NATO
We have already advanced the war on terrorism into Iraq, we have the ability to look back at it with additional knowledge. The expression,” hindsight is 20/20," is also relevant. We have additional knowledge now that we did not have prior to advancing the war on terrorism into Iraq and that knowledge can easily influence our perspective.
During the time prior to moving into Iraq, I think we, as a nation, reacted resolutely to stop terrorists and their ability to train. After the events of Sept. 11 the movement into Afghanistan I do not think met with much resistance by the American public. That same public opinion was different for the advance into Iraq.
I think the previous action, namely the Gulf War, influenced that reaction as well.
In the four major paradigms or schools of thought on international relations, the realist school of thought believes politics is a power struggle among nation-states. Thomas Morgenthau is the “father” of realism. Realists have little faith in international law or international organizations. The globalist school of thought focuses on economic interdependence of the global arena. Political and economic decisions in one industrialized nation have consequences for all other nations as well as non-state actors.
We believe President Bush acted on Iraq primarily using the realist school of thought. The realists have "little faith in international law or international organizations." The situation in Iraq had been degrading for some time as Saddam Hussein was not adhering to the resolutions from the Gulf War. We tried to get the international community and NATO to back us and agree with our position. But this didn't happen. I believe President Bush lost confidence in NATO and acted independently.
Alternately, we acted with the globalist school of thought in regards to the war on terrorism.
In the book entitled Canada, NATO and The Bomb: The Western Alliance in Crisis by Tom Keating and Larry Pratt the main issue discussed was Canada’s position in Europe, North America and their view on the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It went into specific issues dealing with political tension within Canada and tension outside Canada with other countries. It went through the years of different political parties and how they dealt with the matters of NATO.
The Bush Doctrine focuses largely on terrorism activity. According to President Bush’s speech on January 29th in 2002, he stated two goals. The first goal is to prevent the terrorists’ activities. In order to do that, the United States will shut down terrorists camps to make terrorists’ plan to be ruined and bring them to the court to give them judgments, moreover, be aware of the terrorists and regimes that would be threat for the United States and also to the world, by try to use chemical, b...
The article we were asked to read, concluded exactly what I have in my additional research. "The Bush administraion's rhetoric concerning Iraw became increasingly punitive and communitarian in tone after 9/11." The U.S. public's support for war mirror the rhetoric of Presidential policy. The way Bush shaped the policy favored the support of the American public and together with the help of the U.S. new media, "The Bush Administration engineered a moral panic over Iraw after 9/11" (Bonn, 2010).
Creation of NATO The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a regional defense alliance created by the North Atlantic Treaty. NATO's purpose is to improve the strength, well-being, and freedom of its members through a system of collective security. Members of the alliance agree to defend one another from attacks by other nations or by terrorist groups. NATO has its head office in Brussels, Belgium. "
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
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.
Both of these are international relations theories. International relations theories aid the individual in better understanding why states behave the way in which they do and “several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize” (Slaughter 1). That being said, to understand offensive neorealism, one must firstly be able to know the basis of realism in itself, as well as differentiate neorealism from neoclassical realism. Stephen G. Brooks argues in his article “Dueling Realisms” that both “neorealism and postclassical realism do share important similarities: both have a systemic focus; both are state-centric; both view international politics as inherently competitive; both emphasize material factors, rather than nonmaterial factors, such as ideas and institutions; and both assume states are egoistic actors that pursue self-help” (Brooks 446). Structural realism is another term for neorealism, and both will be used interchangeably in the following case study. Aside from these shared values that both reflect, the two forms of realism both present very different or conflicting views on state behaviour. For one, neorealists believe “the international system is defined by anarchy—the absence of a central authority” (Slaughter 2) and that states take action based on the possibility of conflict, always looking at a worst-case scenario, whereas postclassical realists believe that states make decisions and take actions based on the probability of an attack or act of aggression from other states (Brooks 446). To expand on neorealism’s possibility outlook, Kenneth Waltz argues, “in the absence of a supreme authority [due to anarchy], there is then constant possibility that conflicts will be settled by force” (Brooks 447). Neorealists look at the possibility of conflict due to the potential cost of war, due to
To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
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.
NATO, which stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established on 4th April 1949 after the World War II, as an active and leading contributor to international peace and security by creating a political and military alliance among the countries. At the beginning the alliance consisted of 12 countries and later it was widely spread to 28 countries from Western Europe and North America, situating the headquarters in Brussels, Belgium considering that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America as an attack against them all. NATO uses English and French as official languages. The motto of NATO is “Animus in Consulendo Liber”
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.
The most historically entrenched theoretical perspective in international relations theory is that of classical realism. Surprisingly though classical realism was not sensationalized in the international relations arena until World War II despite its existence in fifth-century Athens. Many great philosophers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes developed the basics of classical realism and in 1948 Hans J. Morgenthau made the great leap into contemporizing classical realism theory with his six principles of political realism, the basics placing the state as the central power in the IR system.
The discipline of international relations (IR) contains several theories that contain theoretical perspectives to the idea of power. Within the realist perspective there are two approaches that help paint the portrait of the realist theory, the classical approach to realism and the neo-realist approach. Classical realism and neorealism both have been subjected to criticism from IR scholars and theorists representing liberal and constructivist perspectives. The key tenets to realism contain three essential characteristics of international relations which are the state, anarchy and the balance of power. This essay will closely analyse all three characteristics with special regards to power being central to the realist perspective.