The Realistic International Relations Theory - Essay Example

Realism Order # 126415 The aims of this essay are twofold, to discover what are the main criticisms of ‘realist’ international relations theory? Are they justified? Focus here is restricted to the criticisms derived from the flawed fundamental principles that realism adheres to. Namely, the nature of realists conceptions of power relations and dispersion, their views on cooperation and alliance and the way that realism interacts with democratic principles and the demands of globalization. Examples will be used throughout to demonstrate how these criticisms can be justified. The conclusion is a brief summary, which reflect that realist theory employs flawed logic to justify its use in international politics and therefore is subject to heavy criticism and in turn, these criticisms are easy to justify. International relations refer to the political, and sometimes economic, relations between states. Realism is an approach to the management of international relations whereby decision-makers adopt a practical rather than a moral view of issues. Essentially, realism proscribes that we see ‘…the world as it really is rather than how we would like it to be’ (Baylis and Smith, 1997:3). Realists have a somewhat Hobbesian view of human kind and states, actors are believed to be self-interested and, in order to maintain the balance of power, often must be forced into compliance by war, which is seen as a necessary byproduct of competition. Although realism is a dominant ideology in many Western countries including the United States, it is been subject to numerous criticisms, as they are the primary focus of this essay it is to these criticisms that we now turn. Implicit within realism is a set of fundamental principles, these principles form the basis of realist ideals, yet, also generate heavy criticism. Realists reject notions of long-term cooperation with or allegiance to competing states (Baylis and Smith, 1997:141-146). We know that this is not always the case given that the international community has demonstrated that cooperation between states is possible even when they are competing for power or economic supremacy. This is a justifiable criticism for a number of reasons. The European Union is just one example of this cooperation. The ‘everything but arms’ initiative developed in the region ensures that the worlds poorest countries are permitted to export all their goods (other than arms) into Europe free of charge (Stiglitz, 2004:246). If it were as realists suggest, all nations are self-interested utility maximizers then this type of cooperation would be highly unlikely. It would probably make more economic sense for the European Union to export to these poorer nations but to leave their own markets closed to foreign materials or to command a fee for allowing access which would normally be the case. Programs like this one are genuine attempts by the international community to find a viable solution to the problems of the third world, insinuating that not all states act in self-interest and all are capable of cooperation. Further, cooperation and long-term alliances are possible. It also suggests that as constructivists have argued, it is the state itself that defines ‘anarchy’ and it is by no means a fixed element of states, rather a socially constructed ideal that only survives in states that operate under realist auspices (Bayliss and Smith, 1997:141-161). Realism contests that there is no power above the state, the state is a single sovereign, a unitary actor. Yet it is virtually impossible in contemporary times to act in a manner that disregards the position and rights of other states. After September 11 the Bush administration announced a tougher foreign policy based on realist ideals as a counter terrorist measure. Seems simple enough, realism contends that it is permissible for a state to act in a manner that ensures their security and military prowess. In theory this may be correct but in practice it had dire consequences for America’s relations with the rest of the international community. In 2001 President Bush announced his new, tougher defense and foreign policies in doing so he angered the international community for a variety of reasons. He rejected a strategic partnership with China, refused to recognize Taiwan’s independence, their calls for a separate government and did not back their entry into international organizations (Kitfield, 2001:363). Further, he snubbed a visit by the South Korean president and abandoned an already ‘done deal’ with North Korea, he withdrew many peace keepers from Bosnia despite the fact that NATO was requesting more personnel presence from coalition forces (Kitfield, 2001:363). The international communities that were affected responded accordingly, China warned that they would be reluctant to forge a peace agreement with Taiwan because America had agreed to sell arms to Taiwan. Bush expelled several Russian diplomats from America and Russia responded by releasing plans to sell nuclear reactor technology, knowledge and to increase the sale of advanced weapons to Iran (Kitfield, 2000:363). In an increasingly globalized world single sovereignty is impossible and these examples should highlight the validity of this criticism. An additional criticism of realism is the idea that it is a redundant concept in democratic societies for two reasons. First, there are international organizations equally as powerful as the states and second, which builds on from the previous notion that there can be no single sovereign, globalization does not permit a unipolar world. There are many international organizations that wield power and are capable of mediating conflict, as liberalists suggest there are alternative ways of resolving conflict other than resorting to force. The United Nations has a long history intervention in global issues. In fact, since its inception and through to 1998 the United Nations had been involved in over sixty-five peace keeping missions (Kegley and Wittkopf, 1999:525). Evidence of the power they posses is exposed when considering that prior to the renewed military attacks on Iraq, President Bush sought United Nations approval. However, he went ahead of his own accord and now is fighting a war that is becoming harder to justify. Due, in part, to a lack of Weapons of Mass Destruction, a continued aggressive presence in the region which is angering locals and global protesters (Powers, 2003). Essentially, the realist’ preemptive first strike was incorrect, conflict in the region is still raging and it appears that realist ideals only serve to aggravate many conflicts and to leave no chance for a peaceful resolution. Realism can be further criticized for its assertion that power should only be concentrated in the hands of only a few with only relative gains permissible. With increased globalization the military and economic gap between leading states is decreasing and many states are looking to challenge the United States for multipolarity. Statistics are now showing that China is set to be the leading military power by 2020 (Scholte, 1997:14-29). This prospect poses such a threat to many world leaders that there are now entire conventions held on ways to curb China’s growth. It is impractical and grossly misleading to suggest that unipolarity will survive or go uncontested in the current global political economy. In summary, the main criticisms of realism are its insistence that cooperation and alliance amongst states is not possible. There are numerous examples to the contrary including the situation in the European Union. Realists insist that there is nothing above the state yet, organizations like the United Nation wield power that is almost equal to that of the state. Further, realism is an ideology that is difficult to sustain in democratic societies where peace is preferred and force is largely considered inhumane. Globalization also exposes realism to more criticism in regard to its concept of unitary power because more and more states are able to access the same economic and military power as the unitary state. BIBLIOGRAPHY Baylis, J and Smith, S (1997) The Globalization of World Politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Kegley, C.W and Wittkopf, E.R (1999) World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 7th edition. Macmillan, London. Kittfield, J (2001) ‘In Foreign Policy, Bush II is like Reagan I’ National Journal 33.13 (March 31 2001). Pp.363ff. Powers, T (2003) ‘The Vanishing Case for War’ New York Review of Books 50.19 (Dec 4. 2003). Schoolte, J. A (1997) ‘The Globalization of World Politics’ in Baylis, J and Smith, S (Eds) The Globalization of World Politics: an introduction to international relations. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pp 14-29. Stiglitz, J (2004) Globalization and its Discontents. Penguin Press, London. Read More