Cejiss

Scholars of international relations (IR), divided as they are over the contours of the discipline, bear moral responsibility to, among other things, objectively and fairly present the unfolding nature of international affairs, the types and potency of actual and potential challenges, and the means available to confront such challenges. While analyses and policy prescriptions are portrayed using a variety of theoretical tools, all international relations scholars ought to share a desire to further understand the nuances of international political life, convey the dynamics of change, and offer decision-makers, and the interested public, constructive approaches for dealing with the multitude of international actors (state, non-state/non-governmental, supranational and intergovernmental), contrasting interests, resource competition (between allies and adversaries), in addition to geopolitical conditions and emerging causes of discord.

Currently however, the public domain of information is largely determined by the nature of available tools (re: the internet), and the role of scholarship in depicting international affairs is being subordinated to popular media outlets (including Facebook, blogs and Twitter) and political punditry; and ‘communication' has become, in many ways, synonymous with ‘education.' In a way, the monopolisation of international political analyses by IR theorists has been shattered as scholars continue to produce intricate and thoughtful explorations while public interest in such work dwindles.

The downward trend in relying on scholarship is logical given the speed of change to international relations coupled with the fact that many now have, at their fingertips, the ability to convey their opinion of international events as they occur. Similar to Bill Gates' notion of business at the speed of thought, international scholarship cannot keep pace with reportage at the speed of occurrence. In other words, IR scholars can do little more than present historical-political renditions of events using theoretical frameworks to explain causes and effects. This implies a substantial time-gap between an internationally significant event and an adequate scholarly response.

With policy-makers and publics demanding swiftness and coherence in foreign policy, it is no wonder that IR scholars are increasingly
fi nding themselves out-of-the-loop in decision-making cycles, while local ‘people on the ground' are given increased importance in foreign policy-making. Of course, IR scholars have devoted their lives to scientifically and theoretically exploring international issues, and their assessments cannot, in content, be compared to unsubstantiated and unresearched opinions. However, it is important that IR scholars reassert themselves and attempt to fulfil the important and admirable role of objectively informing decision-makers and publics so policies reflect the best known options and governments (at least democratic ones) are restrained in their actions by a sizable community of scholars able to reach, and help form, public opinion.

If political personalities here in the Czech Republic would, for example, heed scholarly, rather than public exclamation, their concern over the US's decision to abandon its missile defence (MD) components may have reflected the gravity of the decision itself. Indeed, the Czech Republic (and Poland) laboured to secure US military investments in order to deepen their security provisions through the enlistment of an off-shore ally without a history of colonial expansion and occupation (at least within Europe), dictatorship or unprovoked belligerence.

The US, for its part, used MD in the Czech Republic (and Poland) to achieve three of its own ambitions: increase its influence on EU decision-making by favouring two key ‘new' EU members; carve-out forward geopolitical positions vis-a-vis Russia; and launch new socio-economic inroads into Central and Eastern Europe. So, the abandonment of MD in the Czech Republic indicates that:

1) the US, under Obama, has not prioritised relations with ‘new' EU members;

2) the US has allowed Russia to penetrate its decision-making cycles and caves into Russian belligerence even if it appears  that the US ‘traded' MD for Russian acquiescence to sanctions against Iran; and

3) the Czech Republic was, for (at least) the third time in the past century, abandoned by its closest ally.

It is likely that Obama's midnight telephone call - announcing the abandonment of MD - to Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer was deliberate in its absurd timing; ensuring that Fischer was unable to adequately reply or present counter-veiling argumentation. In his malicious approach to the Czech Republic, Obama revealed what many IR scholars already knew: that he was elected to advance US interests and that the US continues to assert itself as a unilateral power while attempting to give the impression of multilateralism.

This idea contrasts sharply with European public opinion of Obama, which embraced him and his ‘yes we can' attitude. It is shameful that Obama's rhetoric has done more to formulate European approaches to the US - as policy, in this case, reflects public opinion - than his actual policies have.

The above is but one example and shows some dangers which require rectification. Scholars need to re-enter decision making processes and help their political community make the right, not necessarily the most popular choices, while continuing to further educate the general public, otherwise democratic values will be eroded under new waves of populism.

It is on this point that I would like to welcome you to CEJISS 3:2, since CEJISS has prioritised providing in-depth analyses of central issues in IR - free of charge - to as wide a public as possible. This issue introduces and examines many important themes in IR that, when read together, illustrates some key characteristics of the nature of international political life. I sincerely hope you
enjoy this issue and I look forward to your comments, criticisms and concerns.

Mitchell A. Belfer
Editor in Chief
CEJISS

See Volume 3, Issue 2