Essay test in "international realtions" tomorrow, need ideas

[EmoLiberal]

Hi everyone, as the subject states, I have an essay test in a class called International Relations tomrrow, a class which basically studies the foreign policies of various nations. In the essay tomorrow we are to create a paradigm under which all nations act. I beleive that the governments of states will always act in ways to promote their survival and/or the survival of their state. Now i need support.

First, I have to counter the counterarguments, so counter arguements are welcome.

Next, I have to better define my thesis based on the search of power, whether state's actions are realist or idealist, etc.

Then I have to support it all. Last year, I took AP US history and did quite well, so I have enough historical support, but I also need support from current events, preferably the foreign policy of states other than the United States; this is why i came to you all: you are bright and you most likely read the news everday...i do not have that luxury.

If you can provide any insight, input, etc. it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again,

David

[dudeness]

1. current australian foreign policy

australia in the last 7 years , since the election of john howard has moved closer to US foreign policy than at any time post wwII..for a period of time under the leadership of first bob hawke then paul keating (labor PMs) australia , taking notice of its geographical location , embraced Asia and made bold attempts to secure a place in SE Asia..this position has been slowly eroded by howard to the point where australia is seen as deputy sheriff aligned to the US in the region..further indication of our strong ties to US foreign policy has been the immediate offer of troops to recent conflicts (war on terror) that have not directly involved this country..as the majority of our neighbours are moslem..this has been seen as a racist and anti-moslem action by this country..australia embraces free trade and is actively pursuing such an agreement with the US..the jury remains out as to whether this agreement will provide any tangible benefits to australia..

feel free to ask any questions..

[EmoLiberal]

3. thank you

you are a wonderful human being...any counter arguments?

[dudeness]

4. you mean counter arguments to australias position?

..they would be our alignment with the US has brought to bear risk (terrorism) to our shores..that it is a blind devotion based on historical alliances..without looking at the way the world is in our region (SE Asia..)

can you be more specific..?

[EmoLiberal]

7. rather

counter arguments to my thesis

[EmoLiberal]

2. hmmm....

thanks for the overwhelming out pouring of ideas

[sandnsea]

5. Better define your thesis?

Maybe it's just me, but questions that are more finely honed tend to get answers. It sounds like you are asking others to do your entire essay, rather then just help with a few details. Maybe I missed something, or just don't understand your thesis at all.

[BurtWorm]

6. What's the difference between a government and a state?

[papau]

8. Good luck ! Survival v self-interest v rich/corporate interest v ideals v

"entanglements/treaties" v tribal relationships v religion beliefs v need for "power" v current rulers pet project.

And you want current examples.

I suggest Britian as a google should get you many examples of all the above.

But how do you show survival is most important reason and trumpts all others - around 30 BC Octavian fought Anthony because he would not remove Cleo from her throne - largest battle up to that time - and he won and renamed himself Augustus and it led to 300 years of peace for that area of the world. But was survival of Rome the motive for the battle?

Again good luck - glad I am 40-50 years past doing essay tests.

:-)

[EmoLiberal]

9. Okay...change of question....

What is an example of a time when a government acted in a way that was not aimed towards the survival of themselves and/or their state?

when i say themselves, I mean that the officers of the government act in ways that secure their survival in their government posts.

When i say their state, I mean the body which they govern.

I hope that cleared up any confusion.

[NashVegas]

10. This is Your Mom Speaking

Do your own homework.

[EmoLiberal]

11. fair enough, but...

My teacher encouraged us to discuss the issue.

[BurtWorm]

13. By "government," do you mean "administration?"

As is, the Clinton government vs. the Bush government? Or do you mean the system of government, as in democratic republic vs. authoritarian dictatorship?

[EmoLiberal]

14. more clarity

clinton v. bush; except broader. even people who are hired w/in the government act in ways to perpetuate their tenure. Survival. But saddam and his cronies do/did the same thing...just trying to survive in their position.

[BurtWorm]

18. Are you trying to ask, when has a government ever acted altruistically?

Like, for instance, to stop genocide for the sake of stopping genocide, rather than because it was pressured politically to stop genocide and therefore acted on it to keep itself from being thrown out of power?

[BurtWorm]

19. Ignore

repeat

[Nikia]

12. Historical examples

You could use the Cold War and the World Wars. I did my research paper in international relations on balance of power alliance theory. That is the theory that states will align against the state with the most power (Bad news for the U.S. now). There is also bandwagoning theory that holds that states ally with powerful states out of self preservation. The theory that you seem to be looking at is called balance of interests theory. I cannot think of the theorists off the top of my head. It holds that states may ally with the stronger states or the weaker states against the stronger state based upon its interests.

[CHIMO]

15. Survival

You basis may be flawed.

The leaders may act for their own survival and not the survival of the state.

By definition if the state is acting it will act on its own behalf. However, is it the state that is acting or the leaders who has to renew the mantle of leadership.

What is the foreign policy of one various nation that you are living in?

How is that policy forming the self preservation of other nations? Do you think that they will act to protect their self preservation?

You are lucky that I am not evaluating your original ideas.

Good luck.

[EmoLiberal]

16. that doesn't really make sense....

First of all, you seemed to have used state and nation interchangably, when they do not mean the same thing. Second, you made gigantic leaps in logic; sorry i am not as smart as you, but I do not understand your point. Please evaluate my original ideas, i need all the help I can get.

[CHIMO]

17. State

A body politic constituting a nation. Was using them interchangably.

May not be the correct definition in this instance but was my definition when used.

Appreciate your search and do not know what level of searching one is doing.

My point was that if one is looking from the inside then one is forming opinions from the view from the inside. However, if one were looking from the outside things would look differently. The things one takes as truths from one point become seen as a bias from another side as they may see it as a belief that one may be taking as an unquestionable.

In sum, my intent was that one should question points and not start out with a basis unless one has thought through all the angles. Appreciate your efforts and in no way should one appologize in their search for learning.

Don't put yourself down. You will be as smart as you wish to be.

[Porcupine]

20. Nations act to promote the emotional needs of the ruling elites.....

rather than the actual needs of their citizens.

The most obvious example of this is the current occupation of Iraq. Our nation is in debt, we have people sleeping in the streets and we are spending our childrens futures to invade an occupy a country that didn't attack us or have the means to threaten us.

Germany kept fighting long after they should have begged for peace or surrendered in WWII.

Vietnam. The whole thing went on and on so various U.S. presidents wouldnt' lose face.

China-economic policy. The Soviet Union-any policy at all. Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and the resulting pointless wars.

Chile, Argentinas rollover to the WTO and resulting economic disaster.

It's really too easy.

[Malikshah]

21. LORD PALMERSTON

A great 19th century politician from GB

Paraphrasing here.

In foreign policy--

There are no permanent friends.
There are no permanent enemies.

Just permanent interests.

It's been bandied about by many in different forms--but go to Bartletts' if you need the exact quote.

I use this theme often when discussing the end of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the Modern Middle East with my students. It seems to work and is very applicable in many situations.