt to discuss the impending attack plot of ground nominateing the option of surrender was humane, the brutal force they at last brought upon the Island of Melos outweighed their weak attempts in the beginning.Once the Melian people surrendered, the Athenians put all men of host age to death and sold the women and children as slaves. The Athenians practiced the might makes right way of thinking about morality that those who hold the most power also hold the mightiness to decide what actions are appropriate where they deem fit. In this case, they were the mighty ones. Their forceful actions toward the Melians were justifiable in their eyes, but crossways cultures such actions could easily be dee med excessive and radical.Therein lies Thucydides argument that there is no such moral code that every nation can be held accountable to. In The Fog of War, Robert McNamara is horrified with such a truth, and wonders clamorously What is morally appropriate in a wartime environment? He illustrates his question by describing instrument chromatic, a chemical that was approved for wont during the Vietnam War while he was acting Secretary of Defense. Agent chromatic is a chemical that was often used to take the leaves off of trees, and aft(prenominal) the war was discovered to be highly toxic and lethal.The usage of Agent Orange killed numerous citizens and soldiers who were exposed. He continues to ask whether those who issued the approval of Agent Orange criminals? Within the definition of the word criminal is the assumption that there is a crime being broken that is made illegal by a system of written laws. But McNamara points out that there are no such kinds of laws in war to determine what is acceptable and what is not and in conclusion there is no such thing as an international moral code that can be upheld, especially in the times of war.While there exists no international moral standard, does that mean that no state can be trusted? Thucydides third principle of international politics would coif yes. He believes that in the sense of self-interest, one state cannot rely upon alliances and only those alliances that are in line with national honor should be upheld. This principle is evident in the Melian Dialogue when the Melian people state their believe and belief in the Spartan people coming to their aid in the facet of attack from the Athenians.They believe that if not solely for the Spartans will to preserve their neighboring allies (that will surely take flyer if they dont come to aid Melos), then for the kinship of the Melian and Spartan race. Ultimately, the people of Melos are proven to have had too much hope in the Spartans, as no one come s to their aid. However, much like in the throes of friendship where not all can be trusted, surely some friends and allies can. The Fog of War displays a twisted sense of comradery between the USSR and Cuba, a bond that was forged in the joint victimize toward the United States.Their alliance built and housed nuclear weapons on Cuban soil, weapons that had the ability to destroy most of the continental United States. Once the American organization took hold of the dangerous situation and offered negotiations to the USSR in the hopes of avoiding destructive warfare, Nikita Khrushchev had a determination to makeand he had two major options. He could ignore the offer of diplomatic problem solving and strike the United States with the nuclear weapons or he could agree to the negotiations JFK brought to the table.On the one hand, attacking the United States guaranteed a antiphonary strike from the US that would undoubtedly destroy Cuba and kill thousands (not to mention pull in rea l problems between the USSR and the US). And on the other, he could agree to take out the weapons in return for the promise that the US would not attack Cuba. He could be known as the man who saved Cuba from an attack by the United States and could gain national respect for upholding USSR honor and morality.Despite the disturbing urgings from war-mongering Fidel Castro, Khrushchev contumacious to agree to negotiations. While his actions may have been solely done for self-interest and preservation of the USSRs teetering relationship with the US, he ultimately had the interest of the people of Cuba in mind even when their own President did not. This act by Khrushchev, despite the reasons behind it, upheld the ideals of alliances that one nation must be reliable and ready in the ability to protect the people and rights of the ally nation.