Realisms Depiction of International Relations - Essay Example

? Realism’s Depiction of International Relations In the current world, realism continues to presents an accurate position of how international relations work. Realism theory endeavours to understand world the way it is, tackling the dynamics of power and interest that states hold in their interaction with other states in order to control global politics. Due to this understanding of world politics, realism is at the centre of both theoretical and global political disputes, offering a point of reference against which competing ideologies frequently identify themselves thereby making the theory a rhetorical and conceptual axis on which political and analytical debates revolve. Even as countries seek to influence international politics, economic interest, with a view to gain the most, determines how a realist state will handle its affairs with other states. The aim of this essay is to prove that realism theory offers an accurate depiction of international relations where the essay will rely on arguments for and counter arguments of realism theory to support its stand. To highlight effectively a realist’s depiction of international relations, the essay will rely on key assumptions like basis for cooperation among states, the balance of power politics on actions of power seeking states and the effort by other players in the balance of power politics to limit such ambitions. Realism is seen as a theory that advocates for limited cooperation between countries. According to this view, realism calls for countries to peruse individual absolute gains. Therefore, even when a state is satisfied with the level of compliance with the bilateral agreements signed by the two states, the state following realists’ assumptions might nevertheless exit from such arrangements because the partner is achieving relatively greater gains (Tang 2010). However, the world has now become a global village making it difficult for any state to avoid cooperation with others (Gujral 2009). Hence, no state can pretend to work alone without seeking any form of cooperation from the others. The realists’ view on international cooperation should be seen in the context of the need for states to protect their interest given that the intentions of partners might not be to trade but to gain a competitive advantage either in trade of security. Therefore, in entering any agreement with any country, a state is always aware of the likelihood of cheating and the potential comparative gain that might result from the arrangement (Simpson 2001). Due this fear, courtiers must act to safeguard their interest so that in case of partners’ noncompliance with the bilateral or multilateral agreement, the state is not exposed to economic or security risks (Grieco 1999). Such a move should not translate into limiting cooperation with other states, but as a measure that will protect the country from exploitation by its partners. Realism has also developed to accommodate new trends that characterize international relations. Economic globalization has made it a must for cooperation as opposed to isolation of country from outside influence. Industrialized countries have been able to reap a lot of benefit due to this improved cooperation with other states (Jackson & Sorensen 2007). Such cooperation has become apparent especially with countries like USA, which traditional follows the realist ideology to increase its interaction with others for greater influence and economic gains. Although globalization has made cooperation among countries inevitable, different countries do not trade on the same platform. Some countries benefit more than the other does in any international agreement. Since every country is serving its interest in the agreement, some countries are bound to gain more than the others do, as is mostly the case when developed countries trade with third world countries. Developed countries use their superior economic and technological power to get cheap raw material from developing countries and then sale the processed products back to the developing countries at an exorbitant price (Ezeani 2011). Furthermore, as trade imbalance between developed and developing countries continues to be a norm in international trade, the belief by liberal international relations theorists and liberal theorists that states can increase their efficiency and benefit simultaneously from trade does not address the fact that one partner benefits more than the other does gaining an unfair advantage. Modern realist looks at the other implications of trade that liberalists overlook. For example, liberalists do not highlight the trend that is common in international trade like zero-sum game where in dealings between developed and developing countries, the developed countries gain a lot at the expense of the developing countries (D'Anieri 2011). Historically, realists point to the fact that balance of power politics is what has maintained peace among Europe countries (Kaarbo & Ray 2011). This balance of power has maintained global peace consequently limiting the chances of another world war. Events leading to the Second World War indicate the role balance of power politics plays towards establishment of world peace. Using world war two as an example, Papayoanou (1999) notes Adolf Hitler’s ascension to power during a period when the French, British, and American were weakened by the breakdown of international economy destabilized the balance of power. Hitler saw this weakening as a reason to believe aggression against any country would not be countered effectively as the basis to invade Poland, which in effect sparked world war two. This balance of power politics as presented by realists depicts the international relations as it is in the current global trend (Kaarbo & Ray 2011). Countries control the balance of power through reading of other country’s intentions in dealing with global issues (Kegley 2013). During the war in Libya, the Europeans and Americans intended to fight on land with the hope that they will gain more control over oil resources of the country as it happened in Iraq. The allied forces were denied their wish of fighting on ground, thus they had only to take part in air strikes. This portrays how the military superior countries do not always get what they want because of other realist governments that seek to ensure there is a check and balance on activities of other states (Papayoanou 1999). In addition, international organization presented by liberal institutionalism cannot stop countries from acting according to the balance of power system, calculating how each of their moves affects their relative position in the in global arena where stiff completion is the order of the day. Realists argue that international institutions cannot provide a muscular and timely response to aggression by power hungry states (Kegley 2013). A good example of this is the Syrian case where the government has taken part in the bombing of civilian habitats killing many yet the international institutions could not move in to stop the killing. Another key example of failure for liberal institutionalism to depict international relations is the failure of international institutions to act on the threat that North Korea’s accumulation of nuclear energy post to international security. Therefore, countries protect their interests by trusting in their own power and not on an international authority (Woods 2010). In conclusion, international relations are guided by the need of states to get the best out of its interactions with other states. To achieve this, states will seek to protect their economic interests and further their influence in the international politics. The failure of international institutions to be tough on aggressive states has increased the need for countries to act in their best interest due to the stiff competition in international politics and economy. Only the established balance of power can dictate how far a state can advance its interests. Given this global trend, realism accurately depicts international relations. References D'Anieri, P. 2011, International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs, Connecticut, U.S: CengageLearning. Ezeani, E. 2011, The WTO and Its Development Obligation: Prospects for Global Trade. London, UK: Anthem Press. Gujral, K. 2009, Viewpoint: civilization, democracy, and foreign policy, New Delhi, India: Allied Publishers. Grieco, J. 1999, Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: a realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism. In: Lipson, C., & Cohen, B. J. (Eds.). Theory and structure in international political economy: an International organization reader, Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press. Jackson, R. & Sorensen, G. 2007, Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaarbo, J. and Ray, J. 2011, Global Politics, Connecticut, U.S: Cengage Learning. Kegley, W. 2013, Update Edition for World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 2013-2014 Update. Connecticut, U.S: Cengage Learning. Tang, S. 2010, A Theory of Security Strategy for Our Time: Defensive Realism. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Papayoanou, P. 1999, Power ties: Economic interdependence, balancing, and war. Detroit: University of Michigan Press. Simpson, G. 2001, The nature of international law, Farnham, UK: Ashgate. Woods, N. 2010, International political economy in an age of globalization. In: Baylis, J., Smith, S., and Owens, P. (Eds.). The globalization of world politics: An introduction to international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More