The Realist and Liberalist Perspectives on International Relations and US Policy Stance Toward Iraq There are two prominent stances in International Relations. The schools of thought are commonly referred to as realist and liberalist. There are various names that they are called, and they can also be split further into subdivisions. However, for the purposes of this question I will just refer to the main schools of thought, and the main aims of both the paradigms. At a first glance at this question, my gut feeling is that the United States aims to achieve the same as the liberalists, that of world peace. But the current stance of the US policy is to achieve this utopia by realist methods, pre-emptive war, balance of power and deterrence. The realist stance to International Relations believes that it is the state that is the most important actor and that war is a permanent likelihood and war is never far away. The statement that can reinforce this is; "security is the dominant goal of any state"[1]. For a state to achieve its goals, the realists argue that it uses both military and economic power to manipulate International Relations in the current climate. Realist belief is that the state is the only dominant power that can influence the military to such an extent. It cannot only impose order internally, but also be used to do so inside rogue and failing states. The use of the military to achieve its goals raises the fear of another nation that, inadvertently, brings war ever closer through the distrust and paranoia of other nations. As security is the dominant goal, the state will have military forces. In a world full of such st... ... middle of paper ... ...ures politically in Iraq causing civil war and the possibility of somebody more extreme gaining power. Also the world oil market would be in turmoil should such a war be fought. This is another argument for deterrence rather then a pre-emptive war. [1] Nicholson M, International Relations, A Concise Introduction, 2002, pp93 [2] Nicholson M, International Relations, A Concise Introduction, 2002, pp 93 [3] Financial Times, 21/22 September 2002, pp1 [4] Financial Times, 30 September 2002 [5] International Herald Tribune, 28/9 September 2002 [6] Nicholson M, International Relations: A Concise Introduction, 2002, pp99 [7] Financial Times, 21/22 September 2002, pp1 [8] Nicholson M, International Relations: A Concise Introduction, 2002 pp99 [9] Financial Times, 21/22 September 2002, pp1
Between 1895 and 1920, the years in which William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson reigned in the presidents, the United States struggled for not only justice at home but abroad as well. During this period policies such as Roosevelt’s Big Stick diplomacy, William Taft’s Dollar diplomacy, and Woodrow Wilson’s Moral diplomacy were all used in foreign affairs in hopes of benefit for all involved. However, it would be appropriate to say that self-interest was the most important driving factor for American policy and can be exemplified through economic, social, and political relations.
The United States has again stumbled into an overseas quagmire from which there is no easy exit. History seems to be repeating itself when again, we are led by a group of men who launch wars without exit strategies and fail to understand the nature of their enemy. In Vietnam the United States became involved because they felt the need to stop the spread of communism throughout the rest of Asia and attempt to prevent the "domino effect." The belief is that if Vietnam fell, so then would Cambodia, Laos, etc. Vietnam was the longest U.S. war with its never ending deaths, escalating destruction of Vietnam and Cambodia, and growing danger of splitting the American people (Carter 28). In Vietnam the Americans were told that U.S. was there because the South Vietnamese asked us to save them from the communist threat. But what the soldiers experienced did not add up to what the American people were being told (Thura 9). Americans have been told that the United States is going to war against Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein, eliminate him from power, abolish Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and prevent Baghdad from aiding terrorist groups. (Anderson 5). In Iraq the soldiers are anxious with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein no longer in power the reason why U.S. is still fighting in Iraq when the war was declared over a year ago is questionable (Moore 19).
(1)Should the U.S sometimes pursue realpolitik and sometimes human rights? In other words, is it acceptable for the U.S. to someimes anything even support dictators, if it is good for the nation, sometimes pursue moral priciples when it can reasonably do so?.(2) I think the U.S. should do what is in the best interest of the United States for example, (3)Just one day after the French surrender at Dien Bien Phu, an international conference to settle the Indochina conflict began in Geneva, Switzerland. There , representatives of the French and Vietminh attempted to to map out Indochina’s future. Cambodia, Great Britain, Laos, the People’s Replublic of China, The Soviet, and the United States. Also with the Panama Canal Treaties and the Chilean Revolution.
The idea of a lasting, ideally global, peace has been present in the minds of people for centuries. The most notable formulation of this is Kant’s vision of perpetual peace. “He saw it as a condition that needed to be maintained by politics between states with governments which represented society and separation of power. From this basic framework stems the idea called “democratic peace theory” (pg. 82). Democratic Peace Theory (DPT) asserts that democracies do not generally fight other democracies because they share common norms and domestic institutions that constrain international, state actors from going to war. Sebastian Rosato states, “In practical terms democratic peace theory provides the intellectual justification for the belief that spreading democracy abroad will perform the dual task of enhancing American national security promoting world peace” (pg. 585).
The doctrine is a particular policy which advocated as government, or basically it is an idea to solve or to deal with some kind of problems or issues. There were twelve Presidential foreign policy doctrines that have been issued throughout the United State’ history since 1823. The Bush Doctrine was the eleventh Presidential foreign policy doctrine which was issued in 2001 by the 43rd President of the United States, George Walker Bush. The Bush Doctrine basically argues that the United States will go after the terrorists all over the world wherever they go and the countries which try to protect them, in addition, the United States has a right to practice preemptive attack for “confront the worst threats before they emerge.” (History News Network) In this paper, after discussing the historical context and origins of the doctrine, I will analyze this Bush Doctrine from three different perspectives. First perspective is whether the Administration followed a policy of isolation or internationalism. The second perspective is whether the president and his doctrine implemented policies that were Unilateral, Bilateral, or Multilateral in nature and the third perspective is whether Administration and doctrine were transactional or transformational.
In this paper, I intend to analyze Iraq war of 2003 from Realist and Marxist/ Critical perspectives. I intend to draw a conclusion as to which theoretical framework, in my opinion, is more suitable and provides for a rational understanding of the Iraq War. While drawing comparative analysis of two competing approaches, I do not intend to dismiss one theory in entirety in favour of another. However, I do intend to weigh on a golden balance, lacunas of both theories in order to conclude as to which theory in the end provides or intends to provide a watertight analysis of the Iraq war.
Unlike most Europeans countries, the United States of America enjoyed a rather healthy relationship with Middle East nations during the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. Possibly, this was due to the fact that the US had little or no interest in colonizing countries in the region. On the contrary, it largely participated in philanthropic and educational activities therefore attracting positive perception among the Middle East people. However, after the world war II the situation begun to change. The US, after fully appreciating the strategic value of the region, opted to increase its interest there. Particular to ensure it does not lose control of the region’s natural resources (chiefly oil), protecting Israel (which was a newly established state and possibly are strategic America ally), and finally, prevent the Soviet Union from dominating the nation (Russel & Ghabra 2003).
What does the United States have to gain from a war with Iraq? Supporters of a war with Iraq say it will help prevent the risk of an attack by a weapons of mass destruction developed by Iraq. Critics of a military action that say nothing will be gained, and the U.S. just wants to obtain the oil that Iraq controls. They claim that casualties will be too costly for America to afford. Nonetheless, America should act while others will not for fear of disturbing global peace. Iraq poses a “clear and present danger” to the security of the United States and the security of countries around the world.
Leenders, Reinoud. "Regional Conflict Formations': Is the Middle East Next? ." Third World Quarterly 28.5 (2007): 959-982. JSTOR. Web. 5 June 2011.
Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.
Military power is not the only form of power. Economic and social power matter a lot. Exercising economic power is more valuable than exercising military power.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
Classical realism originates from the ancient times of the Greek empires. This theory in international relations has dominated the sphere and the conception of world politics for centuries. Classical realists such as Morgenthau and Thucydides outline different factors in explaining politics at all levels and emphasize that politics is described throughout the theory of classical realism. Like every theory in international relations, classical realism has strengths and weaknesses that define its impact in the international level. In our current age of diplomacy, classical realism is not a common theory in current international politics. Although it is not as relevant as it has been in the past, there is potential for classical
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
In 1980, the militant state of Iraq, led by President Saddam Hussein invaded the Republic of Iran. Predicted to be an overwhelming victory for Iraq, the war took a different turn. It was an even battle, one that lasted eight years. After these eight years, the Iraqi economy was in a dire situation. Iraq's oil business was losing to other Arab countries such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who were producing more oil for less money. Iraq needed more oil money to support the massive military it had amassed. On August 2, 1990, Iraq decided to invade Kuwait so that they could obtain Kuwait's oil and possibly gain access to the Saudi oil fields. This led to political conflict that eventually started the Gulf War between the US-led UN Coalition forces and Iraq. Although the US was successful in forcing Iraq to retreat from Kuwait, they made a poor exit which allowed Iraq to keep much of their military and left Hussein in power, which in turn caused many problems in the years to come.