Establishing a secure, peaceful, and harmonious international community is one of the areas of interest in studying international relation. The greater interaction among states and other non-state actors also entails disagreement and conflicts among them. Due to this, scholars are looking at various theories in order to explain this kind of phenomenon. There are many schools of thought that have their own respective explanations and assumptions regarding the cause of conflict in the international community. One of thee most notable schools of thought is Realism that gives importance to the power of the state as the vital actor in the international community. Nevertheless, the lens of realism gives two distinct explanations in order to identify the source of conflict in the international community that is better understood through the Classical Realist and Neo-Realist points of view.
The Classical Realist argues that the source of conflict in the international community is brought about by animus dominandi or the will to power of states. On the other hand, the Neo-Realist perspective asserts that the anarchical nature of the international system creates persistent insecurity, which is responsible for international conflict (Copeland 11-13). In relation to this, it is the main objective of this paper to argue that Neo-Realism better explained the cause of conflict in the international community because it takes into account the other sources of conflict aside from states will to power and this is clearly seen in the case of the Middle East conflict.
Comparison of Classical Realist and Neo-Realist
The classical realists started during World War II and also at the time of the Cold War. One of the most notable personalities that have substantially and greatly contributed to the classical realist perspective is Hans Joachim Morgenthau. Classical Realists explain that the constant conflict among nations is brought about by the elemental biopsychological drives that characterized human beings. There are two important drives that tend to explain the source of conflict among human beings and even among states. First, the presence of an elementary egoism which arises from the competition for those scarce material and ideational goods that enable human beings to survive (Freyberg-Inan 68). The second cause of conflict is the will of human beings to power. Morgenthau explains that human beings ahs the desire to rise above other people, which is exemplified in the element of selfishness. In addition, Morgenthau asserted that the tendency to dominate is present in all human associations starting from the family and even up to the state. In this sense, he concluded that the world is inhabited by selfish and self-aggrandizing beings, which makes international politics a realm of evil. Due to this, the cause of conflict in the international community is the constant struggle between selfish and power-hungry states that seeks power as an end in itself as well as a way in order to accomplish their other objectives. Being the case, the main argument of classical realists is that the egoistic nature of human beings is the cause of all political conflict in the international community (Van Evera 7-10).
On the other hand, Neo-Realism, the modified version of the classical realist perspective gives a different approach in understanding the cause of conflict in the international community. Kenneth Waltz is recognized as the father of neo-realism, which explains the neo-realist perspective through the mature version of his approach to the theory of international politics. He rejects the classical realist argument that the will to power arise because human beings are naturally born to be power seekers. In relation to this, he suggests that human nature is too difficult to determine, which makes not a viable determinant of war. As such, Waltz asserts that emphasis should be given to the constraints that compel human beings. The Neo-Realist perspective is based on the rationale that cause of conflict is due to the competitive situations and force that exist in the absence of an authority, which should function as a mechanism in order to limit the resources used by conflicting parties. In general, Neo-Realists believe that the anarchical nature of the international system is the cause of conflict in the international community because it creates persistent insecurity (Freyberg-Inan 73).
During this contemporary time, many changes have already been observed in the international system as well as the respective countries that composed it. Being the case, new threats had emerged like the presence of terrorism, which entails that states act differently as compared before in order to address these problems as well as to adapt to the changes that are happening in the world (Ethridge and Handleman 566). Due to this, the cause of conflict in the international arena is not merely attributed to the human nature of individuals because the insecurity in their environment is also a cause and aggravating factor in the conflicts that happening. Being the case, the argument of the Neo-realist is more applicable in explaining the cause of conflict at this current time.
Sunni and Shia
The Sunni and Shia are the two major denominations of the Islamic religion. Sunnis hold the majority members of Islam, since it composes 85-90 of religious adherents while the Shias only constitute 10-15 of the Muslim world (Singh 7). Nevertheless, the number of followers of each respective denominations of Islam tends to vary in the different countries in the World. Shias have a more dominant population in countries such as Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain. Sunnis make up the majority of Muslim communities in South East Asia, China, South Asia, Africa, and other states that also follow the Islamic religion. The identification of the followers of the Sunni Islam is derived from the importance that they give to Sunni or the examples coming from the hadiths. Sunnis strongly believe in the continuance of the Islamic religion as it was defined in the revelations given to Prophet Muhammad. On the other hand, the term Shia pertains to the partisans of the fourth Caliph (Singh 7).
The conflict between the Sunnis and the Shias can be rooted on the schism that took place during the death of Prophet Muhammad. Islamic communities in different parts of the world, especially in the Middle East started to have a dispute regarding the legitimate successor of Muhammad to become the next Caliph. The Sunnis assert that Abu Bakr should be Muhammads successor because he is legitimized by the Shura, which is endorsed by the Quran. Shura is the method of electing leaders in Islam that is participated by the Ummah or Muslim community wherein who ever will get the consensus of the Ummah will be the leader. In connection to this, the Rashidun rightly-guided Caliphs who were chosen to rule after the death of Muhammad includes Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman Ibn Affan, and Ali. Being one of the four caliphs, the Sunnis argue that Abu Bakr should be the rightful successor of Muhammad. On the other hand, Shias believe that Ali should lead the Muslim world after the death of Muhammad. Ali is the cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad through his daughter Fatima. Shias pointed out that Muhammad divinely ordained Ali to be his next successor, which is in accordance with the wishes of Allah. Due to this, the Shias rejected the legitimacy of Abu Bakr because they believe that Ali is the most divinely inspired man after Muhammad. Being the case, the only people who are legitimate to be leaders of Islam are the successors of Muhammad and the Imams (Spencer 58-61).
The conflict between the religious belief of the Sunnis and the Shias further worsen to the point that armed conflict between different countries in the Middle East had been observable. One of the most notable wars because of religious causes is the Iran-Iraq War. The Iran-Iraq War also known as the Imposed War and the Holy Defense started with the Iraqs invasion of Iran. The reasons for the war is due to the border disputes between these two countries but it is also largely due to their religious differences. The Iraqi government decided to attack Iran because of their fear that the Iranian Revolution might spill over their country. The majority of the citizens in Iraq are Shias but its government is dominated by Sunni leaders. Due to this, the Shias citizens of Iraq are largely place in a disadvantageous position wherein they are tortured and even killed because of their religious belief (Pelletiere 25-26). The Iraqi government is worried that the Iranian Revolution might be seen by the Shias majority of the country as a way in order to stage a revolution against the Iraqi government. The Iran-Iraq War became very violent because it was participated by the respective governments of the countries as well as the support of other states which also aggravated the conflict (Rajaee 199-205).
The case of the Iran-Iraq War is not merely the concern of the two countries involved in this conflict because its implications also affect the welfare of the whole international community. Religious conflicts are rooted in the very belief system of an individual. The Middle Eastern region is mostly composed of Islamic countries that give much importance to their religious belief to the point that they patterned their lifestyle as well as their decisions and actions in it. Religious conflict, specifically those that participated by the governments of different countries poses a huge threat to international peace and security, especially if a spill over took place (Spencer 19). The Muslim communities in different parts of the world could join in the conflict, which will result in much unrest in the society. Furthermore, the intervention and participation of other countries in war is a serious aggravating factor that is very difficult to prevent because these states have sovereignty, which makes it difficult for international organizations to interfere with their actions (Shinoda 132).
The conflict between the Sunnis and the Shias and other religious disputes in the Middle East show that the anarchical nature of the international system is indeed the cause of conflict in the international arena. The actions of states are not governed or limited by an authority that could help in managing the actions of state actors. In relation to this, threats like religious conflicts and its spill over are not properly address because there is no political entity that will make sure that these problems are addressed. The presence of international organizations like the United Nations is not enough because most negotiations that aim to resolve various issues of peace and order usually ended in a stalemate because states cannot agree with a coherent means to address it. The issue of inequality in these international organizations is also an important concern because most of the time powerful and influential states tend to dominate the decisions and actions of international organizations (Taylor 125). As such, the anarchical international system indeed creates persistent insecurity, which is the cause of international conflict.
Conflict in the Middle East
For many years, the Middle East had been a region which had been exposed to wars and conflicts. Dating back to the Middle Ages, conflicts of hierarchy and power had been important for different tribes and sects in the region. In the continuous years of conflict, many tribes had separated and conflicts heightened. In the course of the decades none of the conflicts were fully resolved instead, many conflicts had taken a much wider span for it had involved different countries in the region.
In many literatures, different authors have stated that the main cause of conflict in the Middle Eastern region is their natural resource which is mainly oil. As known to many, oil is an important commodity in the world for this region is providing the highest number of barrels. Thus, the worldmostly the western regions had seen that the Middle East region is one of the most profitable and advantageous due for economic purposes.
Moreover, the oil resources had also been a source of conflict by religious sects within the region thus the conflict and attainment of arable lands which could provide a great source of oil. Furthermore, conflicting interest of different states had always been present. Therefore, western countries had been active in attaining the major lands and investments in the region. However some countries within the Middle East region had been blocking the involvement of the Western world to their territories (Hanel 8).
In the book written by Edward Said, he mentioned that the western world had made a stereotype against the people of the region. Moreover, the author had mentioned that the concept of the west had seen the peoples in the region as though they are violent. Thus, this leads to the view point of the westerners that Islam religion and Muslims had propaganda. For the reasons that the concept of westerners have negative viewpoint against Middle Eastern people the whole world had also seen the region as violent and radical (158).
Through stereotyping of their culture as well as being racist against Muslims and Islam had been very typical especially during 1980s. Through films, different kinds of racist attacks had been prevailed in the western world. Moreover, in the 1990s the Arabs and Muslims had been the bad people in the scene. Different wars had sprung which had said to come form different parts of the Middle Eastern Region.
Moreover, the biggest headline that had come to the Western world is the attack in September 11, 2001. Through that said incident many had highly feared Muslims and Arabs which lead to a higher case of racism against the whole region. Thus, different countries had lead to the purpose of protecting their territories against the terrorist attack of different organizations within Middle East. In addition to this, the western world had gained paranoia which lead to much greater war. The wars in Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Afghanistan and the likes had immediately followed. Although the western world had managed to convince some groups that the wars they promote are only caused by their war against terrorist acts, it is only a manifestation of its desire to control economic power within the region.
Arabs and Jews
As mentioned in the background of the Middle East conflict, one of the countries at war is the Arabs and Jews. The Arabs and Jews conflict or otherwise known as the Israel-Palestine Conflict had been present for many years. The conflict had dated back during the time of British dominance in the region. Similar to the current interest of the Western regions, one of the most battled issues at hand is still oil. However prior to the concerns regarding oil, one of the reasons for colonization of the region is to incorporate other regions such as Christianity, Islam and the likes. Although different theorist and analysts look at the situation the main reason for conflict is really based on the amount of resources which are present in the state. Among others, religious beliefs had also been an important in the region. Provided that the concept of Islam beliefs is strong, the minority religions are over lapped by the most influential groups. Furthermore, the importance of the unity had also played a big role in the conflicts within the region.
Another importance source of conflict is the continuing support of the Western countries in the wars. Reflecting that the United States had supported Israel during the Gaza Strip conflict had creating a mounting power against Palestine. Due to the funding of the United States, there had been many deaths and people became displaced which caused a larger societal problem for both states. In addition, support from other countries presents that the war being experienced is reasonable and proper.
Reflecting on the situation of Israel and Palestine, it is very obvious that the context of power is very important to different states involved. The power which had been presented in the war is not only the power to attack but there is also a yearning for power of economic power. Consequently, the concept of power is not strongly reliant to how aggressive a state could be but on how it could influence other states. In addition to this, economic power is considered as a gain for a country. Given that oil is the main commodity needed by all the nations in the world, it had been significant for the Western world to gain a strong influence on the decision making process and activities of Middle East countries. Thus, activities such as wars are taken advantaged by the West to manipulate Middle East countries.
Although western countries had presented strong interest in the Middle East none of these countries have succeeded in their goal. Instead, Middle East countries had been strong to their ideology against Western influence. Moreover, the culture of the Arabs and Jews are also considered upon this situation. Given that these groups have different beliefs, the need to create sameness had been a struggle. Further, the importance of allowing mediation had not been a successful option for both countries (Finkelstein 7).
In the book written by James Gelvin, he had mentioned that the Israel-Palestine conflict had been present for many years already. Different wars, locations and reason had been utilized in order to justify the causes of wars between both states. Moreover, he pointed out the both of the groups involved in the conflict are currently justifying the concern with regards to their sense of nationalism. Furthermore, both of the states claim different aspects of their history where in they have different views. Moreover, the synthesized idea of the author highly mentions that both of the country is presenting their claims based on their cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Thus, such claim is much more difficult to justify rather than other issues. Thus, Gelvin mentioned nationalism is very subjective that it is difficult to address. Through this, he mentioned the importance of the idea regarding the idea of attachment to different place which is highly claimed by Muslims and Arabs (1-12).
In the side of the Jews, Zionism is stated to be the political expression of the whole nation of Palestine. As a matter of fact, Zionism is the mixture of Jewish history all together. In the Jewish history, it was studied that there are narratives which addressed the question of authority of the Jews to the state of Palestine. From the perspective of the Jews, they see that they have the right over their nation for they are seen as the descendants of Abraham. Furthermore, the Bible high mentioned he history of the Jews which made the Bible as the main source of their information (5).
In the realist perspective, the concept of power is based on the aggressiveness of the state. The aggressiveness of the state is interpreted on how it could influence fear to other nations. Thus, more countries respond to war as its main method to create peace and security. Thus reflecting on the actions done by Israel and Palestine both had resulted to war in order for them to gain peace, security and authority. Therefore, realism is based on the high attainment of power of arms. Moreover, the traditional perspective of realism is utilized by more states because it causes immediate and visible effects to the country.
In the neo-realist perspective Kenneth Waltz had presented his own perspective regarding such ideology. He mentioned that the ideology of neo-realism is mainly based on the relations of the countries in the international community. In neo-realism the states need to survive while only focusing on their needs as a country. Moreover, Waltz mentioned that the state is a national territorial actor, which is fundamentally constrained and embedded within an anarchical system of states (Cited in Hobson Waltz, 8). Furthermore, the ideology pertaining to the concept of state is alike to the concept of markets where in each of these states need to compete in markets in order to survive in the international community. In addition to this, Waltz suggests that there should be uni-polar, bipolar, or a multi-polar system in order to have a balanced power in the international community.
In application, the conflict between Israel and Palestine are highly related to the balance of power that must be present in the international community. Given that the conflict is due to the struggle of power, the international community must create an international organization that is able the impose power against the problems of the country. Through a sovereign power of an international organization, the possibility of attaining peace and reconciliation among these states are much possible. Furthermore, the need to create a higher entity in the international community is suggested in order to gain much security and peace. Thus, the higher entity should be able to incorporate and manipulate states without breaking the sovereignty of each state.
