Practicing the Theory: Mosquitoes and International Relations

Think of a mosquito in your bedroom flying over your head, whizzing around your ear all night. Let us take the situation into consideration from the International Relations (IR) perspective..

The hot summer days have embraced the northern hemisphere. In many countries, people sleep by leaving their windows open at night or keep their doors open during the day to cool their rooms. Yet, this situation may let in some uninvited guests who distort our peaceful sleep by entering into our houses: Mosquitoes! This essay will try to encapsulate the human-mosquito relations into the IR concepts by benefiting from a realistic scene in which there are a few people and a mosquito in a bedroom. The formers sleep (or try sleeping) and the latter hunts! How does IR see the game?

First of all, it should be clarified why this scene presents an opportunity to employ the IR concepts. Simply, one who hears the whizz of a mosquito flying on top of his head all night tends to regard it as a ‘threat’. Since the mosquito is a ‘malign-intention actor’ with ‘capability’ to bite, it may apply ‘act of aggression’ against him. The uneasy peace between the man and mosquito is in danger. IR may present insights at the edge of the war, since one of its concerns is how to preserve ‘peace’.

To begin with, the room where the man and the other people sleep may be regarded as a ‘system’ in which there are many actors at varying sizes such as ‘hegemon’ (father), ‘great powers’ (elder brother) or ‘small powers’ (younger brother). At the beginning of the night, these people should have avoided from occurrence of a ‘rogue state’ (or a ‘non-state actor’) within the system by preventing the mosquito from entering the room. However, this could not have been achieved and there is an actor which poses threats to ‘stability’ of the system.

Normally, there are some ethical obstacles (‘international law’) before the man not to ‘neutralise’ (kill) the mosquito. On the other hand, if there is an act of aggression about to start, or risk of being subjected to an act of aggression in near future, the man may opt for conducting a ‘first strike’ from the ‘preemptive’ or ‘preventive’ war perspectives, as the United States did in Afghanistan and Iraq. The mosquito has no ‘counter capability’  to ‘deter’ the man. Even if his first strike is unsuccessful, the mosquito has no power to make ‘unacceptable damage’ in him and this is the greatest ‘strategic deficit’ of the mosquito as well. On the other hand, the other members of the ‘international society’ may express  their disturbances due to the side effects of his first strike, such as noise or the light the man switched on. In addition to these, the mosquito has ‘air superiority’ and extra capabilities like ‘surgical air strike’ and ‘high altitude reconnaissance’.

‘Realism’ can be used to explain the story. In some respects, both the mosquito and the man target ‘survival’; the former must swallow his blood to survive and the man must protect his ‘vital interests’. From the eyes of a ‘rational actor’, this is also an example of  a ‘zero-sum game’: The man has a fixed volume of blood and the gain of the mosquito is his loss. He may approach the story from the ‘offensive realist’ perspective and may seek for maximisation of his ‘power’ and ‘prestige’ in the system by neutralising the ‘enemy’. He may also approach the story from the ‘defensive realist’ perspective and may prioritise his own ‘security’ by remaining with a pique on him instead of resorting to first strike. The man may also seek for ‘alliance formation’ against the threat by persuading the other actors by ‘carrots or sticks’.

Nevertheless, as the states do not cooperate against ‘international terrorist organisations’ like PKK, some actors in the system may not prefer ‘cooperation’. The ones which are not under direct threat, may focus on the ‘relative gains’ and ask “If we cooperate, who will gain more?” by prioritising their own sleep. On the other hand, if there is a hegemon which has an apparent superiority in the system, it may facilitate the cooperation by coercing or persuading the others to eliminate the threat, in accordance with the ‘hegemonic stability theory’. Another possibility is the existence of actors which focus on the ‘absolute gains’ and tend to cooperate as what ‘liberalism’ foresees. The same cooperation may also be facilitated by an actor who has ‘soft power’, like a baby.

If an ‘international organisation’ or ‘coalition of willings’ claiming a ‘responsibility to protect’ can be formed, ‘collective defence’ can be targeted. Within the organisation, the man may use ‘article six’ as a mean of collective defence. Following elimination of the aggressor, the established international organisation may evolve into one seeking for maintenance of the  ‘collective security’ by preparing ‘international regimes’ to ensure ‘area denial’ for the mosquito by keeping the doors and windows closed.

How does the ‘change’ take place in this system? As long as the mosquito keeps flying and the man preserves his body covered by a pique, there may be no change in the ‘strategic equation’. However, if the ‘distribution of capabilities’ changes, the equation may change too, as the ‘structural realism’ argues. If the man falls asleep, the mosquito may bite his uncovered ‘Achill’s heel’. On the other hand, if the man uses ‘chemical/biological weapons’ (insect repellent tablet), he can impose ‘no fly zone’ over the room for the mosquito. He may use chemical/biological weapons even to kill it. Yet, in this case, some members of the international society may be disturbed by the use of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ and may pressure on the man to use ‘conventional weapons’ (swatter) only. A war may not be ended with conventional weapons in a short time and this may either turn into a ‘deadlock’ or into a ‘war of attrition’ for the man who may stop his strike and prefer sleeping at a point. Besides, the mosquito may have some advantages like ‘safe haven’ if it hides behind a wardrobe. Similar to this, the game changes completely, if a ‘shift in foreign policy preferences’ occurs and mosquito leaves the room by flying through the open door or window.