Foreign Policy Perspectives - Essay Example

Foreign policy Introduction Foreign policy is one of the important areas that s are concerned with especially after the two world wars and the Cold War that ensued. It determines how states relate to each other and as such, policy makers need to put many things into consideration when formulating such policies. Many contemporary scholars have tried to explain how international affairs are conducted and what foreign policies should be concerned with, but their views are very divergent and a policy maker has to decide the guiding theory or view. There are three main competing paradigms: realism, liberalism and constructivism with each having different strands. This paper will explain the various contemporary views and will argue that although all of them are important in devising a good policy, realism is the most compelling perspective. Realism Realism was predominant during the Cold War between U.S and Soviet Union and guided the international affairs at the time. Realists are of the view that “self-interested states compete constantly for power or security” (Walt, 1998, p. 31). States are often in conflict as they struggle for power and dominance in the world order and as long as the balance of power is not maintained, war between powerful states is inevitable. The U.S and Soviet Union during the Cold War were thus fighting for power; U.S wanted to spread capitalism while the Soviet wanted to spread communism and secure its borders. There are various divisions of realism. Classical realists like Hans Morgenthau believe that states innate desire to dominate others is the cause of war while neorealists like Kenneth Waltz believe the reason for war and conflict is that states are just seeking to survive (Walt, 1998 p. 31). Recently new branches of “defensive” and “offensive” realists have emerged. Defensive theorists such as Robert Jervis, Jack Snyder and Van Evera believe in power of military in guaranteeing security and for their survival. These states have much faith in military force and exaggerated perceptions of threat thus use force to defend themselves but have no intrinsic interest in military conquest (Walt, 1998 p. 37). Offensive realists like John Mearsheimer on the other hand, believe the conflict arises from state of anarchy. States are thus encouraged to maximize their strengths in preparation for any emergence of revisionist power. This is because realism is based on Marxism which emphasized the role of capitalism in enhancing conflict among nations and whose solution is a revolution. For example, the U.S feels threatened by the rise of China which a socialist nation is and would do anything to maintain its dominant position in international affairs. International organizations such as NATO and UN are only of value if they serve the U.S interests and not when trying to equalize affairs among nations. Defensive realist like Evera think that war is not profitable and that in absence of militant forces such as in the post-cold war Europe, there would be peace. However, offensive realists are of the view that great powers are doomed to compete irrespective of internal characteristics hence security competition is inevitable. The U.S role is to act as Global police hence maintain peace in the world. Liberalism Just like realism, its main focus is the states. This theory advocates for cooperation among nations as the only way to end conflicts. Scholars in this field (Michael Doyle & Robert Keohane) do not believe that power is important in international affairs. Instead, they argue for democracy in believe that “democratic states are inherently more peaceful than authoritarian states” (Walt, 1998 p. 32). The democratic states aspire to be prosperous and as such, avoid being in conflict with each other but rather cooperate for future gains. This was the rationality used by U.S during Cold War to institute democracies all over Europe. Realists would argue that such gains if not shared equally among participants may lead to war as those who gain more (developed nations) become stronger than those who gain less (developing nations) making them vulnerable. However, decades of economic and military cooperation by advanced industrial powers have shown that it does not always lead to conflict (p. 33). The problem with democracies is the transition period as it is prone to war as Snyder and Edward Mansfield asserted. Furthermore, Joanne Gowa and David Spiro view the definition of democracy by states as the reason behind absence of war and not democracies themselves. For Christopher lane, democracy has nothing to do with the decision to be peaceful (p. 39). Besides, during the Cold War, states were more concerned with containing Soviet Union than democratic principles. Whatever the challenges these bring to liberalism, the fall of communism vindicated them as it showed that democracies do work in enhancing peace. Institutions such as NATO, UN, World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and non-governmental organizations are essential in enhancing cooperation and consequently world peace. This is based on the belief that it is hard for states that engage in trade or are interdependent in other ways to fight against each other. However, liberal institutionalists argue that institutions cannot force states to behave in a way against their own interests hence cooperation is only facilitated when it is in the interest of the state. The economic liberalists on the hand believe economic forces replacing power politics and that capitalism can promote peace and prosperity. They thus urge China and Russia to embrace capitalism (p. 40). Improved communication technology and transnational networks enhance cooperation among states and minimise chances of conflict as they aim for future gains rather than short-term gains; use of force is thus unwarranted. The post-Cold War Europe will be peaceful due to increased cooperation enhanced by the spread of international institutions, free markets and emphasis on liberal values. Constructivism Contrary to realism and liberalism, constructivism does not put emphasis on states but rather on individuals and most especially the elites. The main focus of this theory is the power of ideas and discourses in shaping international behaviour. Unlike Marxism which placed emphasis on revolutions as means to change affairs, constructivism puts emphasis on sources of change so as to deal with the problem once and for all (P. 41). Realism and liberalism were unable to explain the fall of communism and end of cold war and this is where constructivists came in. For them, the war ended because the “Soviet leader embraced new ideas such as common security” (p. 41). These beliefs, norms and identities shape the behaviour of state hence its foreign policy. Different interest groups in the state have different views which they share with policy makers thus affecting the direction of foreign affairs. However, there are different views of constructivism as there are in the other theories. Some believe in role of norms such as in international laws in eroding notions of sovereignty and minimising role of state power. Others view transnational communication and shared civic values as creating new forms of political association and eroding traditional national loyalties thus shaping the state behaviour. The only problem is that the theory cannot predict the content of ideas thus cannot predict how post-Cold War Europe will be or how international politics will play out in future. Main proponents of this theory include Alexander Wendt and John Ruggie. In recent years culture has gained a lot of importance in explaining international affairs. However, culture is defined in many ways and theorists have never given a full explanation of how it works hence may not play a great role (p. 42). One of the most visible contributions of culture is the work of Samuel Huntington whereby he warned of a “clash of civilizations”. It may lead to ethnic conflicts and consequently cleansing of minorities as each group tries to maintain its position. The U.S has been spreading its culture world over thus enhancing its dominant position but this may clash with other civilizations. Each theory has its strengths and weaknesses as enumerated in the specific discussions but each is essential in its own light. As Walt puts it, there are also signs of convergence between different scholars as each acknowledges the views of others (p. 42). For example, realists are aware of the importance of nationalism, militarism, ethnicity and other domestic factors besides power relations while liberalists do not dismiss the role of power entirely. Constructivists also embrace realist ideas of powerful states and also liberalists’ economic and material forces. Although all these paradigms are essential, realism has proved to be the most important in explaining international affairs. Most of the states especially advanced ones such as U.S worry much about maintaining balance of power and possibilities of major conflicts hence are always defending themselves. For example, the U.S is much concerned about the rise of China as this may alter balance of power and the U.S intends to maintain its position at any cost (p.43). It has thus embarked in various policies such as expanding NATO into Russia, and engaging in peace efforts in Bosnia. Reference Walt, Stephen M. 1998. International Relations: One World, Many Theories. Foreign Policy, (110): 29-46. Read More