http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/asia/07thai.html
Protesters have remained entrenched in Bangkok despite explicit government orders for them to disband. Soldiers and other domestic government forces are in the city in an attempt to maintain order and the status quo. Protests started out fairly peaceful, as soldiers (ostensibly deployed to contain the protestors) allowed the group into the district of Sukhumvit. Consumption of products and certain elements of the financial sector have shut down, which has elevated tensions in the capital city. A break-in into a government building also increased tensions, as protesters pressured the government to complete an investigation of a Thai multinational. Although no force has been employed, the situation is growing increasingly precarious and the government has repeatedly requested the protesters disband. The protesters are calling for the Prime Minister to shut down parliament and hold new elections, as a result of charges of corruption and incompetence.
This seems to me to be a blow against realism. Realism would have us believe that only states, and powerful states at that, matter in terms of political science. However, clearly, this suggests that at least the potential for the internal affairs to influence international politics. How the people of a state choose to act within a state most certainly has political ramifications on an international level. Revolutions, rebellions, protests and basic civil unrest all can change the course of political power in the long term and in the short term effect economics, infrastructure, trade and social institutions. We have seen these trends in the past and could potentially see these results in Thailand if the situation does not improve. Therefore, I believe that the realist model is oversimplified.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think that the realist model is as oversimplified as you make it out to be. At the beginning you say that realism "would have us believe that only state, and powerful states at that, matter in terms of political science," implying that only the state as a whole matters in realism. Mearsheimer, however, writes that classical realism is "based on the simple assumption that states are led by human beings that have a "will to power' hardwired into them at birth" (19). In this case, realism does recognize the effects that individuals can have on states, showing that it is not just the state as a whole that matters, but also those within it. According to Mearsheimer, individuals can have an effect on the state as a whole, and in fact have a great effect on the state. So, in fact, things caused by individuals, like revolutions, rebellions, etc., can have an effect on international politics, and this is implied in realism.
ReplyDelete