The anthropomorphic fallacy in international relations theory and practice

A headline of the Venezuelean daily El Nacionalista, published June 16, 2008, read: “Venezuela se negó a seguir de rodillas ante las pretensiones del gobierno norteamericano”. A few weeks before, on May 8, president Hugo Chávez himself had said that Venezuela “would not watch crossed-armed” (“Venezuela no se quedará de brazos cruzados”) while Bolivia was driven into territorial desintegration by imperialist forces. The image of Venezuela with her arms crossed is one of slovenliness and negligence, whilst the image of it on its knees is humiliating. They both generate outrage and the need to set things “right”. This is only an example of the often unnoticed practical and theoretical consequences of the anthropomorphic language we all use when referring to states in terms of (for example) "weak" and "strong" actors who "suffer", are "honored", are "humiliated", have "pride" and aspire to "glory". This language obscures the fact that, oftentimes, when a weak state challenges a strong one at a great cost to itself, we are not witnessing an epic of courage (as might be the case when a weak individual challenges a strong one), but rather the sacrifice of the interests, welfare and sometimes even the lives of multitudes of poor people, to the vanity of their elite. The very fact that this is being obscured biases the value structure of international relations theory, which is not only not value-free, but often has totalitarian values unintendedly built into it.

Reflections on Cultural Superiority and the Just War: A Neomodern Imperative

If all cultures are morally equivalent, then all individuals are not endowed with the same human rights, because some cultures award some men more rights than are allotted to other men and women. If, on the other hand, all men and women are endowed with the same human rights, then all cultures are not morally equivalent, because cultures that acknowledge that "all men are created equal" are ethically superior to those that do not. These two statements are mutually contradictory and cannot both be true. Moreover, there is a natural conflict between them, leading to inevitable intra and inter-civilizational clashes. Relativism will confront evolutionism and hierarchical theocracy will confront secularized republicanism. This essay takes sides and argues that cultural superiority can be asserted on two different levels: moral and epistemological. A culture that acknowledges a set of universal human rights is superior to one that does not, even if it often deviates from these very norms. A culture capable of delving into nature increasing life expectancy through scientific discovery is superior to one that cannot. Furthermore, waging war to defend a superior culture is a moral imperative.

State Personhood, Reality or Fiction? The Divergent Views of C. Escudé (1994) and A. Wendt (2004)

This paper counterpoises Carlos Escudé's 1994, 1995 and 1997 treatment of anthropomorphic metaphors of the state, with Alexander Wendt's 2004 treatment of the same subject. It stresses the need for a historical memory in IR scholarship, suggesting that the lack of an epistemological equivalent to the concept of ‘discovery’ in the harder sciences may open the way for less-than-scholarly attitudes towards precedents, making the accumulation of knowledge less likely. It discusses whether or not state personhood is actually a fiction. Finally, it explores the consequences, for IR theory in general and peripheral realist theory in particular, of state personhood being indeed a harmful fiction. The author argues that if anthropomorphisms of the state lead to fallacy, then Hedley Bull’s domestic analogy is likewise fallacious. And if this is the case, the hierarchy of the structure of the interstate system is exposed, together with Waltz’s error in postulating an anarchy.

Israel, Latin America and the United States: A peripheral-realist perspective

This document is the paper-format version of the keynote address delivered by its author on August 2, 2009, to the opening session of the Latin American section (AMILAT) of the 15th World Congress of Jewish Studies, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. It attempts to understand the long-term shift towards the worse of Israeli- Latin American relations, which started with an almost unqualified support for the establishment of the State of Israel on the side of both Latin American right-wing governments and left-wing parties and popular organizations, but have been deteriorating ever since. It suggests that this involution can be largely explained in terms of at least four intervening variables: Israel’s vulnerability, its special relationship with the United States after 1967, Latin American social structure, and the class identity of the leadership of the Latin American Jewry. It argues that overlooking the peripheral character of Israel in the interstate system has led to distortions in the understanding of Israeli-Latin American relations.

El experimento del Bicentenario: Las políticas pacifistas de Argentina, 2003 - 2011

Este es un seguimiento del experimento de desarme unilateral sobre el que se informó en nuestro documento de trabajo n° 426, de julio de 2010. Después de la crisis de 2001-02, y a pesar de los altos gastos militares de sus vecinos, la Argentina acentuó una política de desarme unilateral comenzada en los ’90. El registro histórico muestra que la región es menos propensa a la guerra que Europa, Asia y África, y los sucesivos gobiernos argentinos no manifestaron preocupación respecto de la creciente disparidad en el poderío militar. El escenario se aproxima al de una situación experimental. La hipótesis de que un país sudamericano como Argentina puede descuidar su defensa frente a sus vecinos, ¿se verá falseada o consolidada por el devenir histórico? O puesto en los términos opuestos, ¿demostrará la historia que la teoría realista de las relaciones internacionales no funciona para las relaciones inter-latinoamericanas? Estas fueron las preguntas de investigación planteadas en nuestro documento de julio de 2010, titulado “Un experimento pacifista: las políticas exteriores y de seguridad de Argentina en el siglo XXI”. El informe presente pasa revista a algunas consecuencias inmediatas del desarme unilateral argentino. El hecho sorprendente es que, aunque ni Chile ni Brasil se han aprovechado de la indefensión argentina, fuerzas bolivianas han invadido su territorio un par de veces. Además, como la Argentina no compra armas, es poco atractiva como cliente, y el presidente Obama ha decidido no incluirla en su próxima gira por Brasil y Chile, un hecho que genera costos políticos internos para el gobierno argentino. El autor sostiene que, debido a los contenidos curriculares de la educación, las disputas territoriales son populares en América latina. Su hipótesis es que las incursions bolivianas en el territorio argentino pueden estar relacionadas con la necesidad del régimen boliviano de generar fuerzas centrípetas, para contrabalancear las tensiones centrífugas e incluso secesionistas de la Bolivia actual. El autor sugiere que, desde un punto de vista argentino, es afortunado que no sean ni Chile ni Brasil quienes padecen estos problemas. El experimento pacifista puesto en marcha por la Argentina parece indicar que, aunque América latina sea más propensa a la paz que otras regiones del mundo, la teoría realista de las relaciones internacionales tiene vigencia también para esta región, al menos en cierta medida. Aunque un país latinoamericano como la Argentina probablemente se pueda permitir gastar mucho menos en armamentos que sus vecinos, no parece sabio permitir que quede sumido en la indefensión total. Por poner una cifra, debería comprar no menos que la mitad de las armas que compra Chile. De cualquier modo, el experimento continúa, y la historia puede refutar estas adivinanzas informadas.This is a follow-up report on the unilateral disarmament experiment described in our working paper # 426 of July 2010. After the 2001-02 crisis, despite the heavy military expenditures and arms procurements of its neighbors, Chile and Brazil, Argentina accentuated a policy of unilateral disarmament that had begun in the '90s. The South American historical record shows that the region is less war prone than Europe, Asia and Africa, and Argentina`s successive governments have not manifested a special concern over the growing disparity in military capabilities. The scenario approximates an experimental situation. Will history falsify or consolidate the hypothesis that a South American country like Argentina can safely disregard its defence vis-à-vis its neighbours? Or put in the opposite terms, will history show that realist theory of international relations does not apply to inter-Latin American relations? These were the research questions posed by our July 2010 paper, which bore the title "Un experimento pacifista: las políticas exteriores y de seguridad de Argentina en el siglo". The present report reviews some immediate consequences of Argentina's unilateral disarmament. The surprising fact is that although neither Chile nor Brazil have taken advantage of Argentina's defenceless situation, Bolivian forces have invaded its territory at least twice. Furthermore, since Argentina does not buy arms, it is unattractive as a customer, and President Obama has decided to skip it in his forthcoming visit to Brazil and Chile, a fact that entails domestic political costs for the Argentine government. The author argues that because of the contents of educational curricula, territorial disputes are popular in Latin America. He hypothesizes that the Bolivian incursions into Argentine territory may be related to a Bolivian need to generate centripetal forces, in a country that is presently subject to centrifugal and even secessionist tensions. The author reflects that, from an Argentine perspective, it is fortunate that it is not Chile or Brazil that are going through this sort of domestic trouble. The pacifist experiment implemented by Argentina seems to indicate that, although Latin America may indeed be more prone to peace than other regions of the world, realist international relations theory still applies to it, at least to some extent. Although in the Latin American context a country like Argentina can probably afford to spend much less in arms than its neighbours, it does not seem wise for it to spend nothing at all. It should buy, say, at least half as much as does Chile. Nonetheless, the experiment continues and history may modify these educated guesses

Un experimento pacifista: las políticas exteriores y de seguridad de Argentina en el siglo XXI

Después de la crisis de 2001-02, y a pesar de los fuertes gastos militares y compras de armamentos de sus vecinos Chile y Brasil, la Argentina acentuó una política de desarme unilateral que había comenzado en los ’90. El registro histórico sudamericano demuestra que la región es menos propensa a la guerra que Europa, Asia y África, y los sucesivos gobiernos argentinos no han demostrado una preocupación especial frente a la creciente asimetría en capacidades militares. El escenario se aproxima a una situación experimental. ¿La historia falseará o consolidará la hipótesis de que un país sudamericano como Argentina puede desatender su defense frente a sus vecinos sin arriesgar su integridad territorial? O puesto en los terminus inversos, para el caso sudamericano, ¿la historia falseará o consolidará la hipótesis del realismo clásico, que supone que el equilibrio de poder militar no puede desatenderse sin graves consecuencias para la seguridad de un Estado?After the 2001-02 crisis, despite the heavy military expenditures and arms procurements of its neighbors, Chile and Brazil, Argentina accentuated a policy of unilateral disarmament that had begun in the '90s. The South American historical record shows that the region is less war prone than Europe, Asia and Africa, and Argentina`s successive governments have not manifested a special concern over the growing disparity in military capabilities. The scenario approximates an experimental situation. Will history falsify or consolidate the hypothesis that a South American country like Argentina can safely disregard its defense vis-à-vis its neighbors? Alternatively, in the South American region, will history falsify or consolidate the hypothesis of classical realism that posits that the military balance-of-power cannot be safely disregarded

The anthropomorphic fallacy in international relations theory and practice

A headline of the Venezuelean daily El Nacionalista, published June 16, 2008, read: 'Venezuela se negó a seguir de rodillas ante las pretensiones del gobierno norteamericano'. A few weeks before, on May 8, president Hugo Chávez himself had said that Venezuela 'would not watch crossed-armed' ('Venezuela no se quedará de brazos cruzados') while Bolivia was driven into territorial desintegration by imperialist forces. The image of Venezuela with her arms crossed is one of slovenliness and negligence, whilst the image of it on its knees is humiliating. They both generate outrage and the need to set things 'right'. This is only an example of the often unnoticed practical and theoretical consequences of the anthropomorphic language we all use when referring to states in terms of (for example) 'weak' and 'strong' actors who 'suffer', are 'honored', are 'humiliated', have 'pride' and aspire to 'glory'. This language obscures the fact that, oftentimes, when a weak state challenges a strong one at a great cost to itself, we are not witnessing an epic of courage (as might be the case when a weak individual challenges a strong one), but rather the sacrifice of the interests, welfare and sometimes even the lives of multitudes of poor people, to the vanity of their elite. The very fact that this is being obscured biases the value structure of international relations theory, which is not only not value-free, but often has totalitarian values unintendedly built into it

¿Cuánto valen esas bases? El tira y afloja entre Estados Unidos y España, 1951-1953

Existen pocos trabajos sobre las negociaciones conducentes a la implantación militar norteamericana en España, que hayan sido realizados con posterioridad a la desclasificación de los archivos pertinentes en Estados Unidos. Por otra parte, los buenos trabajos anteriores a dicha apertura estuvieron condicionados por la necesidad política de evitar legitimar la dictadura franquista desde la historiografía. Mucho tiempo ha transcurrido ya, y ahora es posible realizar una lectura desapasionada de la documentación, sin temer consecuencias políticas perversas. El presente es un intento por comprender qué estaba en juego, y cómo se jugó la partida, completamente desprovisto de los ingredientes ideológicos que, a juicio del presente autor, tiñeron los esfuerzos previos.There have been few attempts to study the so called «bases for dollars» negotiations between the United States and Spain, based on the sources available after the declassification of the American files. On the other hand, the better part of the research undertaken before declassification has been conditioned by the perceived need to avoid legitimizing the Franco dictatorship through historiography. Time has lapsed, however, and it is now possible to analyze the documents dispassionately without fearing perverse political consequences. The present effort is an attempt to understand what was at stake and how the game was played

Brave new world: Apuntes sobre el estado del mundo a mediados de 2012

Este documento corresponde a la conferencia de apertura del 2° Congreso de Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad de Congreso, titulado Perspectivas, dinámicas y desafíos del nuevo orden mundial, que tuviera lugar en la ciudad de Mendoza, República Argentina, el 22 y 23 de junio de 2012