International Relations Practice For Democracy: A Critical Review

December 21, 2023/

Uncategorized

Müller’s view on Democracy in Europe

Müller, Jan-Werner. “Europe’s Twin Dangers. Normative Disintegration, Normative Disengagement, Eurozine, 14 November 2014, htp.”

Müller, talks of the values of democracy and the culture of having respect for the rule of law being immanent in by and large all throughout Europe. To substantiate the exception from the general picture that prevails in Europe, he provides the example of two countries from, Russia under Putin, and Turkey under Erdogan, where authoritarianism is the norm. Both are transcontinental countries, having a major portion of their territory in Asia, and only a small portion of land in Europe. The issue herein is that Turkey is not a justified example, as it is not technically not a European nation by virtue of its capital being situated in the Asian part, at Ankara. He had also tried to equate the Arab Spring with the Euro Crisis, both of which have different reasons for its occurrence, the former to usher in democracy, while the latter to welcome the right wing, which is not justified.

Harding, Luke. “We should beware Russia’s links with Europe’s right.” The Guardian 8 (2014).

In Harding’s article, the mention of Putin equating the leaders of Western Europe having a Pro-Liberal approach to Hitler, whose name is synonymous to dictator is farsical. With regard to his atrocious treatment of the sexual minorities in Russia, Putin himself is quite similar to Hitler. Also, that the annexation of Crimea had happened due to Putin stirring up the seperatists in the autonomous region of Ukraine, thereby sending the entire country into a state of political turmoil cannot be justified on ethical grounds by Putin at all. Crimea was annexed because it had ethnic Russians as the majority group living there, and more importantly because of the oil resources which Putin yearned for to supplement his faltering economy.

Kaplan, Robert D. “Europe’s new medieval map.” Wall Street Journal (2016).

Kaplan is quite justified when it mentions of the fragmentation that has set in Europe, especially the European Union with particular reference to the debt crisis. However, he has overemphasized on the animosity which the member states of the EU are nurturing against each other, without giving any importance to the spirit of unity generated by the civil society movements seeking to welcome the refugees. The tension between Putin’s ambition and the other European leaders is genuine, but at the same time, the rise of Right Wing leaders like Marine Le Pen and Silvio Berlusconi, who have expressed desire to align their vision with that of Putin also cannot be ignored.

Harding’s opinion on Putin and Europe’s Right

Applebaum, Anne. “War in Europe is not a hysterical idea.” The Washington Post 29 (2014).

Applebaum talks of the dream of Russia to cause the reformation of Novorossia, which shall be comprising of all territories which were previously a part of Russia. The soldiers of the nation are quite proactive and optimistic about the certainty of its materialization. In this regard two critical comments that can be called as quite apt are related to the disintegration of Russia, and the predisposition of those territories to be a part of the Russian Federation. One of the reasons why USSR disintegrated was because the constituent units forming the vast federation wanted independence and the assertion of self declaration, as opposed to the homogenizing effect of the Russian identity. Naturally, none of those units shall be eager to be a part of Russia yet once again, and Russia cherishing the dream of making them its part once again is unjust.

Woods, Ngaire. “The European Disunion: How the Continent Lost Its Way.” Foreign Aff. 95 (2016): 160

Woods makes a statement at the opening of the article that Europe is under a siege because of the large scale immigration of refugees from various parts of the world which is entangled in war and violence. Had the foreign policy approach of the West not interfered in the internal matters of the muslim world, then those countries would have been spared of the peril that they have landed upon now. Secondly, to presume that the collectivity of helpless people who are flocking to a distant land has laid a siege upon the continent is unjustified, as they are desperately looking for shelter. Reportedly, some have already left for their war torn native lands to help the people left behind rebuild life from the scratch yet once again.

CSCE. “Charter of Paris for a New Europe.” Conference on Security and Co?operation in Europe, 1990.

The Charter of Paris for a New Europe had back then in 1990 talked of unity, equality, democracy and justice to be the guiding principle that shall be keeping the union which have been newly formed, intact. The freedom and the equality which seemed like an enigma, in later years, in today’s context became a source of animosity between the member nations, especially when some nations like Germany and France have benefitted out of it, while countries like Britain, Italy and Greece have incurred losses in terms of accumulating huge debts and the losing out of the markets of its local produce. The promises which were made, were available at the cost of the states having to lose out on their sovereignty and also the autonomy to be able to be the sole determinant of their domestic, economic and foreign policies, since the member nations were a part of a confederacy and the action of one had a cascading effect on all others.

Kaplan’s assertion on the fragmentation of Europe

Tesser, Lynn M. “The geopolitics of tolerance: Minority rights under EU expansion in East-Central Europe.” East European Politics and Societies 17.3 (2003): 483-532.

Tesser talks of Eastern European countries expressing their desire to join the Western European Supra National Organizations because those organizations championed minority rights and espoused views which condemned the oppression of minorities, and supported equality of all members of the society. The greatest paradox lies in the fact that Romania, being a part of the European Union, has not taken any step in combatting the societal discrimination which is categorically picking upon the Roma communities, and the other Gypsy population of the country, who are economically and socially marginalized. The level of discrimination towards the Gypsies of the country is so much that the set of facilities and benefits meant for the white skinned Romanians are more often than not of a far better quality, and even the Government of the nation of the country is disinterested in doing any good to the Gypsies.

Polyakova, Alina. “Putinism and the European Far Right.” Institute of Modern Russia 19 (2016): 2016.

Polyakova’s claim that entire Europe is being swept by the tides of far right political leanings, bearing a semblance to the standpoint of Putin, at the face of the refugee crisis and the Islamicization of Europe, is partly correct but there is another side to the picture as well. In France, the growing dissatisfaction towards the influx of refugees in huge numbers, and the conflict between choosing secularism or the Islamic headscarf has however not driven the public to choose Rightist Le Pen over Leftist Macron as the President of the country. Similarly, in Germany, the dissatisfaction over Merkel’s policy of welcoming refugees have not made unpopular, and right wing neo-nazis are being countered at all levels. There is dissatisfaction with the state of affairs that is currently going on in Europe, however it would be an overgeneralization to say that the entire continent has turned into a hot bed of rightwing politics. Some countries like Russia, Hungary, Italy, and Austria have definitely expressed leanings towards the right wing, but there are exceptions as well.

Rutland, Peter. “A Paradigm Shift in Russia’s Foreign Policy.” Moscow Times, May 19 (2014).

Rutland talks of the differences between the Western European leaders and Putin, owing to his expansionist foreign policies. The paradox of this antithetical behaviour on part of the Western European leaders is that they have enjoined with Putin to combat with the issues that had cropped up as a result of the mass immigration and the islamicization of Europe, which serves their national interest. Also, at the same time they have opposed Russia when their own national interests have been hurt, which brings one to the point that in the international sphere, being allies, or being foes, all depends upon what serves ones national interest the best.

Applebaum’s take on Russia’s expansionist policies

Orenstein Mitchell, A. “Putin’s Western Allies/Mitchell A. Orenstein.” Foreign Affairs (2014).

Orenstein Mitchell mentions of Crimea being invaded by Putin under the pretext of saving it from the perils of letting it get engulfed in the clutches of the Nazis is however not a very justified excuse. The real reason behind it is Putin’s ambition of being a super power in Europe once again after years of powerlessness. With regard to the weakening of the European Union and the rise of the right wing in Europe, they are not connected to each other since economic problems have been the prime reason behind the weakening of the supra-national organization.

Snyder, Timothy. “Putin’s New Nostalgia.” New York Review of Books (2014).

Considering Putin as anti-European, as found in the article of Snyder would be inappropriate, as the more appropriate term would be anti-western. He cherishes a kind of antipathy towards the liberal approach that is nurtured by most leaders of the Western European leaders, he rather prefers an authoritarian and anti-liberal approach which he considers extremely necessary for safeguarding the country from falling apart. Another reason why he is antithetical towards the leaders of Western Europe, is because of their closeness with United States of America.

Averre, Derek, and Lance Davies. “Russia, humanitarian intervention and the Responsibility to Protect: the case of Syria.” International Affairs 91.4 (2015): 813-834.

Russia had supported the Pro-Assad forces in Syria hence Putin’s intervention in the country cannot be called as being motivated by any humanitarian motive. Assad had waged atrocities on his own people who were protesting against his dictatorship which brought forth no benefit to the common people of the country, while the Western countries were supplementing the anti-Assad forces to reinstate democracy in the country. Putin, wanted to establish his stronghold in the Middle East, as expanding the number of his allies in the region which was already anti-western would have ensured him profit.

Börzel, Tanja A., Assem Dandashly, and Thomas Risse. “Responses to the ‘Arabellions’: The EU in comparative perspective—Introduction.” (2015): 1-17.

The intervention of the western powers in the Arab Spring that had affected Libya had however proven to be even disastrous, especially when one looks into the aftermaths of the war in Libya. Gaddafi was toppled from power because of his economic policies which sought to be disregardful of American petro-dollar and set up his own fiscal system which did not depend on it. The Arab Spring had also affected the Gulf Nations but they were suppressed because of the support which the Sheikhs had received from USA, which proves that it is a matter of vested interest and not out of any philanthropic concern.

References