Free Essay

Realism and Liberalism

In: Historical Events

Submitted By cgbiris
Words 2876
Pages 12
Realism and Liberalism Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. In order to improve society it is first necessary to understand the laws by which society lives, the operation of these laws being impervious to our preferences. Realism, believing as it does in the objectivity of the laws of politics, must also believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory that reflects, however imperfectly and one-sidedly, these objective laws. It believes also in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth and opinion – between what is true objectively and rationally, supported by evidence and illuminated by reason, and what is only a subjective judgment. Realism is a theory within international relations which predicts states will act in their own national interest in defiance of moral consideration. In general, this belief results from an observation of human nature and the perception of people as selfish and fiercely competitive. Realism regards the international arena as anarchic, governed by no authority overriding sovereign states. International institutions such as the United Nations are not afforded significant credibility from a realist perspective. Rather, influence is perceived to be held predominately by major powers such as the United States, whose dominance is a product of military and economic strength. Realists hold the primary interest of a state is survival, toward that goal states compete for available resources (Bacevich, 2005). Realism is a perspective dominated by cynicism, perhaps best exemplified in the tenants of pragmatism and amorality. Realists place each state in the position of having to closely observe the actions of neighbors to resolve problems effectively without regard to moral concerns. It is believed by realists that the creep of morality into international relations handicaps players from adapting to new conditions. Realism can be further broken down into composite elements which are distinguished in various ways. However, for the sake of simplicity this discussion will reference realism in general. Likewise, many of the international relations theories which complete with realism may be considered variations of liberalism. Yet, for the sake of simplicity, liberalism will also be discussed generally. Though it may be an oversimplification, one could argue liberalism’s chief distinction is its assertion that peace is possible and can result from interdependence. Liberalism asserts that the preferences of states, as manifest in their cultural, economic, and political entities, determine their actions on the international stage. Therefore, presumably, if two or more states share preferences, their aligned interests may result in absolute gains from cooperation. Realists, on the other hand, do not believe in the concept of absolute gains, instead viewing the international contest as a zero-sum game. For one player to win, another must lose (Bacevich, 2005). As the label implies, realists believe foreign policy must deal with the world as it really is, instead of relying on wishful thinking or ideological dogmas. Realism sees the international system as a competitive arena where states have to provide security for themselves. Realists know that states get into trouble if they are too trusting, but that problems also arise when states exaggerate external dangers, misjudge priorities or engage in foolish foreign adventures. Thus, realists keep a keen eye on the balance of power and oppose squandering blood or treasure on needless military buildups or ideological crusades. They know military force is the ultimate guarantor of security, but they recognize that it is also a blunt instrument whose effects are unpredictable. Realists are therefore skeptical of grandiose plans for global social engineering and believe that force should be used only when vital interests are at stake. Realists appreciate the power of nationalism and understand that other states usually resist outside interference and defend their own interest vigorously. Thus realists discount the possibility that adversaries will form a tightly unified monolith and favor undermining opponents through “divide and conquer” strategies. Realists also recognize that successful diplomacy requires give and take and that the pursuit of U.S. interests sometimes required cooperating with regimes whose values we find objectionable. In short, realists know that successful statecraft requires strength, cold eyed calculation, flexibility and a keen sense of the limits of power. Yet realists are neither moral relativists nor disinterested in values. Realists are aware that all great powers tend to think that spreading their own values will be good for others, and that this sort of hubris can lead even well intentioned democracies into morally dubious ventures. Realists do cherish America’s democratic traditions and commitment to individual liberty, but they believe these principles are best exported by the force of America’s example and not by military adventures. They also know that prolonged overseas meddling is likely to trigger a hostile backlash abroad and force us to compromise freedoms at home. Finally, realists were among the most visible opponents for the misadventure in Iraq, and their warnings were strikingly prophetic. Liberalism’s optimistic view of international politics is based on three core beliefs, which are common to almost all of the theories in the paradigm. First, liberals consider states to be the main actors in international politics. Second, they emphasize that the international characteristics of states vary considerably, and that these differences have profound effects on state behavior. Furthermore, liberal theorists often believe that some internal arrangements (e.g., democracy) are inherently preferable to others (e.g., dictatorship). For liberals, therefore, there are “good” and “bad” states in the international system. Good states pursue cooperative policies and hardly ever start wars on their own, whereas bad states cause conflicts with other states and are prone to use force to get their way. Thus, the key to peace is to populate the world with good states. Third, liberals believe that calculations about power matter little for explaining the behavior of good states. Other kinds of political and economic calculations matter more, although the form of those calculations varies from theory to theory. Bad states might be motivated by the desire to gain power at the expense of other states, but that is only because they are misguided. In an ideal world, where there are only good states, power would be largely irrelevant. In contrast to liberals, realists are pessimists when it comes to international politics. Realists agree that creating a peaceful world would be desirable, but they see no easy way to escape the harsh world of security competition and war. Creating a peaceful world is surely an attractive idea, but it is not a practical one. This gloomy view of international relations is based on three core beliefs. First, realists, like liberals, treat states as the principal actors in world politics. Realists focus mainly on great powers, however, because these states dominate and shape international politics and they also cause the deadliest wars. Second, realists believe that the behavior of great powers in influenced mainly by their external environment, not by their internal characteristics. The structure of the international system, which all sates must deal with, largely shapes their foreign policies. Realists tend not to draw sharp distinctions between “good” and “bad” states, because all great powers act according to the same logic regardless of their culture, political system, or who runs the government. It is therefore difficult to discriminate among states, save for differences in relative power. Third, realists hold that calculations about power dominate states’ thinking, and that states compete for power among themselves. That competition sometimes necessitates going to war, which is considered an acceptable instrument of statecraft. In the case of the invasion of Iraq, both realism and liberalism seemingly can explain why the invasion was pursued. Generally speaking, the realism approach would understand the U.S. invasion as a natural behavior of any great power politics. On the other hand, liberalism believes that ideas can change the world, and ideas of democracy, peace, and order should be brought about in the international order. My paper would argue that even if we follow realist or liberal explanations, we would find that the Iraq war is a failure project either way. While to realism a great power politics should seek to accumulate its power and domination, I would argue that the invasion of Iraq decreased the U.S. power instead. Rather than enhancing its power in the international stage, the invasion has simply put the U.S. in a very difficult position. In cases where the U.S. is supposed to have more bargaining power, it cannot do what it needs to do. On the other hand, if liberalism is all about spreading democracy, Iraqis and Americans as will have to pay too expense a price for this ideology. The U.S. invasion of Iraq, seen from Mearsheimer’s offensive Realism, is very understandable. According to Mearsheimer, great powers concerned with figuring out how to survive in a world where there is no agency to protect them from each other. The great powers are rarely content with the current distribution of power; and they will use force to alter the balance of power if they think it can be done at a reasonable price. In this way, the ultimate goal of a state is to be hegemon in the system. The invasion of Iraq, therefore, is just one measure to promote The U.S. hegemony in the Middle East. At that time The U.S. knew that behind the international embargo, the Russian and France companies took an advantage in the business of Iraqi oil. American companies could not join the party because their state prohibited them from doing business with a state that promotes terrorism. From the point of view of The U.S., it also threatened The U.S. hegemony in the region. Therefore, the invasion is necessary for the ultimate goal of The U.S.’s hegemony. The invasion of Iraq, a realist would say, is the way to accumulate power politics. The invasion was at the outset clearly framed and campaigned in realist way. The reason to fight against Saddam Hussein was that he had developed WMD and reactivated their nuclear program. A realist approach would urge the great powers to use its military power to defend itself from such a threat and outside aggressor. According to Mearsheimer, if the calculation supports military action, the great power will be more than willing to use military power to change the balance and accumulate their power. War against Iraq would not risk The U.S. internationally and it would win the war easily. The U.S., seen from the realist perspective, did what a great power should do. To some analysts, indeed it is the very liberal ideas of making democratic world that drives the administration to invade Iraq; particularly, the liberal idea that has been developed in its neoconservative version. George Pecker in his The Assassin’s Gate, for instance, clearly elaborates the genealogy of this war and its relation with the neoconservative ideas. To neocons, like Kagan, the United States is a liberal society and as a great power The U.S. has to use its power to advance the principles of a liberal civilization and a liberal world order. Iraq is a nail in the field of liberal civilization. For one with hammer like the United States, it is his moral obligation to save the liberal world by striking this nail down. We can understand too the invasion from Huntley’s argument. To Huntley, repeating many other supporters of the democratic peace theory of Immanuel Kant, a democracy would not kill its own subjects and likewise fight other democracies. Democracy is the best strategy to stop wars and democide. But why is it a war against Iraq to reach peace? Not answering directly to this question, however, he said, “To get peace and preserve freedom, however, they must be prepared to go to war and to stop aggressive dictatorship, because these breed wars.” Pre-invasion Iraq, viewed from this point of view, was the best case to be made. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who killed his subjects, gassed the Kurds in the north, and massacred many others. His totalitarian state was also a danger to his neighboring states. He waged a war for years against Iran. Then, he invaded Kuwait in 1990. He at least also had bombed Saudi Arabia during his invasion of Kuwait. In addition, the most important rationale for many Americans, Saddam was a threat for America’s closest ally in the Middle East, Israel, whom The U.S. seemingly would do anything to defend. In many senses, Iraq was more than eligible to be struck down and transformed into a democracy. If Iraq can be transformed into a democracy, as the Bush administration frequently boasts, it would not kill Kurds, Shiite, or then Sunni. Accordingly, it would bring about peace in the Middle East because Iraq, as a democracy, would not fight other democracy. Ultimately, the invasion would save Israel from evil state in its next door. Let us now evaluate the invasion from both Liberalism and Realism. After Saddam Hussein was removed from his reign, Iraqis have been left in chaos. It has been three years and what we see in Iraq is not a democracy, rather a messed-up state vulnerable of civil war. A democracy would not kill its citizens, but the citizens could kill their fellow. Democracy is ideas, culture, and institution. An election, a parliamentary government, and political parties are not enough for a state to be democratic. Even though the new government has been elected, Iraq is still far away from a democracy. The most intolerable aspect of this coerced democracy is the cost of lives of Iraqi and of American soldier as well. The incidence of suicide bombings has increased dramatically since the occupation to the point where these bombings are daily events. Religious-ethno conflicts arose too as the ethno and religious groups compete to fill the vacuum of power in the post-Saddam Iraq. If democracy worth to be fought for, Iraqis and Americans have to pay quite a bit for this ideology. From the realist perspective, the invasion has weakened American position in at least two cases I can make. The first case is the international row caused by the publication of the prophetic cartoons in Denmark. In this case, it sounds odd that the champion of liberty and freedom of expression has to take a side of the angry Muslims while even some Muslims, and the Danish government as well, take a side of the Danish cartoonist’s right. The Bush administration was in the difficult position because of its problematic Iraqi invasion and occupation. The U.S. is not able to defend its traditional allies in the continent because it really needs Muslim support for Iraq. The second case is the Iranian nuclear. Not as Kagan suggests, this guy with hammer in hand now has to think twice and more to strike down the nail Iran. First, The U.S. can not handle the smaller Iraq with an appropriate way and it has been necessarily not well done. Second, the invasion of Iraq has proven that transforming a rough state into friendly state is a gambling expensive to pay. The new elected government, dominated by Shiite, is not as friendly to The U.S. as it is hoped. They are very possible to be a second Iran in the Middle East, closer to Iranian mullah than to the U.S. The Bush administration is far from being powerful to prevent Iranian nuclear program and its competitors, the ex-superpower Russia and the emerging superpower China, have received more power values from the U.S.’s lost since. Still, from the realist perspective, the liberal idea of promoting democracy in the Middle East is, as Bush must realized it after the Iraqi election, not a good idea for this time and place. The democratized Middle East only gives a way for the fundamentalist to take over the power democratically. As in the Palestinian case, and would be the case of Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, democracy is a powerful and legitimate tool for the political Islam to win the public support amid oppressed citizens under the current authoritarian and American-friend regimes. The invasion of Iraq, therefore, seen from both liberal and realist theories, is “understandable” and “explainable”; however, the result of the invasion, seen from either way, is not “justifiable”.
Works Cited
Bacevich, Andrew. (November 6, 2005). “The Realist Persuasion,” The Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/araticles/2005/11/06/the_realist_persuasion/
Huntley, James Robert. (1998) Pax Democratica: A Strategy for the 21st Century, New York: St. Martin Press.
Kagan, Robert. Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order.
Mearsheimer, John J. (January/February 2003). “An Unnecessary War,” Foreign Policy.
Mearsheimer, John J. (2003). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, New York and London: Norton.
Mandelbaum, Michael. (2005). The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s Government in the 21st Century, New York: Public Affairs.
Packer, George. (2005). The Assassin’s Gate: America in Iraq, New York: FSG.
Scowcroft, Brent (August 15, 2002). “Don’t Attack Saddam,” Wall Street Journal.
Walt, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Walt, Stephen M. (1987). The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Similar Documents

Free Essay

Liberalism vs Realism

...Liberalism vs Realism Definitions 1. When realists observe the world system, they primarily see states struggling for power, each trying to consolidate its relative gain in a zero-sum game. The structure of the international system is thus rooted in this struggle, which is why realists contemplate little or no change in the structure of the international system. 2. A liberal, on the other hand, sees interdependence in the world system, a system in which every state cooperates on some level with other states. This cooperation is facilitated by institutions and established norms and ensures that every state maximizes its gain. Absolute gains, therefore, rather than relative gains, are the focus of liberals. In spite of the level of cooperation and interdependence existing between Nigeria and the United States, for instance, nothing in terms of the benefits accruing to both states could rightly be construed as "mutual." Nigeria's goal may be to try as much as possible to make the most of its oil wealth, even if it means producing below its prescribed OPEC quotas in order to sell at a higher price - a situation many strategists in Nigeria would welcome. America, on its part, may use its leverage as a global power to block any attempt by Nigeria to procure any form of debt relief from IMF as payback for Nigeria's unfavorable oil policy. The above hypothetical underlies my difficulty in truly appreciating the liberal analysis of the world system. It would seem that cooperation...

Words: 519 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

What Are the Main Obstacles to International Cooperation Between States? Assess with Reference to Realism and Liberalism

...What are the main obstacles to international cooperation between states? Assess with reference to realism and liberalism. According to Kenneth Waltz, the way states behave is determined by the permanent state of anarchy in which the international system exists. The lack of an ordering sovereign authority to oversee relations between states dominates debate between scholars as to whether the world will ever be a peaceful, threat-free environment. In order to eliminate war and conflict, cooperation must characterize states’ behaviour towards one another, a system in which ‘the security of each [state] is perceived as the responsibility of all’ (Wendt, 1999). The question then becomes why, if cooperation leads to rewards for everyone, do states enter into conflict and war? International Relations theorists seek to explain this paradox by examining the obstacles to cooperation. For classical realists, the answer is simple; lust for power and a drive for conflict are rooted within human nature and, since humans are the operators of state actors, state behaviour mimics this nature in its approach to international relations. Neo-realists, by contrast, follow Waltz in his belief that the anarchic structure of the international system causes states to seek security and power, and therefore provides the ultimate obstacle to cooperation. While liberals disagree altogether, offering the counterargument that men are rational, and therefore states choose to engage in conflict in order to pursue...

Words: 2161 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

International Relations Theory

...as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we can use to analyze events: liberalism, realism, and constructivism. These theories provide us with different points of view from which to analyze issues in today’s world. By looking at events, both past and present, in the context of a given theory, we can begin to understand those events and the driving forces behind them, as well as to make predictions about future events. The first of these theories, liberalism, is based upon the belief that man is innately good and that social conditions can be improved, paving the way for progress. Liberalism has its roots in “Enlightenment optimism, nineteenth-century political and economic liberalism, and twentieth-century Wilsonian idealism.” (Mingst 60) Liberalism sees man as rational, and through rationalism, society flourishes. Liberalism views the state not as an individual on the international stage, but as a member of a larger international community. Liberalism argues that war is not a part of human nature, and that it is brought on by the corruption of institutions. As such, liberalism posits that war can be avoided through reformation of the corrupt institutions, and through...

Words: 1829 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Weapons of Mass Destruction

...weapons/capabilities, but there is no solid evidence. Weapons proliferation today is on the move, more than a dozen countries had started weapons programs in the past, but all were stopped prior to full-up capabilities coming online. Today several states and sub-national groups to include Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and the Al-Queda are pursuing clandestine nuclear weapons programs. (2) These counties want prestige, the added security, domestic control and diplomatic bargaining power that comes with possessing WMD. They want a place on the “World stage” and are using the avenue of weapons proliferation to gain the power needed to get them on that stage. In order to control Weapons Proliferation, policymakers must engage in liberalism based governing, providing the greatest possible international cooperation. Secondly, as a prerequisite to obtaining that cooperation, they must act to strengthen international norms, or rules of acceptable...

Words: 2484 - Pages: 10

Free Essay

Ukraine/Russia Conflict

................................................ ... ... P.3 PURPOSE / PROBLEM ........................................... ...... ..s.4                 2: 1 issue ............................................................. ...... ..s.4 METHOD ............................................................................... ...... ... P.5 THEORY ............................................................................ ...... .... P.6                 4: 1 Liberalism. ........................................................................ .s.6                 4: 2 realism ........................................................................... ..s.7 ANALYSIS / EARNINGS .................................................................. .... p.8                 5: 1 Lens analysis ............................................................... .... p.8                 5: 2 Analysis based on Liberalism .......................................... ... ... ..s.9                 5: 3 Analysis based Realism .......................................... .. ......... p.10 DISCUSSION .............................................................................. .s.11-12 SOURCE CITATION ................................................................... ... .s.13 INTRODUCTION "Withstand the Russian economy Ukraine crisis?" Http://www.exporttjanster.se/content/t%C3%A5l-den-ryska-ekonomin-ukrainakrisen (Henrik Hjelm, March 2014. Retrieved: 2014-9-24) ...

Words: 3648 - Pages: 15

Free Essay

Theories in International Relation

...1. Why are theories of international relations important? First of all, international relation is the study of relationship between countries, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organization, international nongovernmental organizations, non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations. In our modern society, globalization has made countries dependent with each other due to the rapid flow of goods, services, people, information and ideas that is driven by economic factor, which includes increasing productive potential and creating new opportunities for international trade and investment, technological factor, which involves faster information access and easier international activities, and demographical factor, which involves different characteristics and resources in different areas. According to the Essentials of International Relations by Karen A Mingst, theory is a set of propositions and concepts that seek to explain phenomena by specifying the relationships among the concepts. So theory of international relation is a set of propositions and concepts that seek to explain international relation phenomena by specifying the relationships among the concepts. Therefore the theory of international relationship is important to analyze political events and their background. For example, behind US attack to Iraq, there were issues of terrorism, Saddam Hussein as an individual, democracy, and weapon. Moreover using the theories of international relationship...

Words: 2301 - Pages: 10

Premium Essay

Foreign Policy

...decision making and conducting of the US. First, the paper will discuss the process of making foreign policy to sustain US core values and interests which are determined by five major categories of sources (i) the external environment, (ii) the societal environment of the nation, (iii) the governmental setting, (iv) the roles of foreign policymakers, and (v) the individual personalities of foreign policy-making elites (Wittkopf et al 2008, p. 15). Then, the paper will examine the defensive and offensive realism, liberalism, marxism, neoclassical realism, constructivism which can be based on to understand US foreign policy behaviour. It will be concluded that no single theory has the capacity to describe, explain and predict US foreign policy behaviour. A mixture of such theoretical approaches seems to be necessary to obtain a comprehensive picture of US foreign policy. Keywords: US foreign policy, defensive and offensive realism, liberalism, marxism, neoclassical realism, constructivism 1. Introduction This paper aims to examine some of the prominent approaches to US foreign policy which have been put forth by International Relations scholars to explain...

Words: 4904 - Pages: 20

Premium Essay

International Relation Theories

... The following three theories are key to international relations and contribute to the framework of ideologies within it: realism, liberalism and critical theory. These three theories shape the views and consensus of International Relations and tend to categorise the general public into one of the three groups. However, this is a highly controversial statement due to the fact there are no clear definitions of realism, liberalism or critical theory, just differences throughout them. For example a key difference would be that realists make the basic assumption that the international system is anarchic where as liberals believe in institutions such as the U.N. can intervene effectively on state issues, there are also conflicting views between the three on issues such as war, the economy and major corporations. Within realism there is this sense of belief of “self-interest” this is a theme seen throughout Mearshermiers article Australians should fear the rise of China. Mearshamiers opening statement quotes “It is likely to lead to intense security competition with US – and considerable potential for war”. In a brief summary Mearshermier talks about how with this augmentation of Chinas power, surrounding countries such as the United States of America and Australia should be prepared to take action and prepare for war. This is a key ideology of realism, as although they do not encourage war in anyway they believe that war will always exist and it is necessary for states to prepare...

Words: 1197 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Realism in Today's Society

...In today’s globalized world, the theory of world politics that above all else remains most applicable is Realism. As long as human beings have walked this earth, their primary interests have always been exactly the same. Humans have always had a natural interest to survive, and usually will meet this interest at all costs. These natural interests humans have to better position themselves for survival hold true even if it is at the expense of others, which is evident throughout world history and politics. Historically humans have also always struggled for power, and act mostly in their own self-interests in order to position themselves for more power, which ultimately means a better chance of survival. In order to achieve this, these groups work to attain as many resources as possible. Each and every one of these characteristics that humans share are also some of the most basic assumptions of Realism, proving how applicable it is in every society all over the planet (Ferraro Lecture). These viewpoints are very common throughout world politics and always have been. Therefore, as long as humans walk this planet, the ideas of Realism will do so as well. Humans have had a natural interest to survive since the beginning of their existence. One of the most basic fundamentals of realism is that the primary concern of every nation state is survival. This not only means survival for ones self, but for their families and their communities. This basic human instinct has shaped every aspect...

Words: 1844 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

Realismwhat Are the Key Principles and Claims That Underpin Realist and Liberal Understandings of the World?

...Hobbes describes realism as all men interacting in anarchy and are equal. They are motivated by competition (scarcity), glory and diffidence. Realism emphasizes on constrains on politics imposed by egoism and the absence of anarchy which require ‘the primacy in all political life of power and security’ (Donnelly, 2009).Realists rely on themselves and do not recognize any authority in anyone and pursue power at all cost at national interest to achieve sovereignty which results them to maximize their military power to ensure survival. This leads to security dilemma (Dunne & Schimdt, 2011). The main difference between classical realism and neo-realism is the determinants of state behaviour. For neo-realists, the balance of power is a main motivation due to human nature According to the 6 principles of Morgenthau’s Politics of Nation, politics is governed by laws created by human nature and revolves around the concept of interest, defined in terms of power. This leads to classical realists being pessimistic. States act in a selfish and competitive manner in a constant state of anarchy seeking power. Neo-realists however think that economic resources and military powers are important to influence other states to achieve hegemonic stability (Dunne & Schimdt, 2011). Realism revolves around 3 core elements; statism, survival and self-help. Statism is the ideology that instils the belief that community are protected and sustained by states. This allows the states to increase their...

Words: 630 - Pages: 3

Free Essay

Security Dilemma Three Theories

... A simple definition of  security dilemma is when one state’s security becomes another state’s insecurity. Vague signals  along with lack of communication can cause uncertainty, which can result in unwanted fighting.  The big question is whether or not we can resolve the never ending security dilemma spiral  through globalization and international institutions. Is it possible to learn from past mistakes and  learn from new perspectives in order to obtain peace, I believe so. This essay will provide  explanations from all of the International Relations theories, and will furthermore discuss how  global order can be achieved through careful cooperation between states.     To begin with liberalism is optimistic about cooperation, and believes that decision  makers are rational and human nature is good. Liberalism focuses on three main concepts:  international institutions, democratic peace, and economic interdependence. Liberalists view war  as avoidable if government is reduced and if more international institutions are created. They  hold international institutions with a lot of merit. Firstly, they consider international institutions  to create peace because the institutions reduce transaction costs, make state commitments more  credible, enable states to discuss issues multiple times, and encourage countries to join in  multilateral collective security mechanisms ( Textbook p. 117­118).  International...

Words: 1153 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Towards a Liberal Realism

...TOWARDS A LIBERAL REALISM The student’s name: The course number: The date of submission: The instructor’s name: During the era, of George .W.Bush, a lot of political ambition has taken place. When he got into power, the focus of Bush was to provide an avenue for economic and political prosperity. However, with time because of influences emanating from both the international politics as well as from his own legal advisors, he adopted policies that suited the conditions of the occasion. For instance, during his era, there was the interplay between realism and liberalism. Realism was manifested at the time when his concerns leaned more on his quest to acquire the interests of the nation. However, he seemed to choose a different approach especially after the September 11, 2001 attack. At this time, the interests of the nation were to be abandoned and promote more for the security of the nation. Realism is a theory of international relations which holds the view that the interest of a nation overrides other considerations such as the moral values. Furthermore, actions undertaken by government leaders do not take into account the effect that such deeds may have on other sovereign states. They are therefore, likely to violate the ethical considerations when pursuing their goals and interests from other states. The idea of realism is closely related to the ideas of Thomas Hobbes of people in a state of nature. They are considered to attempt to gratify their...

Words: 3232 - Pages: 13

Free Essay

A Contest for Supremacy

...12/20/13 International Politics Final Paper A Contest for Supremacy Over the past several decades the relationship between the US and China had its share of ups and downs. This can largely be attributed to the shift in strategic policies and thinking that occurred within both countries over this period. The thinking and policies that occur in both countries can be explained by the application of both liberalism and realism. Realism is a way of thinking that believes the state is the principle actor in international relations and that it acts as a single unit with one voice. Liberalism on the other hand states that individuals are rational by nature and if a just society is not created, fault lies with inadequate institutions. In my view I believe that the realist theory provides the best explanation of past relations and predictions for future ones. The way Friedberg explains it in his book the US policy towards China went through three phases which include Containment, Alignment, and Congagement. The first period of Containment spanned from 1949-69 which began with a new policy to deal with China after it became evident that the Communist would win the civil war. This new policy stated “the fundamental aim of American strategy must remain what it had been since the turn of the twentieth century and the days of the Open Door policy” (Friedberg, 61). This was supposed to be a means of assuring that US interest in Asia would be secure despite the rising power of the Soviet...

Words: 1339 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

International Relations

...International relations, study of the relations among states and other political and economic units in the international system. Particular areas of study within the field of international relations include diplomacy and diplomatic history, international law, international organizations, international finance and economics, and communications, among others. In addition, increased attention has been paid in recent years to developing a more scientific understanding of the international system as a whole. Aspects of international relations have been studied as early as the time of the ancient Greek historian Thucydides. As a separate and definable discipline, however, it dates from the early 20th cent., when the first organized efforts were made to find alternatives to wars in nation-state international behavior. Two schools of thought quickly developed. One looks to strengthened international law and international organizations to preserve peace; the other emphasizes that nations will always use their power to achieve goals and sees the key to peace in a balance of power among competing states. With increased importance attached to a theoretical understanding of the whole international system, there has been a growing use of concepts and modes of analysis developed in the natural sciences in an attempt to improve the verifiability and applicability of theories. International relations is the study of relationships between nations. When analyzing international relations three...

Words: 788 - Pages: 4

Premium Essay

Inr2001

...INR 2001: Intro to International Relations January 12, 2015 Big Themes in International Relations * Conflict or Cooperation? Pays to Cooperate: Success in business- Don’t shoot customers * Major Actors in Conflicts * Chines, Navy, NATO, and Somali Pirates * States fighting other states * States fighting rebellions within the state * Conflict between non-state actors * Not all conflict is between states, much if not most is below the level of state-state conflict * Conflict maybe driven by man interests- ethnic conflict, material resources, land * Cooperation * Lots of Conflict and lots of Cooperation * Examples * Cooperation focused on economic issues, why? * All sides gain from economic exchange so it literally pays to cooperate * Is cooperation or conflict the natural state? * Economic cooperation mitigates conflict * Globalization or Fragmentation? * France-Germany and the European Union * Free trade agreements and NAFTA * What is Globalization * Examples: * Increasing level interconnectedness * What it means for international relations * More interdependence * Cultural aspects, both positive and negative * Is globalization a new phenomena * Less and less dialogue more usual stuff happening * 50 million died as a result 1918 Spanish...

Words: 3407 - Pages: 14