How Significant Are the Events of September 11, 2001 for Realist Assumptions - Essay Example

How significant are the events of September 11, 2001 for Realist assumptions? Do they fundamentally undermine Realist assumptions? Theorists of Political Science have watched as the world’s nations have adopted, or attempted to adopt, various theories about International Relations. Ever since human relationships evolved into societies we have had to learn how to relate to each other. There are many different theories that have been adopted in this decade alone, and the current state of the world suggests that International Relations will continue to ebb and flow until society destroys itself or learns to get along. Liberalism was the prevailing practice prior to the Cold War, then realism became popular. Following the Cold War there was a return toward liberalism, and currently the pendulum appears to have swung back to a convoluted type of realism. Discussing these theories is much like watching a really good tennis match - there is a constant volley of back-and-forth with no end in sight. The main reason for this most recent shift back to realism is the terrorist attack against the United States on September 11, 2001. On September 11, 2001, the United States suffered an act of terrorism that transcended the attack on Pearl Harbor that led to U.S. involvement in WWII. Terrorists hijacked domestic airline flights and used the planes as the tools to destroy the World Trade Center in New York City and to damage the Pentagon. Over 3.000 people were killed, and the world was silent with shock. The ease with which the terrorists carried out this act and the unexpectedness of the event led the world’s nations to once again turn toward realism in regards to International Relations. The theories of liberalism and realism are at opposite sides of the spectrum. The late 1980s and the 1990s saw a trend toward liberalism. Proponents of liberalism stress the ideas of interdependency and cooperation among the nations (Haque, 2003). Realism, on the other hand, assumes that anarchy is the norm and each nation sees the others as a constant threat (Owen-Vandersluis, 2000). In order to survive this anarchy, nations must be self-sufficient and able to protect themselves against real or perceived threats. Nations commonly focus on military strength, making sure that they are powerful enough to prevent attacks from others. A perfect example is the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War in the 1970s and early 1980s. The end of the Cold War resulted in new attitudes on behalf of the American people. They focused on living with peace, rather than antagonism, and were confident that democracy had solved the world’s problems. America focused more on foreign aid and less on military spending. As the Soviet Union broke up into separate countries, a unipolarity of power was created, with the United States as the one remaining superpower. America joined the other industrialized countries in assisting third world countries, offering aid with health care, nutrition, and population management. They worked together to solve environmental issues and address the human rights abuses of other states. After September 11, 2001, America and other nations are experiencing the emergence of a different kind of realism than that which was envisioned by one of its leading proponents, Hans Morgenthau. Morgenthau envisioned the black-and-white, good versus evil relationships amongst nations (Morgenthau, 1978). The realism that has emerged since September 11, 2001 has been labeled ‘neo-realism.’ Supported by Kenneth Waltz in publications after this tragic event, this “new” realism is concerned with the “logical character of state behavior in an anarchical world” (Shuja, 2001). For realists as well as neo-realists, the normal behavior of the individual nations is to be suspicious, even hostile, toward each other. However, neo-realists do not assume that war will occur, rather that it may occur at any time (Haque, 2003). It is this possibility of war that was neglected by nations during the past decade as the probability became less substantial. Realism is perhaps the most established theory in academia (“Alternate Lecture”). The behavior of the world’s nations after September 11, 2001 support that this is most likely the natural state of International Relations. The Bush administration offers a textbook example of the realist perspective. During the Clinton years, there was no specific enemy. George W. Bush inherited America during a time of relative peace. After the terrorist attacks, the Al Qaeda was identified as an enemy. Military spending was immediately increased, and new laws were enacted to protect America’s borders. In response to the attacks the United States government has increased military spending, fortifying its armed forces, aviation, police, and information networks both worldwide and domestically. It has created policies and directives including the Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, the Airport Security Federalization Act, the Bio-Terrorism Act and the USA PATRIOT Act (Haque, 2003). New governmental agencies have been created, such as the Department of Homeland Security and the Anti-Terrorism Task Forces. The United States is not alone in its turn toward governmental dominance. Australia has adopted the Security Legislation Amendment Act and the UK has adopted the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act. Supporting the military dominance pursued by the states under realism theories, military spending world wide has increased dramatically. The proposed defense budget for the United States in 2003 was $379 billion. This was a 14% increase over the budget for 2002. During this same time period, the proposed budgets of Russia, China and Saudi Arabia showed similar trends with spending increased by $4 billion, $2.5 billion and $8.5 billion, respectively (Haque, 2003). Rather than undermine realist assumptions, the attacks on September 11, 2001 reinforce these ideas. The world’s nations pulled back to examine within their borders and became less interested in liberalistic ideas such as the welfare of others and environmental concerns. The United States has returned to a “superpower” attitude, and it has identified a group as the enemy, rather than a competing nation. Instead of being a bi-polar world, with countries picking sides between either the United States or the Soviet Union, the United States is shaping a uni-polar world. After the attacks, President George W. Bush went so far as to demand that states “choose sides,” (Haque, 2003). The “sides” are ambiguous - the United States versus terrorism. Despite the resurgence of realism and the trend to increase military dominance, the United States and other nations need to come to the realization that they cannot be independent and survive. Trading partners and allies are required, even if they are not fully trusted. The United States and the Soviet Union set an example of this when they became engaged in conflict regarding placing missiles in Cuba in 1962. Despite their confrontations with each other, both realized that it was to their benefit to agree to a resolution rather than risk a nuclear war. In this way, neither state gave up any power or authority, and the entire global community benefitted from this reluctant agreement to disagree. Perhaps it will take a new theory of “liberalistic realism” to show the states that they can - in fact, they must - get along. Although a strong military presence may make other states less likely to attack, the same effect can be gained by making them not want to attack in the first place. Liberalism can coincide with realism, if concessions are made. Cooperation and pursuit of mutual state interests should supplement military presence. The United States is currently alienating as many states as it is gaining for allies. As Haque predicts in his article, The Revival of Realism in International Politics... “In the new realist atmosphere of world politics the United States may become so assertive that it will overlook legitimate international rules, aspire to change states or regimes allegedly supporting terrorism and post a challenge to basic international norms.” In order to survive, the United States, along with the other nations, must discover a compromise between these two extremes. References “Alternate Lecture on Realism and Neo-Realism.” Introduction to International Relations . Spring 2003. Cascadia Community College. 5 April 2006. Brooks, Stephen G. (1997). Dueling Realisms (Realism in International Relations). International Organization, vol. 51, no. 3. Retrieved 07 March 2006 from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/brooks.htm Haque, M. Shamsul (2003). The Revival of Realism in International Politics after September 11 and Its Ethical Impact. International Journal of Politics and Ethics, vol. 3, issue 1. Morgenthau, Hans J. (1978). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised. (pp. 4-15). New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Owen-Vandersluis, Sarah (2000). The State and Identity Construction in International Relations (pp. 7-30). London: Macmillan Shuja, Sharif M. (2001). The Historical Myopia of International Relations. Contemporary Review, vol 278. Retrieved 07 March 2006 from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel Read More