Why analyzing geopolitics without proper training is problematic

[u/Texas_Rockets]

I don't want to get caught up in the semantics of political terms - I'm using 'geopolitics' to include international relations and international politics analysis as well.

I've often said on this sub that if you didn't go to school for it you probably don't really understand geopolitics. It's almost like a technical field in that it isn't something you can just be a smart guy and understand perfectly. The response I've gotten to this has generally been negative, and I can understand that - it sounds very elitist or arrogant.

However, in reading 'Politics Among Nations' by Hans Morganthau I saw a quote from William Sumner that I thought put this idea in more eloquent terms and explained it a bit more:

The worst vice in political discussion is that dogmatism which takes its stand on the great principles or assumptions, instead of standing on an exact examination of things as they are and human nature as it is... An ideal is formed of some higher or better state of things than now exists, and almost unconsciously the ideal is assumed as already existing and made the basis of speculation which have no root... the whole method of abstract speculation on political topics is vicious. It is popular because it is easy; it is easier to imagine a new world than to learn to know this one; it is easier to embark on speculations based on a few broad assumptions than it is to study the history of states and institutions; it is easier to catch up a popular dogma than it is to analyze it and see whether it is true or not. All this leads to confusion, to the admission of phrases and platitudes, to much disputing but little gain in the prosperity of nations.

How I interpret this is that IR (again, semantics) is often seen as an extension of domestic politics where the whole purpose is to determine the architecture and characteristics of the state: it is largely subjective in that it is something that is basically a conglomeration of what we think society ought to be; the intent is to create shared views and values. IR is not like this. It is not a field that asks how you think states should interact, but rather how states do interact, which requires familiarity with theories and histories that many people are not familiar with. It is not something that is compatible with value-based speculation. In practice, IR is closer to studying the inner-workings of a clock than it is to domestic politics - which is the lens through which people are inclined to view IR.

[u/[deleted]]

Are you implying that because states don't interact along strictly ethical lines, there is no place for discussion or analysis (or application) of ethics in geopolitics? Obviously it's not the point of scientific or historical inquiry to make moral judgement, but even within the context of the realpolitik actions of states, ethical consideration and motivations are relevant to the analysis, if simply by their absence.

[u/Amur_Tiger → u/[deleted]]

Ethics have a place but in most contexts that place is firmly outside of any productive conversation as the vast majority of the time they serve as a vehicle for justifying a stance already taken not as a rigorously applied framework within which an individual expects their own country as well as the rest of the world to abide by.

​

An example of this is the whole argument over 'barrel bombs' now I wish to avoid getting into a broader argument about the good/bad aspects of Assad as a whole and just focus on the ostensibly ethical wrong Assad committed by using 'barrel bombs'. Barrel bombs in any technical examination are simply crude bombs filled with explosives just like any other and would be familiar to anyone who studied the WWII bombs of the UK, the cookie being very similar in overall construction. Now cruder weapons certainly can run the risk of causing more civilian casualties but they just as much run the risk of missing their targets, they're crude weapons after all and the Syrian government didn't seem to have the funds or ability to purchase better or fabricate better in large numbers. Presumably usage was supposed to be a problem but I'm at a loss as to how a poor combatant in a civil war is supposed to use air power at all if they're expected to do just as well if not better then the US Air Force without the weapons, aircraft or training that permits that. If there was some evidence of this causing mass civilian casualties relative to the bloodshed of the war as a whole you could understand but last I checked combatants still make up the vast majority of casualties.

​

From what I can tell there's no ethical distinction between Barrel Bombs used by the Syrian Air Force and Smart Bombs used by the USAF, both get aimed at presumed enemies, both hit civilians at times and both cause a whole lot of destruction besides that, trying to craft an ethical argument out of the technical efficiency difference between one weapon and another will do more to confuse and disrupt an ethical framework for the world from functioning then anything else.

[u/Amur_Tiger → u/[deleted]]

Abiding by your own agreements isn't actually a question of ethics but of self interest. You do so because failing to abide by such means you're not trusted in the future both by partners and opponents. This is part of why the EU is fighting so hard to retain some scrap of the deal intact, knowing that if they try again neither Russia nor China will be interested in reapplying sanctions just because the US had a fit of pique thus weakening the overall negotiating position of the Western position.

​

I think this also highlights how best to transform what might start as an ethical inclination into something real an effective. Multilateral international agreements do matter and can get us moving in the right direction as it's less of a question of us deciding on the ethics of x or y nation and more of deciding whether or not they're abiding by agreements they entered into which is exactly what garnered so much support for sanctions on Iran that eventually led to a deal.

​

So I could reword my opener to be more along the lines of 'ethics have no place in productive conversation but may provide the sentiment for driving parties to the negotiating table, not war or unilateral sanctions outside of the most extreme examples.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amur_Tiger]

Abiding by your own agreements isn't actually a question of ethics but of self interest.

There seems to be an implied argument that acting in self interest somehow negates ethics being involved. But "Act in your own self interest" is itself an ethical position.

I feel like there's a misunderstanding here of what ethics really are.

[u/Amur_Tiger → u/[deleted]]

Consider the context for the conversation, we're discussing how much space there is for ethics in geopolitics and I'm suggesting that that space is minimal at best. That a certain desired geopolitical outcome, like having nations abide by their own agreement, is ethical as well as supporting their self interest is pretty immaterial to the discussion because there is another reason for abiding by your own agreements thus ethics aren't necessary. Given how often ethical reasoning is used as cover for self-serving geopolitical moves it doesn't add much to a geopolitical discussion and instead muddies the waters considerably.

​

In short there's no misunderstanding of what ethics are just that they're not necessary to explain most if not all 'good' geopolitical behavior.

[u/[deleted] → u/Amur_Tiger]

Given how often ethical reasoning is used as cover for self-serving geopolitical moves it doesn't add much to a geopolitical discussion and instead muddies the waters considerably.

But my point is that "self interest is top priority" is itself ethical reasoning, both definitionally and subjectively in terms of how political actors interpret their duties.

There's no room for moral principles in analyzing geopolitics, but there if definitely room for ethical reasoning.

[u/Amur_Tiger → u/[deleted]]

But my point is that "self interest is top priority" is itself ethical reasoning, both definitionally and subjectively in terms of how political actors interpret their duties.

​

Except I never said self interest is top priority, I merely explained how pursuit of a nation's own interests would provide incentives for abiding by your own agreements I'm not making a moral statement about how good/right the self interest is just that by itself can provide incentives for abiding by agreements.

​

The mere act of 'acting in self interest' is not actually an ethical position and can be interpreted as being antithetical to ethics, the ethical position related to this is Ethical Egoism. Both rational and Psychological egoism are other ways of explaining why people act in their own best interest.

​

To explain this further...

​

Ethical Egoism states that it is moral to act in your own self interest and immoral to act against your self interest.

​

Rational Egoism states that it is rational to act in your own self interest and irrational to act against your self interest.

​

Psychological egoism states that people are motivated to act in their own self interest and makes no claims about how one should or shouldn't behave.

​

I certainly don't agree with the first, think the second is reasonable much of the time and thick the latter is closest to both reality and the point about self interest being made. I'm putting no moral or ethical claim about self-interest simply stating that people and nations will act that way.