The Islamic Revolution and the International System

By Sayyed Rasoul Mousavi Today a complex condition rules over the world and it seems difficult to perceive the nature of international conflicts. Some conflicts are domestic, some regional and some others international in which to or more actors are engaged, but there exists a general crisis beyond all these conflicts which relates to the international system as a whole and which is a challenge to determine the boundaries, structure and the rules of the international system replacing the bipolar system There are three approaches to analyze and understand the behavior of international actors (states, international organizations) and global trends (alliances, revolutions and movements): a) to focus on activities of the leaders and decision-makers, b) to focus on thoughts and ideas, and c) to focus on the interactions of the current ruling international system and the environment in which the actors or trends operate. Many studies on the Islamic Revolution and Islamic Republic of Iran have hitherto been conducted focusing on the two first approaches, namely recognitions of the leaders and decision-makers and its ideals and aspirations, leading to authoring of many books and articles. The volume of such topics is so extensive that it can be referred to as political literature of the Islamic Revolution, but it seems that the third approach- focusing on identification of interactions between the Islamic Revolution and international system- has not received its appropriate consideration. To clarify the topic three questions are proposed: a) What is the purpose of the international system? b) How is the Islamic Revolution's approach towards the international system? c) Which is the favorite international system for the Islamic Revolution? To answer the first question, various theoreticians of the International System (IR) have developed different views and theories but it can be said, in general, that when the international system is discussed, two conceptual frameworks are considered. The first argues that the international system, as a mechanical system, possesses properties which follow the general theory of systems, its performance is understandable applying mathematical rules and logic and its nature and performance is perceptible with analyzing the interactions and relations between its internal components. The second which is more emphasized, in contrast, considers the international system as a non-mechanical system composed of a set of states (actors) and trends which, in regular connection with each other, create specific behavior patterns. The general theory of systems may not be applied to this conceptual framework for understanding the international system, but it's necessary to initially identify the objectives of the actors and then assess the capacity for realization and fulfillment of such objectives in the system. The approach mainly emphasizes that the behavior of the actors may not be explained singly with focus on internal factors inclusive of domestic needs and national characteristics, but external environment and the structure of power in the international system play a key role in orientation of the trends and national goals and aspirations of the actors. In simple words, countries have unlimited goals or needs but they can't achieve them all in the international scene. Their desires collides with those of others and so inevitably be modified. To some extent these needs are met depends on the country's power as well as the power of other countries and structure of the established international system. It must be pointed that boundaries, structure and rules are the three main characteristics of any international system; in other words, any specific geographical, cultural and political boundary restricts the international system beyond which there exists no interactions between the constituent political units of the system. Example is the balance of power system of 19th century whose geographical boundaries was limited to the Europe. Second, any international system has a structure which defines how of distribution and hierarchy of power in the system. For example, it can be said that the distribution of power in a bipolar system differs from that of a unipolar or multipolar system. Finally, there are some rules in any system regulating the behavior of the political units, to which any violator is called challenger. In addition, another significant point considering the international system is classification of the international systems. IR theoreticians and experts bear different views in this regard amongst them theories of Morton Kaplan and K. J. Holsty are outstandingly prominent. Without getting into discussion on different classifications, theories and definitions that exist in this regard and by accepting Kaplan's classification as a base, it can be said that there can be defined 6 different forms of international systems: the balance of power system, the loose bipolar system, the tight bipolar system, the universal international system, the hierarchical international system, and the Unit Veto International System. Holsty has also developed a somehow similar classification of systems by focusing on conflicts while Kaplan mainly deals with power. Skipping the definitions and concepts of such classifications, we turn to our second question, "How is the Islamic Revolution's approach towards the international system?” The Islamic Revolution came into existence in a bipolar system, but, highlighting the theme of "Neither East nor West”, defied the governing rules of the system from the very beginning. As against the European balance of power system of the 19th and early 20th centuries, the bipolar system, with its defined characteristics, could impose itself all over the world, dividing it into two main blocs. Although some movements like Non-Aligned Movement were formed within the system, they failed to establish a third pole of power or change the bipolar system or even challenge it. The bipolar system had also succeeded to prevent a third world war while unjustly transforming the war between the Great Powers into the war between the weaker countries on behalf of the Superpowers. When the Islamic Revolution defied the bipolar system introduced it as a violator of the nations' rights and sought the only way to save of the nations in breaking the colonial chains of the United States and Soviet Union. With its "Neither East nor West” slogan, the Islamic Revolution became the harbinger of a new way on which it paid a heavy price, and in which it simultaneously condemned both Superpowers' rule over the world, triumphed to maintain its strategic slogan and independence, and succeeded, as a genuine human revolution, to promulgate the strategic view that the injustice predominant in the bipolar system and the Superpowers' domination over the humanity's fate is the main problem of the today world. With dissolution of the Soviet Union which marked the end of the bipolar system a new condition appeared in the world in which the United States as the survived Superpower attempted to replace it with a unipolar system. It was not something easily acceptable by other actors although the US enjoys such an extensive military, economic power that can easily remove many challenges before it. Some international actors admitted the new unipolar system or at least met it with silence, but some others, proportionate to their power, introduced other alternatives such as multipolar system or multiunipolar system. From all topics discussed in regard to the international system it can be concluded that not all international actors have admitted a US-centric unipolar system, with universal boundaries, to succeed the bipolar system. In contrast, it is widely believed that the current international status quo is transitional in which any actor can partake in determination of the type of the system proportionate to its power. The Islamic Revolution which had challenged the bipolar system could not admit, based on its ideological principles, establishment of a unipolar system which had taken share in injustice of its antecedent, especially that the essence of injustice would remain in the new system imposing the very same discriminatory order on the world with more emphasis. Besides the US-sponsored unipolar system, the Islamic Revolution may not approve the balance of power system, backed by the Britain, and limited multipolar system and admit that a limited number of states, like veto holders within the UN Security Council, determine the destination of the entire world. Given above, the question is that "Which is the favorite international system for the Islamic Revolution?” To answer it should be said that the Islamic Revolution favors a justice-centric system with equal sovereignty for nations and equal rights for human beings. Believing in establishment of justice in international relations, equality of humans' rights and sovereignty right of nations, the Islamic Revolution is feeling for a system which fulfils such aspirations and, so, defying any system which lacks such characteristics, as is the case in the current era. The Islamic Revolution which specifies independence, freedom and national development as the strategic goals of Iran cannot be indifferent to the nature of the international system. Many knowledgeable analysts and IR experts now admit that no country is able to pursue its national interests heedless of the international system, but the system has a decisive role in the countries' achievement of their national interests. Hence, there remains no doubt that independence, freedom and national development of the country is tied up with establishment of a justice-centric international system which rejects imposition of discriminatory rules on the world society and truly defends equal rights and sovereignty of individuals and nations. It is a scientific and professional topic which deserves more consideration by the experts.