International Relations Theories - Essay Example

Realism vs. Liberalism Realism and liberalism are the two major theories of international politics. Although they differ tremendously with respect to their basic assumptions about the nation-state, the international order and the role of conflict in the international system, both realism and liberalism provide substantial insight into the ways in which the international order is structured. Seeking to understand how each of these theories differs yet remains the same, the following will compare and contrast the fundamental assumptions and the basic policy prescriptions of realism and liberalism. Following this, we will illustrate the fundamental differences between the two theories by discussing how each would interpret the 2003 U.S. military intervention in Iraq. How would each theory propose that the international community deal with Iraq, prior to, as well as following the invasion? The two theories will be critiqued and an analysis of the elements of each theory will explore which is most convincing in explaining the intervention in Iraq. Realism, as an explanatory theory of international relations, provides perhaps the most concise and strongest definition of what constitutes state interest and behavior. Accordingly, realists argue that the state exists within an anarchic geopolitical framework and that state interest is an inherent component of international relations. In fact, for realists the desire to maximize state interest within a situation of global anarchy is the most crucial component required in the understanding of political actors and state behavior. First and foremost it is important to remember that state interest operates within an anarchic environment. The international system is inherently unstable and is aptly characterized by widespread anarchy. Due to the absence of a suprastate or overarching Leviathan authority, states are placed in inevitable and perpetual competition, described as the security dilemma. Because of the anarchic nature of international affairs, states are perpetually concerned with their survival. For realists, the international system is a “dog-eat-dog world” and ensuring survival is paramount for any and all states. According to Hans Morgenthau, pioneering German political scientist and an early proponent of realist thought, due to the inherent instability of the international system, the fundamental national interest of all states is to “protect [its] physical, political, and cultural identity against encroachments by other nations” (Morgenthau, 1952, 67). Specifically, threats to states are determined by their relative power vis-à-vis one others in the international system. The structure of the system – the distribution of power and capabilities state wide - is important because threats or challenges facing a state which affront the national interest should be “calculated according to the situation in which the state finds itself” (Waltz, 1979, 77). Thus, power and security requirements are paramount in attempting to define state interest and what motivates states to act. Furthermore, Power and wealth supply the means for states to survive, to meet their security requirements, and thus to continue to compete in a system in which other states are necessarily either actual or potential threats. State officials ad policy analysts are therefore advised realistically to asses the distribution of power; they should overcome their ‘aversion to seeing problems of international politics as they are’ in order to objectively asses the national interest in light of the distribution of power. Every state, that is, must pursue its national interest “defined in terms of power” (Morgenthau 1952) because this is the surest road to security and survival (Weldes, 1999, 55). If we apply the realist conception of states power and apply it to the United States, state interest is culmination of a variety of factors and is determined in terms of power politics and system-level concerns. During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union were locked in a bitter confrontation pitting two opposite poles in the international order against one another. In this period of bipolarity, state behavior was mediated by concerns regarding the stability of the international system as well as the state interest and behavior of the other major power. Today, the United States operates in a unipolar world and is the world’s hegemonic state. State behavior is less constrained as it was during the Cold War but US state interest today reflects power conditions and the maintenance of overall system stability which promotes the supreme status of the United States in the international system. Now that we have explored realism, what does liberalism have to say about the international political system (Dunne et al, 2007, 89-107)? Liberalism offers a successful alternative to realist thought through its emphasis on international cooperation and global interdependence. This stream of political thought has gained credence in a world in which globalization reigns supreme and international actors work together towards a common social goal. Unlike realism which focuses on the anarchic nature of the international system and the role of conflict, power and global stability through coercion, liberalism promotes multilateralism and states working together. Interdependence is also a common goal expressed through globalization, an international phenomenon with far-reaching consequences in the social, political and economic realms. Economic globalization, namely the spread of neoliberalism as the dominant engine of economic growth, has both supporters and detractors. Liberalism can help account for the spread of modern democracies throughout the world, capitalism across the globe and the establishment of modern multilateral organizations. Accordingly, for liberal theorists the advent of organizations like the United Nations and the European Union lend credence to the argument that international cooperation and mutual action are far superior to the “dog eat dog” world described by early realists like Hans Morgenthau (Dunne et al, 2007, 89-107). How would realists and liberals interpret the 2003 US military invasion of Iraq? Keeping in mind our realist conception of realist state interest, what motivates US foreign policy when it comes to Iraq? As the global hegemon following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the decision by the United States to invade Iraq is seen by realists as an expression of American unipolar military might and assert its position in the international system. Saddam Hussein represented a threat to the peace and stability of the post-Cold War international order and the United States intervened to protect its national interest. Accordingly, the American decision to invade Iraq in 1991, following Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait can also be explained from a realist perspective. Since realists understand that states act in an inherently anarchic environment, the decision of Iraq to abrogate the sovereignty of Kuwait threatened the global balance of power. As the hegemonic state following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States felt a realist need to invade Iraq to return the situation back to the global status quo. Liberals would take an alternative perspective and would argue that instead of invading Iraq due to the perception of threat posed by alleged nuclear weapons – later found to be non-existent – the international community should work with Iraq or with its Arab neighbors to provide a multilateral resolution to the pending conflict. Instead of anarchy, which characterizes the perception of the international community for realists, liberalism would look to the international community and international institutions to help solve the pending conflict in Iraq. Accordingly, liberals believe in multilateral solutions to the worlds’ problems and would see the American intervention of Iraq as blatant aggression by the world’s most powerful state (Dunne et al, 2007, 89-107). As history shows us, the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 and overthrew the tyrant Saddam Hussein. The decision by the United States to invade Iraq remains mired in controversy and one of the most important events of the twenty-first century. Today, the Iraqi state is in shambles, a civil war is brewing and following the invasion, the United States failed to find weapons of mass destruction – the alleged reason for the invasion. Which international relations theory can account for the invasion? Realism best explains the decision by the United States to act as the unilateral hegemon and exert its authority in a unipolar world. The American invasion can only be understood by looking at the precepts of realism. Has realism made resurgence in the post-Cold War period? According to Kenneth Waltz, in an article entitled ‘Structural Realism After the Cold War”, it has. Waltz emphatically argues that while the structure of the international system has changed with the disappearance of the Soviet Union, international politics itself and the underlying motivations for state interest and state behavior have not. Despite this profound change within the system, the system itself, according to structural realists, has not been transformed. Transformative of the system may occur one day, Waltz argues, but not until states become motivated by things other than self-interest and if anarchy no longer exemplified the condition of the international order. That is not the case and “until and unless a transformation occurs, [realism] remains the basic theory of international politics.” While liberals may argue with this assertion, both liberalism and realism remain important theories of the international order. Despite this of course, realism is the best theory to account for the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Waltz, 2000, 5-41). BIBLIOGRAPHY Dunne, T. 2007. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity Oxford: Oxford University Press. Morgenthau, Hans. 1951. In Defense of the National Interest. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Morgenthau, Hans. 1948. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948. Waltz, Kenneth. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill, Waltz, Kenneth. 2000. “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” International Security vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 5-41. Weldes, J. 1991. Constructing National Interests: The United States and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Read More