The history of the discipline of International Relations began thousands of years, perhaps hundreds of thousands of years ago, but its main development was in the last century. It would not be wrong to start the history of international relations in the academic community from the end of the First World War. Is it possible to evaluate this discipline, which was established with the stands in the USA and the UK, as impartial and unbiased? Is England the definition of "the country that does not set sun on it", does the main definition go unnoticed? So why is it not seen as "exploiting every place on earth where the sun rises"? Why is Germany's challenge to this colonial state viewed by Britain? So why did the British perceive a very good administration and the perception that the bad Germans came and broke the order? Why is it called ideal idealism an after the First World War, where injustice was signed and the invitations to the Second World War? Whose idealism? against whom? for what? Then why did Germany, who could not cope with the harsh conditions, change the situation and was discredited by the real war-lovers? The so-called peace-loving Britain and the US did not really do anything to prevent the Second World War from being invoked by the heavy-duty treaties that followed the First World War? Why was international relations called "realist" after the Second World War? What was your idealism so that something could be understood from your subsequent realism. Why look at the world through the glasses of the United States or England? Why should we assimilate and accept the political history written and imposed on us by the rogue state that clearly exploited the previous world and the rogue state who later committed the greatest crime of humanity in Japan?
Dear Mehmet,
I wrote about just your question in my larger book on IR of 2013.
Sorry, it's only in German.
For the content, look into my "publications" in Reseachgate. Under "data" you find the below file, wherein you see the relevant pages: 648-717.
Inhaltsverzeichnis Kartelltheorie und Internationale Beziehungen
Result: undoubtedly biased by national views and power interests.
I am afraid that if we do not, quote, "accept and assimilate the political history written by the rogue state" (i.e. USA), sooner or later we would need to succumb to the narrative used by other "rogue states", such as Russia (formerly USSR) and currently China.
Many questions, among which I want to answer two: "Why look at the world through the glasses of the United States or England? Why should we assimilate and accept the political history written and imposed on us by the rebel state, which clearly used the previous world and the criminal state that later committed the greatest crime of humanity in Japan? First question: because the actions of these two countries were important for the rest of the world. And next to that, these convincing actions were described (reported) by researchers whose study results have gained the acceptance of a specific scientific environment and have been popularized through them, among others by transferring them to academic textbooks. Second question: here I would have reservations about the word "accept". Knowing how to be aware of how a particular country gained political advantage? What actions did he take with specific intellectual and economic potential? besides, it is interesting for foreigners to look at the realities of the country we represent. For me, Fernando Braudel's readings were "opening" at one time, which allowed me to move from the description of facts to questions about influence factors. And, for example, I wonder to what extent contacts with the peoples of Asia Minor influenced the formation of European civilization in its particular breakthrough periods. And I have difficulty finding studies on this topic. I am particularly interested in the transfer of technical, agricultural and cultural ideas. Although this is not the main direction of my interests, there is always a question about the (material) Ottoman and Turkish heritage in Europe.
From the perspective of a state, neutrality may be considered an instrument of foreign policy through which the State pursues its national interests. Traditionally, neutrality has fulfilled various political functions. Among those so-called “realistic functions,” the most important objective is to ensure political independence while remaining on the sidelines of armed conflicts.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Political Science