International Relations: Realism and Liberalism - Essay Example

?WHY DO LIBERAL THEORISTS CLAIM THAT REALISTS HAVE COMPLETELY ‘OVERLOOKED’ THE SPREAD OF ‘LIBERAL PEACE’ IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS? Tutor: Date: Introduction International relations theory has been dominated by the realism because during the World War II liberalism was replaced being a paradigm. With time, liberals restructured their surfaces since they witnessed the state being challenged and they were sure the realists were not ale to account for anything that was going to happen. Since then there has been misunderstanding between the two paradigms. In order to better understand the two paradigms, differentiating the two will not have solved the problem nor will have answered the intended question. Although at some point, some scholars have not understood well on the two phenomenons because of crucial issues that is the international anarchy, how it affects the states in conjunction to problem experienced because of cooperation. War and peace have always been conflicting concepts that have existed for generations. The idea of war is not only diametrically opposed to peace but it also enshrines an ideology completely different to that of peace. Our understanding of war and peace in International Relations is guided by how states interact with each other, what causes them to remain at peace or go at war, what causes them to cooperate or become hostile towards each other and so on and so forth. In order to realize the importance of peace in International Relations (IR) it is important to understand why and how conflict-situations arise, the dangers associated with conflicts and the alternatives available to conflict inducing political discourse. Liberalism and Realism are two theories that address these opposing views on peace and conflict in International Relations. In order to furnish a paper on the aforementioned question a systematic approach will be taken which will identify the key points of this essay. The paper will begin with a discussion of what Liberalism and the Liberalist theory are and what they purport. The paper will then progress to a discussion of what Realism entails. This framework will help develop a basic understanding of the discussion that will follow. Some of the most important aspects of this paper will be to identify what each theory seeks to achieve and more importantly how it does so. Linked to this fundamental argument will be the concept of interdependence of states followed by a simultaneous country analysis. Following this theoretical framework will be an analysis of the question that will be addressed at three levels: First, the need the Liberalists put forward to employ Liberalist ideologies in International Relations; Second, the right that will justify Liberalism as being better and more practical than Realism; and third, the major criticisms that they hurl at Realists and the problems associated with Realism. This will enable the understanding of why liberal peace is important in International Relations, how it can be achieved and what are the dangers associated with its absence. After a systematic disintegration and reintegration of the question the conclusion will then encapsulate the reasons, logic and theories behind the Liberalist claim, how they have a better alternative and whether they’re justified in doing so Morgenthau, Hasn J. Poltics Among Nations 5. Outline The question that is to be tackled is ‘why do liberal theorists claim that realists have completely ‘overlooked’ the spread of ‘liberal peace’ in international relations?’ in the first instance, an attempt will be made to define the topic in respect to the current world. The paper will be aimed at analyzing all that seem to revolve around this question. The paper will first start by giving a short introductory report which will act as the basis of the report. In order to work well in this assignment, a background of what has been happening in the past will be connected to what is currently happening. In doing so, a clear picture will be illustrated in the essay. When analyzing, a comparison will be made on the two variables, that is liberal and realists in respect to the peace prevailing. Finally, a short summary will be illustrated giving the stand on whether liberal theorists do claim that realists have completely ‘overlooked’ the spread of ‘liberal peace’ in international relations or not. Goals Specific objectives that will be focused by this paper will include: 1. To critically analyze the question and come up with a clear truth concerning the matter. 2. To investigate on whether the liberal theorists are really right on their claims against the realists. 3. To determine the truth of the matter Peace theory and war theory Enclosed in the international system, protection against cruelty is the main objective that surrounds these two phenomenons. Although liberals tend to give an assurance of a protected nation/state realists on the other hand are up raising attempt illustrate their Although the idea of Liberalism in International Relations is a product of the 20th century its core ideals were laid down in the age of Enlightenment by intellectuals and visionaries such as John Locke and Kant. Liberalism was institutionalized after the World War 1 by President Woodrow Wilson through ‘League of Nations’ that was believed to mark an end to wars and was further propagated by forefathers of American democracy. The core ideal of Liberalism is that state relations are the most important thing in world politics. This ideal purports tenets like economic and political interdependence and mutual cooperation in world politics. Liberalism arises from theories like the ‘Democratic Peace Theory’ which state that nations are inherently averse to war and will maintain peace with each other (Jackson). Under a liberalist view individuals are free from authority with the right to free choice and will. Sovereignty and integrity of a state is important which is achieved through individuals in a state and collective action in world politics. In a liberal democracy the state actors are individuals believed to be rational individuals whose primary aim is to promote the interests of their people through a sovereign government of the people. Liberalism assumes that state preferences guide state behavior whereby states determine their preferences in light of all the political restraints and develop a policy which promotes harmony with other states or at least does not cause friction. (Moravcsik). At the heart of liberalism is economic interdependence which increases cooperation because of mutual benefits and resource and good provision thereby reducing the threat of conflict due to competition and fight for national security (Jahangir). Liberalism also touches upon the concept of hegemony. Morocco, China and other liberal democracies are great followers of Liberalism. Completely opposed to the Liberalism, at least theoretically, is the concept of Realism which was created and propagated by Machiavelli, Thucydides, Hobbes and Morgenthau. Realism is characterized by competition between states for power, security and scarce resources. Realism on the other hand believes that humans are intrinsically competitive and driven to seek glory and self-interest (Hobbes). International Relations, therefore, becomes a vicious circle of power and domination characterized by war and conflict simply by virtue of human nature. There is no deterrent for states to act morally and therefore in order to protect themselves and uphold national security in international politics states indulge in competition which inevitably leads to conflict and war (Drezner). Neo-realism takes a different approach of explaining the same behavior by purporting that states cannot cooperate with each other in peaceful co-existence because of the absence of an overriding authority in the structure within which states exist. In the absence of hegemony states may be motivated to act immorally as there are no checks and therefore in order to protect themselves other states must rely on themselves only. This Realist perspective reveals that Realists are pessimistic about peace and interdependence being propagated through liberalist policies and believe that the only way to guard a state is by indulging in a state of perpetual competition for security (Mearsheimer). Realism takes a more pragmatic approach and argues that states in a constant condition of threat to security which is why the danger of conflict leading to war is always looming large. It has restricted possibilities of peace in world politics and views coercive power as a guiding light in International Relations. The battle between Serbia and Bosnia was a disaster unleashed because of realist policies. Unfortunately the horrors of the World War 2 also trace their roots in realist theories whereby after Nazi victory was primarily because of its Realist beliefs. According to the Realist theory world politics are devoid of morality and the only ethical responsibility of a state and state actors is to pursue self-interest in the greater interest of national security. When a state is powerful in international politics it will try to expand that influence by coercive power. Operation of the two paradigms The main principles of Realism are quite succinctly summed in Morgenthau’s book, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. According to Realism the policies and theories purported by Realist theory are rooted in human nature itself and transcends to world politics and International relations. The idea of Realism predicates interest of the states in terms of how powerful they are. This idea negates the concept of economic and political interdependence and interstate cooperation. Realists are aware of the fact that Realism is devoid of moral and ethical discourse, which it justifies on the ground that ethical and moral discourse do not apply to interstate dealings (Morgenthau). Having established a solid theoretical framework of the two schools of thought the discussion then naturally boils down to the most important subject of this paper; peace. With the existence of states around the 16th century came the pivotal question of the sustenance of states. According to International Relations experts peace and peaceful discourse is central to world politics in order to avert the looming threat of another World War 2. Ever since the destruction and havoc that the second World War wreaked on the world, things the Holocaust and the Auschwitz all called for a pressing need to establish a system of attaining peace in the world through cooperation of states. States cannot exist entirely independent of other states due to political and economic relations and the idea of coercive power fails here. The danger associated with coercive power and competition is that states when consciously involved in hostility will eventually end on the brink of war due to limited resources, enormous threat to security and unlimited power. Horrors of history and lesson learned from therein establish the beauty of the need for liberal peace. Here is where the idea of Liberal democracies comes in; because states must co-exist there has to be a democratic system that allows individuals to exercise their rights to free will, free choice and autonomy through a system of a democratically elected government. This government will be sovereign and liberated of any external pressures or coercive powers as present in Realist regimes. Realism has been pessimistic of and completely overlooked the possibility of the spread of liberal peace in International Relations because of an isolated approach. Firstly, Classical realism believed that the inherent nature of man is immoral, malicious, and competitive and power seeking therefore the states within which they exist by default will be a superimposition of human nature to world politics and interstate relations. This however, isn’t true; the ideas of free choice, will and autonomy grant a democratic sense to individuals within states and states therefore become sovereign representatives of these individuals. It is for this reason that states and, individuals and state actors can maintain cooperation by seeking mutual benefit and reducing sources of conflict. Secondly, the interest of the state and the concept of security are vested in power (Drezner). In fact, power, and most times, coercive power is how Realism finds its way into international politics. This is also a great handicap to attaining peace and cooperation. Where power may play an important role if absolutely needed, a democratic process, such as that of liberal democracies, dilutes the role of power and concentrates the role that democratic negotiations play in International Relations. Because coercive power will inevitably lead to conflict and thus war, it is better to find a point of consensus and mutual benefit given the constraints of all states and state actors. This way the security of one nation is linked to the security of the other and the well being of one nation is linked to the well being of the other. Therefore, the possibility of achieving peace is much higher. Because Realism states as being in a condition of constant competition the chances of cooperation are minimized and so is the likelihood of attaining peace. When the concepts of competition and immorality are rooted in and justified by public policy it leaves little motivation for states to be compelled into acting in harmony with each other. As the dominance and security of a certain state depend on how much power it can exert and then expand, states are indulged in this vicious circle of power which is only in the interest of the more powerful nation. This leads to formation of allies, resentment within other states and may also give rise to pervasive problems of today’s world, such as terrorism and uprising. The aforementioned drawbacks of Realism not only impede the spread of peace through systems such as liberal democracies but also reduce the efficacy of a regime. Particularly in the context of modern International Relations a classic Realist approach is highly impractical to say the least. Granted that the liberal democracies do have their problems, Realism does not alleviate the problems of security and world politics in any way. If anything at all Realist policies only exacerbate the problem. A balance therefore needs to be struck between the two schools of thought whereby the possibility of peace does not exist as mutually exclusive to security. The nascent concepts of neo-liberalism and neo-realism are probably what a pragmatic, effective policy would entail depending on whether or not it’s a liberal democracy that creates a sovereign government through its people. The dangers associated with pursuing hard core Realist policies are too high for the security and sustenance of a state in today’s volatile world. A liberal approach to politics is, therefore, imperative in order to maximize absolute gains and reduce conflict situations to avert the threat of a third World War. Conclusion This paper has made some assumptions on the liberal peace and that although contiguity shows greater substantial significance, t is simplicity, and it is often skipped over for variables that are beneficial to conflicts on the international relations. Despite the fact that realists presume issues to the liberal peace, controversies emerge from the as a result of trade. As illustrated, the scoring each failed dyad year of conflict as a new conflict. While not controlling for the dependency of subsequent dyads failure on the first, results in misinterpretation of the statistical and substantial significance of certain variables. In further provision of dependency or reciprocal causation problem, statisticians have nullified importance of trade. On the other hand, towards the end of the cold war, new theoretical considerations expanded the logics available in creating liberal peace. As pointed out earlier, it is possible to increase the attention to economic considerations and domestic priorities weaken the ability to shape security postures in isolation from other macro-political concerns. Bibliography Drezner, Daniel W. "The Realist Idea in AMerican Public Opinion." Perspectives on Politcis (2008): 51-64. International Relations Resource Center. 2003. 27 February 2012 . Jackson, Patrick Thaddues. U.S Diplomacy. 2010. 27 February 2012 . Jahangir, Hamza. e-Internationa Relations. 19 February 2012. 27 February 2012 . Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, "Political Realism in International Relations", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Mearsheimer, John S. The Israel Lobby and U.S Foreign Policy. Massachusettes: Harvard kennedy School of Government, 2006. Chapter 4. Moravcsik, Andrew. Liberal International Relations Theory: A social Scientific Assessment. Working Paper. Massachusettes: Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, 2000. Morgenthau, Hasn J. Poltics Among Nations:The Struggel for Power and Peace, fifth edition, revised. New York, 1978. pp. 4-15. Read More