Thus, US foreign policy is a discourse for reproducing American identity, containing threats to its core principles and legitimating global actions (Campbell 1998, 70). The Cold War era ended America’s historic vacillation between isolationism and internationalism. The Truman Doctrine committed, in part to “support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or... ... middle of paper ... ...In a rapidly evolving international system, the US is at the forefront and yet is most threatened by the emerging multipolar order (Zakaria 2009, 43). The contemporary foreign policy of the US reflects an evolution of the policies pursued during the Cold War.
And states seek security through balancing the distribution of power. Second, polarity, which is determined by distribution of, has a significant impact on the choice of balancing behavior of states. And consistent with the history, this theory suggests that states are more likely to go to war under multipolarity while a bipolar system is relatively stable because of security dilemma between two great powers. After this, I will discuss two liberal critiques of the theory and further explain why realist theory best explain the onsets of these events. First, both liberals and realists agree that international system is anarchic and survival of the state is the primary interests (Marten 9/19/2011).
Introduction Historically, realism has been the dominant theory of International Relations which explains the fundamental features of international politics, inevitably associated with conflict and war (Chiaruzzi, 2012, pp. 36). Basically, there are two approaches of realism; classical realism and neorealism. Classical realists strongly emphasize on historical reality and takes its principles, orientations and practice from the account of history (Chiaruzzi, 2012, pp. 37).
Among them were Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Together they would advocate for American hegemon... ... middle of paper ... ...hat necessitated the war. That these systemic forces are of greater importance than the possibility of an underlying ideology in the Bush Administration and are reaffirmed by the cause/effect of 9/11 and the war in Iraq. But this perceived reaction would not have been possible without the filter through which the global situation was being processed, namely neoconservatism. And this is truly where neoconservatism trumps defensive realism.
Wolfers (1962) notes that it as an ambiguous concept because there is no universal understandings of what constitutes national security. Because of this, theories of International Relations have been important in explaining states’ motives and how they go about maximising state security, if it is their prime objective at all. This essay will first analyse the concept of national security through realism, which focuses on military power. It then assesses the liberal understanding, which espouses cooperation through liberal internationalism and broadening the concept of national security. Then, the constructivist position discusses the roles of political actors in placing emphasis on certain security issues to heighten it to a national security concern.
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". 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.
CLASSICAL REALISIM Classical realism is “concerned with questions of order, justice and change at the domestic, regional, and international levels.” (Lebow, 2010) Power is at the core of the foundation of classical realism and the reason for this is because clas... ... middle of paper ... ...eferences: Doyle, Michael W. and G. John Ikenberry, eds. (1997) New Thinking in International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Westview Pres. Dunne, T., Kurki, M., Smith, S. (2010). Classical Realism.
Finally, the success of the US and the defeat of the USSR allowed testing international relations theories and reconfiguring the world order in terms of power. This essay will analyze why Western states favor the realist approach to address security concerns. The document will present the United States of America (US) as the icon of the modern Western world. In the same way, the content will be examined under the scope of its politics and military power. To begin with, it is necessary to highlight that one ruling principle of realism supports the argument that, ‘states exist in an international system that is characterized by competition and war’ .
National Sovereignty, Oppressive Government, and the US Role in the World Introduction The American attack against Afghanistan that was triggered by the September 11th tragedy once again raised the question of US role in the world. The current military intervention also touched the issue of the major factors, defining the course of US international policy. In the globalized world today the ratio of “soft power” (the ability to attract through cultural and ideological appeal) to “hard power” (a country’s economic and military ability to buy and coerce) used in solving international conflicts is constantly increasing (Nye 2). However, military campaigns still provide a way out of deepening international crises. Should America, then, engage in indiscriminate humanitarian interventions, advancing its ideas of democracy, human rights and liberty, or should it be militarily concerned only with international affairs that have a direct bearing on US vital national interests?
Military interventions abroad to protect the interests, property, and livelihoods of Americans became a common practice among presidents. They justified increased interventions as part of their job. Fisher sees the “Roosevelt Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine as playing an instrumental role in expanding executive power. Roosevelt argued that the United States could utilize the military to intervene in other countries not just to protect Americans, but also promote the country’s foreign policy goals. Fisher believes that this is problematic leading to unnecessary interventions.