The Realistic Theory of International Relations - Research Paper Example

Introduction: If there ever exists a where the whole world was one country, the concept of international relations would never be developed. The only thing needed in such an unlikely scenario would be the need for laws, policies and the administrative infrastructure needed to govern the place. There would be no need to have armies or foreign policies. But evolution and history have proved otherwise and the world of today is comprised of hundreds of countries divided on race, ethnicity, religion, geography etc. This realistic scenario has been fundamental in development of the idea or concept of international relations. Some of the countries have grown powerful in all respects while others remain poor and underdeveloped. Others are in the process of catching up with the powerful nations of the world. This complex scenario has been fundamental in the development of theories on international relations. Most of these theories focus on realistic actions and policies that are taken for the protection of a country and also for the wellbeing of its people. Diplomatic efforts and acts of aggression are the common steps that are taken by countries in the process of international relations. This paper will study the international relations policies of President George W Bush as can be analyzed from his recent speeches. This was done with the one very relevant theory namely realism. The first part of the paper will focus more on the theoretical aspects and the second part will focus on speeches of President Bush with reference to the theory of Realism. Assumptions of Realistic thinkers: The people who support the Realism theory portray a gloomy picture of humanity. The human values shown by people towards others happen because these humans are being governed by values in the society and also because of the laws and statutes or controls imposed on them by the state. The argument is that if there is no authority or central control in society and people are free to do what they want, the result will be violence and chaos. The worst side of the human nature will emerge. In such a case the best option is to gain as much power as possible for self protection and also not to trust anyone. It is more like the law of (or lack) the jungle where there is no central authority to control all the species that live in it. Realists say that the international scenario is like a jungle where there is no central authority. Organizations like the United Nations have no real power to act as an international governing agency. In such cases countries (the people) will take steps for what is in the best interest of the people without any regard to morality or other values. The argument is that end justifies the means. Two options are available to the players in such a scenario. To gain power and to survive, countries can attack and capture other areas ruthlessly like Napoleon and Hitler did. The other option is to see that a balance of power is maintained. This can be done by diplomatic relations, alliances or by force. Bilateral trade agreements, aid to other countries are examples of diplomatic relations. The NATO and the European Union are examples of alliances. There was a time when the US and the USSR were the two balancing powers of the world. The US attacked and also supplied arms to Vietnam fearing that the spread of communism in the country and other places may shift the balance of power in favor of the USSR. It would be effective to define realism at this point. A Cambridge University Press publication defines realism in three steps. “1. Realists assume an ineradicable tendency to evil. 2. Realists assume that the important unit of social life is the collectivity and that in international politics the only really important collective actor is the state, which recognizes no authority above it. 3. Realists hold power and its pursuit by individuals and states as ubiquitous and inescapable.” (Donnelley, p.7). An instance where this theory does not hold good or becomes ineffective is the case of terrorism. Terrorism is practically invisible even if countries who abet terrorists are identified. The terrorists do not come to the negotiating table nor do they work in visible organized structures. If the opponent is not available for negotiations or to fight with, it is not possible to think of survival or strength. A country may be hit by terrorist attack any time. Security becomes practically ineffective if suicide attacks are resorted to by the terrorists. Even a strong nation like the US can be shocked by attacks such as the September 11 suicide attacks on the Twin Towers. But there is practically nothing that can be effectively done by any country in such a situation. The US attacked Iraq and set up a new administration. But the country is still reeling under daily attacks by terrorist elements that now target civilians as well as the Iraqi and other foreign troops positioned there. The US also created a power vacuum which is not practically filled by fundamentalist groups. President George Bush’s speeches and Realism: President George Bush gave a speech to the Joint Session of Parliament which was also telecast live to the nation on September 20th of 2001 a little over ten days after the Twin Tower attacks. During this impressive speech that showed deep emotion, he kept asking questions which he himself answered. One question was how the war on terror on Afghan soil against the Al-Qaeda will proceed and how the US and its allies will win the war. He answers this question as follows – “We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.” (Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People). The President practically commits all the country’s resources to find a solution irrespective of the human and economic casualties to the US and also its allies. Here, the end justifies the means, meaning that threat from terrorism will be countered irrespective of the loss of lives and other resources (of the US and other countries). It also agrees with the second point in the definition that the state (US) sees itself as the supreme authority with regard to self-protection and power. In his speech he hinted a possible military attack on Iraq. The reason was that Iraq was making and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction (which according to the US included chemical weapons). These weapons could be used against the US and its allies and hence the regime had to be brought down even if it meant the death of innocent civilians of Iraq. The President agrees that this could happen when he says that “In the event of conflict, America also accepts our responsibility to protect innocent lives in every way possible.” (President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference: The East Room). President Bush forces a change of government on the Iraqi people whether they want it or not. He adds that once the regime is changed, it is for the Iraqi people to choose the type of regime they want once the Saddam Government is ousted from power. He does not care or at least does not mention that the new choice could be another dictatorship. All that is necessary is only to protect the US (and allies). He implies that the lives of civilians in another country are just a casualty that is inevitable in conflict. Here too, end justified means. The outrage due to the blunder in Iraq was becoming quite high in many parts of the world and also on home soil. In 2008, the President was still defending his decision to invade Iraq. He admits that there is understandable discussion on whether the invasion was a correct decision. He also says that there is confusion as to whether the country can ever win the war. His justification was “The answers are clear to me. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision, and this is a fight that America can and must win.” (Myers). The only thing that matters is that America must win at all costs. He does not seem to consider the fate of the troops and civilians of coalition forces that were with the US all along. The United States is the world’s largest oil importer and consumer. This is despite the fact that the country has sizeable reserves of petroleum. There are number of literatures which state that the attack on Iraq was not due to righteous indignation, but a move to protect t the country’s economy from being starved of oil. The major portion of oil imports come from the Middle East region. If Iraq is able to control or stop it, it would mean all sorts of problems to the US. Instead of going to war one option was to increase its own domestic production and to force a consumption squeeze on oil. Instead, the option taken was to attack another sovereign country (whatever may be the form of government followed). Ariel Cohen, who is a senior research fellow in Russian and Eurasian Studies and International Energy Security states that President Bush had admitted that America is addicted to oil. Cohen also quotes President Bush where he states that “For too long, our Nation has been dependent on oil. America’s dependence leaves more vulnerable to hostile regimes and to terrorists, who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.” (Cohen). This huge oil consumption is the country’s own making. Lot of oil is used in sports and recreation (along with industries) which goes on as usual. Only when the price of oil went up in the last couple of years it has affected many areas of the US economy. Killing and being killed to keep the economy ticking as usual also is in tune with the cliché end justifies the means. Conclusion: The President was willing to use all means at his disposal to win the war on terrorism. He was willing to sacrifice the lives of military personnel of the US as well as of coalition forces. It does not matter if the lives of innocent civilians are lost even though he adds that attempts will be made to keep this to a minimum. One of the reasons for all this loss and destruction was to see that oil imports are not hit. All these are definitely in tune with the Realistic Theory of international relations. Works Cited Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People. The White House: The President George W. Bush. 25 Nov. 2008. . Cohen, Ariel. State of the Union 2007: Recognizing the Threat of Strategic Oil Dependency. The Heritage Foundation: Leadership for America. 2007. 25 Nov. 2008. . Donnelley, Jack. Introduction: The Realist Tradition. Cambridge University Press. 25 Nov. 2008. . Myers, Steven Lee. Bush Defends Iraq War in Speech: Wahington. The New York Times: Middle East. 2008. 25 Nov. 2008. . President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference: The East Room. The White House: The President George W. Bush. 2003. 25 Nov. 2008. . Read More