Call it procrastination. Call it a need for a brain break. Call it what you will. But whatever the reason, I found myself channel surfing today in the early afternoon when I should have been working on a research paper. With remote control in hand, I pretended (to myself because no one else would care) that I wanted to get the weather forecast. With both my thumb and mind wandering, I somehow managed to find a sports channel that was showing an international Sumo competition. Perhaps I watched for too long -- at least 30 minutes -- but as I watched a 400 pound man from the Netherlands or Norway (I can't remember) get tossed to his knees by a leaner, meaner 260-pounder from one of the former Soviet Republics, I couldn't help but imagine the whole thing as a metaphor for International Relations. I realize that Sumo is a traditional Japanese sport and way of life that is more than 1500 years old, but you have to admit that there's something absurd about two gigantic, often very obese men, slapping and stomping around in a circle wearing nothing but their thong tha thongs. The sport has grown past its Japanese roots, with men from around the world now seeking fame and fortune within Japan, and internationalized competitions being held outside Japan in venues as large as New York's Madison Square Garden. According to the announcer on television, it is the world's fastest growing sport. I'm not particularly concerned with that sort of data, so I'll take his word for it.
I suppose the absurdity -- and the spiraling madness of procrastination -- is what got me stuck on this strained metaphor. That and the absurdity of the U.S. and Iran posturing like bloated men in g-strings over the Iranian nuclear issue.
The field of International Relations is relatively new, but the current schools of thought have evolved and branched out considerably from the early ruminations on the nature of war a la Thucydides, or the 16th Century political thoughts of Machiavelli. I'm not going to give a rundown of the etymology of the different branches, but for simplicity, let's just consider Sumo wrestlers in realist terms. Realism in international relations (IR) theory has fallen out of favor in recent years, much to the chagrin of our old pal Henry Kissinger, but for certain situations, classic realist theory lends a nice, tidy way to examine some things -- or to at least understand the doctrine from which some of our foreign policy peeps are working. Here are some of the major assumptions of realist thought:
- The international system exists in a state of anarchy in the sense that there is no coordinating body or entity that gives order to the world.
- The most important players in the international arena are sovereign entities called states.
- Ultimate authority lies with the state, and as such, there is no higher authority over the state.
- States are rational, self-interested, unitary actors that have difficulty trusting other states.
- Because states act out of self-interest, cooperation between and among states exists only when it coincides with the interests of the cooperating states.
- State interests are best ensured through military and economic power.
- Power is best described in terms of zero-sum outcomes, where gain by one actor (a state in this case) is balanced by an equal, corresponding loss by another actor.
There are plenty of criticisms of realism and neorealism. Non-state actors such as the United Nations, other Intergovernmental Organizations, multinational corporations, and even terrorist groups, have proved to be important in international relations. Cooperation cannot always be traced to self-interest. Many scholars find holes in the zero-sum approach to power relations. Evidence can be provided that states don't always act unitarily or rationally. Many of the problems in our modern world don't involve state on state conflict (think Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan). The criticisms are numerous, but I'm in no position to lecture on the theoretical critiques.
For some reason though, when I think of the current situation with Iran, there's something about it that seems similar to nearly naked fat dudes trying to push each other around. Sure, I know there are non-state actors that are important in the Iranian nuclear issue. And I know that there are states other than Iran and the U.S. that might be important before this finally plays out. Much talk has centered on getting China and Russia more involved, and the European Union -- another often-used example of how the realist paradigm fails -- has been just as quick as the U.S. to condemn Iran's thumbing it's nose at the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA). But the whole thing is shaping up like the Sumo tournament, where the final match comes down to big, fat, bloated United States vs. The leaner, meaner Iran. The U.S. tries to push its weight around, while Iran attempts to outmanouver its larger opponent with cunning and quickness. Needless to say, I saw a few too many matches on television today where the big fat guy fell on his face after being deftly outfoxed by a smaller, quicker wrestler.
The U.S. and Iran are approaching this as a zero-sum game. The U.S. feels that any level of Uranium enrichment for any purpose by Iran would represent a loss, and Iran feels that any concession that doesn't allow it to pursue a unilateral program would be a loss. They think it's as simple as the Sumo match, where one win equals one loss. Besides, these two states are entering into the arena much too early. Wouldn't it be better just to sit on the couch, eat potato chips and watch reruns of your favorite shows, than to strip down to your tighties and get in the ring with a big ugly meanie? Unfortunately, neither of these states thinks so.
Estimates vary widely, but even the least optimistic puts a fully developed Iranian nuclear weapon at five years away, and some estimates state ten years. However, the Bush administration seems too eager to get into the circle. An absolutely frightening report in The New Yorker by Seymour Hersch states that information from Washington insiders points to the administration's ridiculous talks of bunker busting nuclear weapons that could be used to destroy Iran's underground nuclear facilities. I hope that this is akin to the Sumo wrestler's ritual of slapping his legs and stomping back and forth to intimidate the other wrestler before the match starts because if they are considering this as a real option, then there is no hope for us.
In case the implications of that aren't clear, let me summarize: They are talking about using nuclear weapons to prove to the world that it's bad to have nuclear weapons!
Any preemptive action would be ludicrous. Iraq? Hello? Is the administration hell bent on destroying the world? I think a more sobering and eloquent way of stating this can be found in Hersch's article. One of his unnamed sources, a "Pentagon advisor on the war on terror," said, "What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?" I think the big fat bloated Sumo wrestler just lost his undies and showed his ass.
If there's a message I'm getting at it's this: Don't get in the circle. There is plenty of time to give diplomatic solutions a chance. As Heather Hurlburt correctly pointed out in the Democracy Arsenal blog, Iran is not the Cuban Missile Crisis. Unlike that event, there is plenty of time for diplomacy with Iran.
On the other hand, if Bush and Iranian President Ahmadinejad stripped down, donned those funny looking loin cloths, and started pushing each other around a circle, it might be funny enough to reverse several years of bad blood. Who needs the IAEA when you have Sumo?
Photo of "sumo throwing salt" by alebah at stock.xchng
No comments:
Post a Comment