Liberalism and the Iran nuclear deal

I.R. Liberals should not be entirely happy with the recent Iran Nuclear Deal as it is most likely going to backfire in the long run.

Many liberals have praised the deal as a milestone in the relations between Iran and the western powers. After several years of unsuccessful negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, this deal is "the best we could get", as some may argue.
At first sight, the main outlines may not even look that bad: Iran agrees to limit its nuclear capacities to a certain degree that won't allow them to build a nuclear bomb in the next few years. All their technological equipment is even going to be subject to an international monitoring program. In return, economic sanctions will be lifted, which will allow the Iranian economy to grow again.

From a liberal point of view, this deal seems to be a good example of achieving mutual benefits through cooperation on an international level. Liberalism states that this is the best way to overcome the natural state of anarchy in I.R.
Both parties seem to win - the west can rest assured that Iran won't get its hands on the nuclear bomb and Iran can finally strive to boost its economy again.

But let us take a closer look at what the deal might also imply: As soon as the sanctions are lifted, the Iranian government will be able to access billions of dollars that had thus far been locked up overseas due to financial restrictions. At the same time, the conventional weapons embargo imposed on the country will also be lifted, possibly meaning that the Iranian government will stock up on these in the very near future.

Iran has proven to be a generous supporter of various extremist and/or terrorist organizations in the Middle East such as Hamas in the Gaza strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Taliban in Afghanistan or the Assad regime in Syria. The regime provides both weapons and financial aid to their allies in order to expand its influence and bring terror and war to their enemies. Let us not forget that all these regimes and political groups are based on the principles of radical political Islam and the Sharia law.

A strong Iranian regime without the restraints of western sanctions will steady its status as an influential regional power in the middle east. Other radical actors associated with the regime will also benefit from this.

Let me get me back to liberal ideology once again. There are some key values of liberal thought that I did not mention in the first few paragraphs: human rights, the principles of reason and rationality and the value of progressive political beliefs. Iran and all of its allies are pretty much opposing every single one of these beliefs.
Instead, they promote a radical ideology that is going to cause a lot more problems in the future.

A true I.R. liberal should thus ask him or herself: Is this nuclear deal really true to my liberal beliefs? Or is it merely postponing some very serious problems in the middle east?

Constructivist Approach to Security Threat of Global Warming

From the perspective of a constructivist, global warming may be deemed as a national security threat. Generally, constructivism is a theory that all human knowledge, identities and institutions are the result of various social, political, historical, economic or ideological factors. Truth is relative to different circumstances. It is the job of the scholar to identify these factors to bring them to light. Constructivism is an approach. It means, for example, that when you are studying something you do not think about if it is true or not. You care more about explaining it on contingent factors as the influence of ideas, social forces, culture etc. A country’s interest in climate change and how they view the problem is socially constructed. Based on these perceptions, and greatly taking globalization into account, I believe that constructivists would consider global warming a national security threat; as well as have sound solutions on negotiating the issue. The thought of climate change as a national security threat has laid on the back-burner for many years but just now people are beginning to connect the dots between the two.

Global warming has become more than a threat to just the environment, and few negotiations have reached conclusions on how to handle the situation. Within climate negotiations there has been a lack of norms on regulating who is responsible for the situation. We all share the Earth, but is it fair to cutback currently developing countries from continuing to globalize? Are wealthier, developed countries to be blamed for the matter?

Rising temperatures are behind increasing amounts of violent storms, droughts, diseases, and displacement of people, which can all lead to security threats on communities. These threats include food shortages, loss of homes, economic loss -- all leading to the destabilization of areas around the world and can feed into possible strife or warfare. For example, the killing and displacement of thousands of people in southern Sudan has been the result of drought and the expanding Sahara desert from the north. Another example of global warming posing a security threat is the melting of the Arctic. The shrinking of the ice cap opens a shipping channel that must be defended as it opens up new pathways throughout the sea. It also gives way to undersea resources that are already being internationally competed for.

Just last year, the National Intelligence Council produced a government-wide intelligence analysis of the security implications of climate change. While many people may scoff at the idea that climate change is a threat to our national security, the analysis concluded that climate change can have significant security and geopolitical impacts on the world. We have surpassed Earth’s carrying capacity, a trend accelerating in this era of globalization; the most potent, and prosperous of human progress. Therefore, the entry of constructivists into these climate change negotiations could lead to a potential solution by discussing the current sacrifice as well as the future benefit to help us decide how to wage the war against global warming. A constructivist would look at how global warming can be understood by looking at the broader historical context of the issue and how globalization is accelerating the issue. Also, a large part of the public views climate change as an ideological issue rather than from a scientific basis. The actors involved in examples stated previously legitimize the climate change situation from an ideologically and politicized perspective. To conclude, constructivists have the best approach to the normative and social challenges posed by climate change and who is responsible for the problem.

Refugee crisis in Germany from a constructivst view

Germany, one of Europe’s most dominant and influential countries, has surprisingly taken a leading role in addressing the current influx of immigrants into Europe. Seeing that Germany is in need of young workers and is interested in keeping the European Union strong, its new “open door” policy, in regard to the immigrants, has practical, economic and political benefits. However, in my opinion, Germany’s motivation to take this position comes from its ongoing attempts to redefine itself as a non-aggressive and peaceful part of the European community. Germany’s hope to shift its identity from aggressor to cooperator, after its problematic past, is the main force behind its generous behavior in the refugee crisis.

Germany is still often defined by memories of its past that were marked by fascism, war, and genocide. From an outside perspective, this problematic history still frequently determines its global identity. From a constructivist viewpoint, a state’s interests and intentions are derived from its identity. Because policies, interests, and culture are ever-changing, there cannot necessarily be a set structure that dictates a state’s actions and intentions. Instead, international politics should be viewed as a process that accounts for constant change. Ever since the end of the Cold War and its unification, Germany is struggling to reshape its national identity and break free from its nationalist past. A big motivation to change how it is perceived in the world comes from Germany’s need to ensure its own safety by being part of larger organizations of states such as NATO and the European Union. Germany must show that it is not falling back into old patterns of action and that it should not be defined by its past mistakes.

There are a multitude of examples that display Germany’s attempt to alter its image. After World War II, Germany became much more globally integrated by playing important roles in the European Union, NATO, United Nations, and other peace keeping institutions. Germany’s liberal asylum law that became a part of Germany’s constitution after World War II is yet another example of how Germany has been working to move away from an image of an aggressive and power-thirsty nation, and move towards a depiction as a more peaceful and cooperative state. In the current immigration situation, Germany once again wants to be seen in a positive light and live up to its own self-image of a helpful people that strive to protect the weak. While I don’t deny that there are “selfish” and practical reasons, such as self-preservation inside a functioning EU and economic prosperity in form of an influx of young and energetic immigrants into its aging workforce, the biggest motivation for the surprising sacrifices that Germany is willing to make in the refugee crisis is Germany’s goal to redefine its own culture and identity.

Realism is Impractical in the Twenty-First Century

            The twenty-first century is the century of globalization and technology. At least one item (most likely more) we have encountered today has been in multiple states around the globe. It is nearly impossible to avoid. Yet, some politicians, world leaders, and political theorists still seem to believe in realism. Realism, with its focus on feeling constantly threatened by other states and being overly aggressive and prepared for war, is completely impractical and nonapplicable in today’s globalized society. Today’s globalized society is experiencing a rapid increase in both interdependence economically between states and in nuclear weapons in militaries around the world. Realism is simply outdated.

            Both developed and developing nations are extremely interdependent when it comes to trade. Trade is absolutely essential to sustaining our way of life on Earth in developed countries. Trade provides the U.S. consumer with both luxury and necessary goods because of other state’s specialized manufacturing. What I mean by this, is that it is cheaper for certain goods to be produced in other states than it is in the United States, and through trade the U.S. consumer is able to receive the goods it likes while still paying less. For developing nations, trade is a way to build up manufacturing in their state and pull their state out of poverty. Realists don’t put any value into trade and feeling constantly threatened by other nations would make trade (or any other interaction besides war) very difficult. Without trade, consumers of developed nations are unable to receive products needed to sustain their first world way of life and developing nations would lose vital income from lack of manufacturing that would pull their nation out of poverty.

            Even more important than the economic interdependence of today’s society, is the amount of states with nuclear capabilities. Most developed nations have one of more nuclear weapons ready to use. These weapons could literally annihilate the entire world within a matter of hours. Having this kind of power and being so aggressive and war-like all the time as realists are would be extremely dangerous and would eventually cause extinction on Earth from the use of these nuclear weapons. Realism may be referred to as “timeless,” but that’s because when the theory arose, nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction had not been invented or even dreamed of.

            The Earth in the twenty-first century is an extremely interdependent system, and constant aggression and war-likeness, as realists would function, would be detrimental to global trade and possibly even cause nuclear war. Both are horrible situations, because both developed and developing states rely heavily on global trade and nuclear war has the strong possibility of killing everyone on Earth. 

How Liberals Can Help Water Conservation

Rivers around the world are drying up because people are over pumping aquifers, over irrigating, and not using water sustainably. Most people know that all countries are dependent on water for basic human survival. In the book When the Rivers Run Dry by Fred Pearce, readers learn that water is even more important economically because it is the source of agricultural success and therefore economic success for many countries. With rivers losing water at an alarming rate, something needs to be done to control water usage. Liberal theorists would argue that we are in a position of anarchy, so each state is trying to achieve its own success and trying to make absolute economic gains. However, since states are interdependent, each state that would be affected by a change should be involved in the decision making process.

The concept of interdependence relies heavily on trade between countries and their economic success. Nearly all forms of trade involve “virtual water.” This concept, explained in Pearce’s book, refers to the amount of water that’s used to develop any good. For example, about 2,650 gallons of water is required to grow one pound of coffee. Every country imports and exports virtual water through its goods, but with if water runs out, trade will cease to exist, and each country would fall into mayhem. Liberals in response should recognize the mutual vulnerability and create a meeting with environmental professionals from each country in question. Since many of the driest places grow the thirstiest crops so more water is getting used than is needed. A possible solution would be to reconsider where crops are grown in order to conserve water. This would affect many states because if too many states grow the same crop, there will be a surplus and a drop in the economy, but if too few grow a crop, there will be a shortage and a rise in price. Liberals can use self-interest for their own economy to make the world better by forming a panel of states to act as a governing body due to the natural anarchy that exists in the political world.

Each country is working selfishly for its own success, and furthermore, villages and cities within a state compete against each other for water access. Each state is focused on its own economic success, resulting in often forgetting that we are using up our only sources of water. There is no over arching power to regulate water access and usage. However, anarchy does not doom us to conflict. Rather, they can involve other actors such as environmental institutions to take part. Liberals believe that goals are not fixed. So if a general goal is to solve the water problem, the specifics can be manipulated as circumstances change. The primary goal should be to make sure that we don’t run out of water in aquifers and reservoirs. Reconsidering the usage of dams, for example, would change the how much water flows to downstream villages, which often lack the required water to produce a sufficient harvest.

Liberals should be concerned with the river water and making sure that it remains an accessible resource that state’s can stay in a state of peace and security.