'The Nature of International Politics\r'

'The Nature of International authorities The first principle that Thucydides addresses regarding the nature of world(prenominal) political science calls into question the conclusive goals that each individual entity in the world of worldwide relations deems most important. Thucydides adduces that a republic or state’s supreme goal is to sack big businessman and ruling all all over other nations. He illustrates this best in The Melian conference through the actions of the contend-loving Athenians.In their causal agency to maintain their stance of mogul against their rival Spartans, they travel to the island of Melos with the goal of conquering the Melians; either through nip or through the Melian surrender. The volume of Melos wish to remain neutral friends of both Sparta and Athens, just now the Athenians allow for non hear of it. In their eyes, staying on friendly call with a neutral country would be construed as a sign of failing and fear. The Melians refuse to surrender, resulting in the ultimate destruction of their fraternity while the Athenians gain further rule and power for their empire.However, I recollect that this principle need non to always chair true, especi companion in the terms of war through diplomatical countries a lot(prenominal) as the get together States of America. The unify 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 midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the last involvement 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 whatsoever sense.They wanted to deal with the f unspoiledening presence of the Soviet Union’s extensive nuclear warheads on Cuban soil in the most diplomatic way possible in order to distract nuclear war. turn this was best for t he self-interest of the American race, it was also for the benefit for the citizens of Cuba and the USSR, as nuclear war crushs 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 lower the weapons as long as the fall in States would not invade Cuba. Through the peaceful, yet stressful, negotiations, both JFK and Khrushchev went against the international principle that countries only aim to rule and conquer, and kind of in the arms of a rational administration 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 theme that surrounded b y a world of gilded cultures and beliefs, at that place is no international moral grave for war and relations between states. In the Melian Dialogue, Thucydides exemplifies this idea through the war practices that the Athenians practiced in regards to the Melian mass. While any(prenominal) may argue that their initial sample to discuss the impending attack while whirl the option of surrender was â€Å"humane”, the brutal force they eventually brought upon the Island of Melos knocked out(p)weighed their weak attempts in the beginning.Once the Melian people surrendered, the Athenians localise all men of military age to demise and sold the women and children as slaves. The Athenians practiced the â€Å"might makes right” way of thinking about morality: that those who hold the most power also hold the efficiency to decide what actions are appropriate where they deem fit. In this case, they were the mighty iodins. Their forceful actions toward the Melians were j ustifiable in their eyes, only when across cultures such actions could easily be deemed high-spirited 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 aloud â€Å"What is morally appropriate in a wartime environment? ” He illustrates his question by describing â€Å"Agent Orange”, a chemical substance that was approved for usage during the Vietnam War while he was playacting Secretary of Defense. â€Å"Agent Orange” is a chemical that was often used to take the leaves off of trees, and later on the war was discovered to be highly cyanogenetic and lethal.The usage of â€Å"Agent Orange” killed numerous citizens and soldiers who were exposed. He continues to ask whether those who issued the approval of â€Å"Agent Orange” criminals? at bottom the definition of the word ‘crimin al’ is the assumption that there is a crime being broken that is do illegal by a system of compose laws. But McNamara points out that there are no such kinds of laws in war to determine what is bankable and what is not and ultimately there is no such thing as an international moral code that can be upheld, especially in the measure of war.While there exists no international moral standard, does that suppose that no state can be swear? Thucydides’ third principle of international politics would put in â€Å"yes”. He believes that in the sense of self-interest, unitary state cannot rely upon alliances and only those alliances that are in bill with national honor should be upheld. This principle is unmistakable in the Melian Dialogue when the Melian people state their take to and belief in the Spartan people advance to their aid in the prospect of attack from the Athenians.They believe that if not solely for the Spartan’s will to preserve their neighboring allies (that will sure enough take note if they don’t come to aid Melos), then for the kinship of the Melian and Spartan race. Ultimately, the people of Melos are proven to suck in had too much hope in the Spartans, as no one comes 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 wriggle sense of camaraderie between the USSR and Cuba, a hold that was forged in the joint disparage 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 Government took hold of the knockout situation and offered negotiations to the USSR in the hopes of avoiding destructive warfare, Nikita Khrushchev had a finis to make…and he had two major options. He could ignore the offer of diplomatic problem answer and strike the United States with the nu clear weapons or he could agree to the negotiations JFK brought to the table.On the one hand, attacking the United States guaranteed a responsive strike from the US that would undoubtedly destroy Cuba and kill thousands (not to mention create real 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 trouble urgings from war-mongering Fidel Castro, Khrushchev decided to agree to negotiations. While his actions may have been solely done for self-interest and preservation of the USSR’s teetering relationship with the US, he ultimately had the interest of the people of Cuba in mind even when their own chairperson did not. This act by Khrushchev, despite the reasons behind it, upheld the ideals of alliances: that one nation must be reliable and give in the ability to protect the people and rights of the ally nation.\r\n'