Differences Between Realism And Classical Neorealism - Admission/Application Essay Example

Differences Between Realism And Classical Neorealism 1) Main difference between realism and classical neorealism Both schools of thought consider the state as the primary actor in international relations, and this entity often struggles to balance power with others (Booth 515). Primary differences between realism and neorealism include the sources of international conflict, the relevance of state power and the methodologies used to study international relations. In classical realism, it is assumed that international relations can be studied through subjective means while in the former school; scientific methods are used to understand the subject. Additionally, realists believe that international conflict arises from man’s imperfect nature; conversely, neorealists say that disorder in the international system is what causes war. Scholars such as Hans Morgenthau explain that human nature has basically been the same since ancient times, so characteristics like selfishness and self centeredness can always be countered on to predict human behavior. People like Keneth Waltz, who is a prominent neorealist, claim that human nature is not so significant; instead, one ought to dwell on structures within the system that determine how people interact with each other. The Waltz camp holds that many states often find themselves in an anarchic system, so they must adjust accordingly in order to thrive (Hastings 12). 2. Key difference between classical liberalism and neoliberalism Classical liberalism holds that state preferences and not state capabilities determine how certain states will act; this perspective contrasts sharply from realism because it acknowledges plurality among states. One state may prefer economic stability while another may want democracy; this makes it difficult to predict their behavior. In this school of thought, it is assumed that concerns about politics and security are not the only motivation for interactions between states. Classical liberalism also accommodates the role of the economy and culture in these relations; the school thus distinguishes between high and low politics. The theory postulates that cooperation can take place in international relations, and anarchy does not have to be the order of the day all the time. In this school of thought, it is presumed that states can use cultural capital in order to achieve certain goals. Furthermore, cooperation can lead to absolute gains thus acknowledging the fact that peace is indeed possible. Conversely, neoliberalism acknowledges the significance of anarchy in international systems, but unlike neorealism, the role of anarchy in international systems is not very important. Neoliberals believe that cooperation is possible but this must be done within the game theory perspective in that parties must balance mutual gains and losses. Unlike liberalism, which postulates that anarchy within the international system can be eliminated, neoliberals believe that anarchy is always a constant in the international system (Chandler 32). 3) Most effective theory Constructivism appears to be the ideal theory for understanding international relations because unlike other schools of thought that are predicated on a series of assumptions, this one focuses on perceived realities or ideas in shaping interactions. Neorealism seems to be too rigid because it holds that concerns over power and the need for security in the midst of anarchy will determine certain outcomes (Checkel 69). Conversely, neoliberalism is also rigid because it is predicated on economic systems, cultural factors as well as other high factors in explaining relations between states. These prerequisites prevent the latter theorists from truly interpreting goings on in any process of conflict or cooperation because they have certain foundational components that explain behavior. However, constructivists simply acknowledge that fears, threats, goals, identities and other perceptions shape international politics, so outcomes are not predicted by certain structural factors. For instance, if North Korea expands its military reach, traditional allies may not interpret these factors negatively, yet antagonists like the US may more be more concerned. 4) Theoretical perspective that predicts a peaceful relationship The theory of neoliberalism predicts a peaceful relationship between a stronger China and weaker United States because it is the theory that dwells mostly on mutual cooperation. In this perspective, it is assumed that economic dependency and other factors work in tandem with security or power concerns in determining how states respond to one another (Mearsheimer 391). A strong web of economic dependency exists between the two nations currently; in fact, the 2008 global recession illustrated just how interconnected these two nations are. Since the rate of economic growth and population size favor a stronger China than the US, it is likely that a degree of contestation will arise between the two nations over domination in international politics. However, because both nations have to balance out their mutual gains and benefits, it is likely that the contestation will not manifest as a military conflict. China is a nuclear-armed state and so is the United States; therefore, engaging in battles with one another will be too costly financially; a war may not take place. 5) The role of the United Sates in the world and how foreign policy demonstrates this The United States perceives itself as the most powerful nation in the world; it therefore feels that it has the responsibility and capability to shape interests and preferences among other nations (Jackson and Sorensen 55). The material power enjoyed by Americans ensures that hegemonic culture is supported by other mechanisms; for instance, transnational culture emanating from the country legitimizes norms and rules within the international system. The US supports a hierarchical view of international relations, and has put these forward as universal institutions that ought to be followed by all members of the international system. Foreign policy in the United States has often focused on reducing potential challengers to sources of hegemony with utmost attention given to entities that possess nuclear arms. The US has military power that is unlike any other, and this is also coupled with its economic strength; therefore, other nations are unlikely to question its authority. Foreign policy has also focused on maintaining hegemony by selling certain ideologies and by securing the US’s economic interests. This implies that most moves made by the nation often resonate with these outcomes and work towards keeping it in its place. 6) How and why environmental factors can contribute to conflict In case one takes on a neorealist perspective, one can attribute conflict due to environmental factors to the absence of a mediator or leader in the international system. In this school of thought, all other nations and their actions may be potential threats to security and eventually conflict. The security dilemma highlights state actions as environmental dilemmas; sometimes, a nation could engage in the expansion of its weapon systems. This can be interpreted as a real threat even though this may not always be the case; therefore, the second nation may also expand its military forces in response to this threat. The original state may be disturbed by this action, and seek to counteract their effects by again expanding the system. According to the neorealist school of thought, sources of conflict from the environment stems from the anarchic nature of the external world. This causes nations to feel vulnerable and exposed thus promoting them to help themselves; even agreements between the entities may not shield them from attack, as no one knows who will break the pact (Lieber 90). Conversely, a liberal perspective on the matter would state that environmental challenges come in the form of an absence of international organizations that forge peace and change. When multinationals and other institutions are not tied to particular nationalist interests, then countries will lack an incentive to cooperate with one and may even engage in conflict. 7) Whether nuclear weapons can stabilize global security Nuclear weapons can indeed become stabilizing factors in global security owing to the costs of war that they bring about within a nation. It is likely that states that possess nuclear weapons are likely to keep away from armed conflict because they know of the dire consequences that may result from their use. This fact is clearly visible when one looks at the logic of self help systems; states must help themselves because they live in an anarchic international system. In order to do so, they often have to rely on the use weapons and even nuclear arms for security (Waltz 45). However, if states can achieve their own objectives of security without the use of force, they are likely to explore these means. War becomes more unlikely when the gains that accrue from the war are supplanted by the costs of the fighting one another; this is quite true for nuclear weapons. A typical example is the case of the Cuban missile crisis; the stakeholders involved showed exactly how nuclear weapons caused both parties to think strategically. President Kennedy and President Khruschev knew that if a fight ensued between them, there was no guarantee of a loss (Waltz 45). Furthermore, not winning was not their only concern, the nuclear weapons would have caused them to lose all they had. It is for this reason that the two state leaders exercised extreme prudence and chose not to launch an attack. 8) How to fight terrorism and whether the US has been successful In order to fight terrorism, it is essential to have an integrated leadership structure and significant unified command among counter terrorist stakeholders. It is also critical to understand the nature of a terrorism threat and be willing to engage in long term development of intelligence among those concerned. Utmost coordination must be evident between nations such that others can use investigations carried out in one part of the world in other countries. Effectively fighting terrorism should also involve countering the radicalization of groups; especially the youth and disengaging pathways involved. US Success is evident in the war against terrorism after the September 11 attacks; first, no other major attacks have been initiated against the US thus indicating that the country must be very vigilant against these actions. Additionally, terror arrests have been occurring around the world including countries like Turkey, Germany and Denmark; these arrests prove that countries are aware and utilizing counterterrorist strategies (Jackson and Sorensen 132). The Al Qaida has been at the center of the war against terror since 9-11, and the rejection of their ideologies by Arab states indicates that success is occurring. The country used violent means to attack terrorist havens around the world, and even though this generated a lot of debate about the sustainability of armed confrontation in this war, it has yielded some positive outcomes. Sunni tribes in Iraq have violently rejected the ideologies and prevalence of the terrorist group. Even highly respected Arab leaders have criticized jihadists’ actions by condemning their tactics and the fact that innocent blood has been shed. 9) China and its present and future role in the world China has always had a policy of noninterference in other nation’s affairs; the West and the US in particular are the nemesis of this because the US even puts pressure on people to embrace their values. China has always respected the sovereignty of other nations and has solely focused on economic goals when interacting with other nations. China may invest in a country regardless of its military predispositions; for instance, the West has instated sanctions against Iraq owing to nuclear threats. China has continued safeguarding its economic interests by investing in the country, and this is despite warnings from the West about the country political standings. The West may interpret this as assertive because the country wants to pursue its strategies at all costs; even the regimes currently in China have been questioned by the rest (Mearsheimer 380). The increased assertiveness in Chinese foreign policy should not come as a surprise because the country has enjoyed continued economic and financial success. In the future, it is likely that this assertiveness will continue, and may be manifested as unwillingness to compromise with other nations. Once the latter approach continues, then resentment against China will prevail and this may spread throughout the West. China is likely to see itself as an economical leader in the future, but the depths to which it will go to maintain this leadership are questionable. Eventually, retaliations against an aggressive leadership may cause the nation to focus on integrating itself with the global order and becoming more responsible towards its foreign partners. Works Cited Booth, Kein. “Navigating the absolute novum: Political realism and political idealism.” International Relations 22(2008): 510-526. Print. Chandler, David. International state building: The rise of the post liberal paradigm. London: Routledge, 2010. Print. Checkel, Jeffrey. “Social constructivisms in global and European politics.” Review of International Studies 30(2004): 68-73. Jackson, Robert and George Sorensen. Introduction to international relations: Theories and approaches. Oxford: OUP, 2013. Print. Hastings, Fintan. An analysis of the key differences between classical and neorealism. n.d. Web. 21 May 2014. Lieber, Keith. War and engineers: the primacy of politics of technology. Itaca: Cornell University Press, 2008. Print. Mearsheimer, John. “The gathering storm: China’s challenge to US power in Asia.” Chinese Journal of International Politics 3.4(2010): 381-396. Print. Waltz, Kenneth. “The spread of nuclear weapons: More may be better.” Adelphi Paper 171(1981): 45. Print. Read More