Tiger Hug.

Got sent this photo by a family friend working out in Africa. Enjoy

Re-Reading Tolstoy; decent quote.

"Why did millions of people begin to kill one another? Who told them to do it? It would seem that it was clear to each of them that this could not benefit any of them."

That do you think? - In international relations/ morality has no purchase

I tend to agree with this statement, what do you think? Please comment, it helps broaden my own views on International Relations.

“In international relations, where power is unequally distributed, morality has no purchase. States pursue their own national interests and the strong rule wherever they can. This is not a doctrine that Might is Right. It is rather the view that Right is irrelevant. Might just is what everywhere prevails.”

	David Fisher, 2011 : Morality and War: Can War Be Just in the Twenty-First Century?

 

Essay Extract: To what extent is it accurate to suggest that the Soviet Union was a Totalitarian Empire?

Just another extract from some of my on going work. Please feel free to comment.

It is important however to define what this essay regards as totalitarian (both in governance and as a debate), revisionist and empire. Also important is how the Soviet Union is related to these definitions, for example the Soviet Union’s known distance from any form of imperialistic values may be at ends with certain definitions of ‘empire’ so it is important to define this early on in the essay.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines empire as “an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarch, or a sovereign state” and in the mass noun “supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority.” (Oxford English Dictionary) If the Soviet Union can be defined within this definition, it is possible to compare the USSR to other empires, for example, the Roman, British and Russian empire. The problem here is obvious, that the Soviet Union was created entirely in opposition to the values and ideas of these entities, in particular the Imperial Russian Empire. Therefore to avoid these obvious pitfalls this essay will try to define the Soviet Union as an empire within itself, and to avoid comparisons with other notably ‘Imperial’ regimes. However there will in some areas be comparisons with these imperial regimes, but this will in no way diminish the conclusion that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian empire. This essay will also define totalitarianism (as the form of governance, not the stance in the debate) as a “form of government falling into the general classification of dictatorship, a system in which technologically advanced instruments of political power are wielded without restraint by centralised leadership/ for the purpose of affecting a total social revolution/ conditioning of man on/ ideological assumptions, proclaimed by the leadership in an atmosphere of coerced unanimity of the entire population.”  (Linz: 2000, pg 66)

             

This essay will identify that the largest comparison between the Soviet Union and other empires, is in how it deals with the problems of nationalities. How the Soviet Union dealt with the nationalities issue will provide evidence of an empire nature within the distinctly totalitarian Soviet Union. The issues surrounding the problem of nationalities should be addressed before the entering the totalitarian/ revisionist debate. This essay will first assert that the Soviet Union was indeed an empire, then latter develop upon why it was so totalitarian in nature. Therefore the first area that needs to be asserted is the Soviet Union’s imperial nature, in particular with regards to its nationalistic policies and its treatment of its ethic majorities and minorities. The issue of nationalities is something that every Empire throughout history at some point, had to address, and the Soviet Union was no different. From its early days of the Bolshevik revolution, to its eventual break up in 1991, the Soviet Union had taken a derisibly imperialistic approach to its nationality problem. “In the modern world empires collapse along national lines; the Soviet Union collapsed along national lines, therefore, the Soviet Union was an Empire.” (Martin: 2001, pg. 19) In the early days of the Soviet Union, Lenin was all too aware of the strength (and dangers) of unchecked national fever, undoubtedly influenced by the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire and observing the role played by the ethnic groups. Lenin and Stalin therefore where acutely aware of the danger of being labelled as imperialistic in an era where nationalism was so strong. “The Soviet Union became the first multi-ethnic state in world history to define itself as an anti-imperial state. They were not indifferent to the word “empire.” They rejected it explicitly.” (Martin: 20001, pg. 19) The main issue asserted was the difference between the ‘Core and Periphery’ of the Soviet Union, the totalitarian nature (as the nature of the communist party) of governance from the core, could all too easy be interpreted by the periphery (and internationally) as distinctly Imperial. “One of the main methodological precepts/ holds that the USSR was a direct continuation of the Russian empire, with a multi-ethnic formation dominated by a central ethnic group.” (Shlapentokh: 2001, pg 12) However by looking at the way the core (by the core I am referencing the leadership of the Soviet Party and the majority Russian/Slavic ethnics) dealt with this problem, we can identify a particularly totalitarian and ultimately imperial nature of the governing party. The early Bolshevik leadership in its totalitarian nature manipulated the Soviet Union so as to remove any concept of a powerful and distinctly Russian ethnic core, running a subjugated colonial periphery of independent ethnic groups. “To avoid this perception, the central state would not be identified as Russian. Russian national self-expression would be downplayed.” This is what Terry Martin discusses as the early Bolshevik strategy of an Affirmative Action Empire, which too an extent supports the revisionist debate.  The result of these policies saw a focus in the upward mobility of rural and lower class Bolshevik supporters, which benefited the periphery of the Soviet Union greatly, demonstrating that there was “bottom up” movement from within the party. “Soviet “affirmative action” policies/ by which upwardly mobile urban workers and peasants and their children were recruited into a new elite” (Fitzpatrick: 2007, pg 84) Indeed these upwardly mobilised groups would eventually take the places of many of those who falling to the purges in the 1930’s, creating and instating a whole new generation of distinctly socialist ‘intelligentsia’ within the Soviet elite, even surviving the reversion of this policy by Stalin. “In the early 1930’s at least half a million people of working class origin moved into white-collar and managerial jobs” (Christian: 1997, pg 312)

However Stalin orchestrated a complete reversion of this process by the late 1920’s, which demonstrates the weaknesses within the revisionist debate. Stalin very much believed that the key lay within survival and modernity of the state lay within the suppression of non-Russian nationalities. After securing widespread control in the centre, Stalin orchestrated a policy to “institutionalise a nationalities policy that was based on national assimilation. Officially only Russian nationalism was allowed to survive.” (Rezun: 1992: pg 5) Here we see the process of aggressive assimilation of nationalities within the Soviet Union that was to define Stalin’s reign and the beginnings of the Soviet Empire. Integral to this was the role of the purges and the ‘Great Terror’ of the 1930’s , which will be discussed in the next segment of this essay. Expressive control from the party leadership to preserve the Soviet Union through a system of rapid de-colonisation and imposing purist Russian nationalistic imperatives upon its widespread ethnic diaspora is distinctly totalitarian in nature. This thus supports to a great extent that it is accurate to describe the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire.

Friedrich & Brzezinski outlined various key distinctions of a totalitarian system; this essay will utilise these as way points to demonstrate that the Soviet Union was distinctly totalitarian in nature. The combination of the six points will effectively support the observation of Shelia Fitzpatrick who summarises the totalitarians-model scholarship’s view of the Soviet Union as a ‘top-down entity’ (Fitzpatrick: 2007, pg 80). “The destruction of autonomous associations and the atomization of bonds between people produced a powerless, passive society that was purely an object of regime control and manipulation.” (Fitzpatrick: 2007, pg 80).

             

A major point to the substantiation of the totalitarian’s debate is the use of ideology by the communist party and its leaders; as an effective tool in mobilising, modernising and controlling the people of the Soviet Union. As outlined in Friedrich & Brzezinski first distinctions of a totalitarian system, “Official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine covering all vital aspects of man’s existence/ characteristically focused/toward a perfect final state of mankind.” (Friedrich & Brzezinski: 1965, pg 9) the role that ideology played in the initial development and continuation of the Soviet Union cannot be ignored and supports the totalitarians argument fully. “The Soviet dictatorship/ rests upon this belief in the instrumental nature of ideas and ideology” (Friedrich & Brzezinski: 1965, pg 73) As a result the  Soviet people were willing to fully accept anything that was phrased through the correct form within the ideology. The evolution in Soviet ideology often reflects what is happening within the USSR at that present time, for example during the time of collectivisation as part of a revolution within Soviet culture, and exhibits how ideology changed Soviet language and life. “Military metaphors invaded the language. The papers began to talk of ‘industrial fronts’/ and ‘traitors’/ the party projected its embattled and militaristic mood on the whole of Soviet society.” (Christian: 1997, pg 299) Control of the ideology of the state allowed for the government to utilise its power in a subversive way, it also strengthened the positions of the party elite and its leaders. By imposing censorships in line with party policy and ideology, the leadership where able stamp down dissidents within the system, “Trade unions lost their independence. Non-Marxists lost positions of influence/ censorship ended the broad-ranging debates.” (Christian: 1997, pg 298)

Essay extract: If there was evidence that Iran had developed Nuclear Weapons, what should the US do?

I wrote the majority of this in November 2011. PLease comment.

     In answer to what should the US should do if it was confirmed that Iran had developed nuclear weapons; the US should ‘seize and restrict’ Iran’s nuclear, programme, weapons, and production facilities. This can be completed ether through diplomatic or more likely, militaristic means. Graham Allison provides a suitable course of analysis in his Rational Actor Model, by explaining “international events by recounting the aims and calculations of nations or governments” (Allison: 1971) will help justify such a strong course of action from the US. This essay will create three possible scenarios that may develop as a result of Iranian nuclear armament.

•   Scenario one: Iran will use its new nuclear capabilities to increase its regional power in the Middle East, whilst also deterring possible Israeli aggression.   
•  Scenario two: Iran will use its WMD programme to strengthen its strategic role in the straits of Hormuz.  
•  Scenario three: Iran will use its connection to terrorist networks to deploy its nuclear weapons in a series of proxy attacks against Iranian enemies.

        Each scenario will be assessed through their consequential value and payoff to Iran’s overall strategy. By analysing the potential consequences and alternatives this essay will reach a choice by selection the scenario which best supports/represents the states goals and objectives of the Iranian government. Certain questions must be answered in each scenario; what the Iranian government’s objectives are, how Tehran will fulfil its operational criteria, and what the consequences are? By following the Rational Actor Model this essay will reach a hypothesis in each scenario, and then select the scenario that is most plausible. The hypothesis of each scenario will be made by a series of assumptions, “Assumes that what must be explained is an action, i.e., behaviour that reflects purpose or intention/ assumes that the actor is a national government./ assumes that the action is chosen as a calculated solution to a strategic problem / each, explanation consists of showing what goal the government was pursuing when it acted and how the action was a reasonable choice, given the nations objective” (Allison: 1971)

The threat that an Iran with nuclear capabilities poses to both the US and the world is substantial. The Rational Actor Model supports that a dominant threat comes from the Iranian political leaders/government, the two main players in the political matrix are President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and to a lesser extent, Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini. The roles and personalities of these individuals are important in the analysis of the scenarios. For example President Ahmadinejad is prone to wild, extravagant claims and political manoeuvres, suggesting that once armed with nuclear weapons he will be more prone to deploying them as a tactical weapon.

Questions that need to be answered are, why has Tehran wanted to gain nuclear status and what does President Ahmadinejad wish to achieve by gaining nuclear weapons? It could be argued that Iran seeks to gain international recognition for its dubious regime, the WMD’s (weapons of mass destruction) acting as a status symbol.  However Alan Collins points out that “WMD provide a way to offset their inferiority in conventional armaments compared to stronger regional rivals or the United States.” (Collins: 2007) Therefore it is appropriate to assume that Iran feels threatened by the United States and actively seeks nuclear armament as a way of checking US influence in the Persian Gulf.

It is also suitable to suggest that an Iran in procession of indigenously made WMD’s would utilise them, this premise is particularly important, as all three scenarios rely on the assertion that Iran will utilise its nuclear capabilities strategically. This conclusion has been made through analysis of the economic situation that Iran finds itself in and the allocation of its partial resources to fund its defence policies. The Iranian defence budget has been under a huge amount of internal and international constraint, “stemming from the poor state of its economy and the embargo on military sales to it by all of the Western States.” (Sokolky: 2004) Therefore by analysing what Iran has spent its stringent budget on, we can evaluate what the government in Tehran value as a tactical imperative.

 Iran has allocated its limited resources in two major areas, firstly in air and sea denial, demonstrated through the purchase of “CSS-2 Silkworm and CSS-3 Seersucker surface-launched anti-ship missiles/ MIG-29 fighter, Su-24 attack aircraft.” (Sokolky: 2004) These purchases will support the hypothesis demonstrated in scenario two, that Iran seeks to gain greater control of the Straits of Hormuz, using its nuclear capabilities to deter western interference, whilst utilising its anti air and sea capabilities to deny the flow of commerce, in particular oil; thus gaining control of Western economies that widely depend on the flow of commodities through this region. Secondly, Iran has made huge steps in its WMD projects, most notably in the deployment and weaponization of nuclear materials, the launch and testing of Iran’s medium (Shahab-3) and intermediate range (Shahab-4) missiles , demonstrates that Iran has the capabilities to strike regionally and even beyond the Middle East. This conclusion will support the hypothesis of scenario one, that Iran seeks to increase its regional power, by using its nuclear capabilities to deter possible Israeli aggression, whilst also placing strategic leverage on possible regional allies “there can be no capacity for the use of force that does not evoke some response from those who hope it might be used on their behalf, or from those who fear it might be used against them.” (Luttwak: 2003) As it has been previously stated, Iran has limited access to strategic resources outside of its indigenous capabilities; therefore it is appropriate to assume that because Iran has placed so much of its constrained military budget into the acquisition of anti air/sea technology and in its WMD project we can assume that the use of both are written in Iranian strategy. This legitimises the credibility of all three scenarios, including scenario three which may at first appear extreme; is supported by looking at the previous actions of the Iranian government and Tehran’s links to Islamic terrorist networks.

Essay extract, Whats wrong with Equality

The egalitarian would argue that at the outcome of a race, all participants should be rewarded on the basis that each athlete partook in the race. Although this is decisively equal, it is obviously unjust; the athlete who came first should gain the greatest reward on the basis of his talent, commitment to training etc. This example demonstrates the gap between equality and meritocracy;[1] the best are rewarded on the basis of being the best. To say so otherwise because it is regarded as being unequal is to be unjust. Meritocracy is a justified inequality, in that it allows for those who wish to succeed, to succeed.

 Justified inequalities such as meritocracy are warranted in that they are supported and to a certain extent promoted by democracy. For example the “American Dream” was built on the principle that by committing oneself to hard work, one has the potential to improve his/her circumstances financially. Whilst the ‘intrinsic egalitarian’ would argue that it is intrinsically wrong for someone to be less ‘well off’[2] than themselves. It is obviously far too difficult for the worse off to be raised to the station of well off. Therefore intrinsic egalitarians would argue that a potential route to end inequality would be to separate the financially and socially endowed from their resources, thus making them ‘poorer’; therefore not only is such a concept unjust but it is also undemocratic. Although this is a radical case; Kurt Vonnegut comments on the injustice of absolute equality in his satirical novel, ‘Harrison Bergeron’. “Everybody was finally equal. / They were equal in every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else.”[3] The quote above, albeit unlikely; highlights the clear danger that absolute equality provides, especially when legitimized through a government body or an ideology. For example in February 2010, Pope Benedict XVI challenged the Labour government on the grounds that Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill[4] was unjust because it restricted religious freedom and was against natural law. “The effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”[5]  It is unjust to force religious practitioners to go against their teachings or else be liable to prosecution; once again demonstrating that equality is wrong, in the sense that it should not infringe on the intrinsic freedom to religion.

 Each individual is born decisively unequal, the baby in Somalia who was born at the same time as the baby in America, is already burdened with inequalities. Each human is thus different within society, all have the want and will to better themselves, mostly by using the talents of which they were born with or have developed as a result of their social environment, and all have the same nucleus of potentiality. Equality is wrong in that it seeks to suppress the natural instinct within man; Nietzsche described the natural instinct as “der Wille zur Macht.” [6]  Equality of outcome would seek to “cap” mans potential to succeed and reach fulfilment, from an existential point of view, this is a great injustice. Each individual has the will to power; any attempts made by intrinsic egalitarians only seek to contain this will, “My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force.”[7] The concept of equality is in direct conflict with natural driving force behind the actions of man, for example Stalin’s and his successor’s autocratic dominance over the communist society of the Soviet Union. All were equal, but Stalin was definitely more equal than anyone else. The will to gain power and to rise above the masses is natural and Stalin’s rise in a society dominated by an ideology which projected equality as a core value is a perfect example of how man’s natural will, dominates in an intrinsic egalitarian environment.  It could be argued that Stalin’s initial potential to be a tyrant would have been naturally contained in a society which projected equality of opportunity, rather than the socialist equality of outcome.[8]  Therefore it can be argued from a Nietzschean perspective that equality is wrong in that it caters to the mentality of the “herd”, thereby minimizing the extent to which the individual is able to fulfil his/her potential in life.

---

[1] Concept that the awards, work positions, etc; go to those who are most talented and best able to fulfil the criteria of the area.

[2] Both financially and socially, the two of which have been closely linked throughout history.

[3] Within this novel , the state takes actions in forms of handicaps against people who they regard as being ‘above average’ in such this such as beauty, intelligence, strength etc. For example a citizen who has above average strength would be handicapped with weights.

[4] The proposed 2010 Equality Bill would make organisations such as the Roman Catholic faith viable to prosecution under the law; if they discriminated against women and homosexuals who wished to join the priesthood.

[5] Popes speech during the Cardinals “ad limina” visit..

[6] “The will to power” Nietzsche firmly believed that this was the motivating factor within the psyche of man. Or so told from the collected manuscripts, writings etc, of Friedrich.

[7] Nietzsche “The Will to Power” page 636.

[8] Obviously other factors were important to Stalin’s rise to power; the economic, military and political conditions of Soviet Russia are all factors. But the initial concept of the equality of outcome within socialism allowed for this character to achieve dominance.