This school of thought focuses on ways in which power affects the international arena by assessing how states influence each other as the most important actors in world politics. Realpolitik pays attention to political power matters such as military preparedness and industrial capacities, ignoring issues of morality, ideology and other social aspects as reasons for actions of states. In this way, realism sets up a strong framework for understanding short-term, interstate relationships, yet leaves the comprehension of deeper, long-term issues weak in the background. Power politics maintains that human nature is generally selfish. This belief comes from their understanding of the trends in international relations.
Brett Daniel defines these two in a simpler way; strategy is often called the ‘what we want to accomplish’ while tactics is referred to as the ‘how we are going to accomplish it.’ From the above definition, terrorism is a tactic used by a group of individuals to advance their beliefs and gain more power within a state (strategy). CONCEPT OF TERRORISM Since the 9/11 event, terrorism has been becoming more rampant and violent in nations of the world. Getting to the bottom and providing a solution has also been increasingly difficult and one of the main reasons is the lack of a confound definition. “Terrorism in the most widely accepted contemporary usage of term, is fundamentally and inherently political. It is also unavoidably about pow... ... middle of paper ... ...errorist attack known as 9/11, as a state, they came out stronger nation with strategies in how to not only defeat terrorism but help other states overcome and stand against attacks.
If Iran opts to oppose American diplomatic engagement, then they become a destabilizing power in the Persian Gulf and Middle East. Either way, Iran’s stand on nuclear programs presents a direct threat for the American interests. International Relation Theories According to Realism school of thought, national issues and security concerns overrides ideological, moral and social issues. This theory argues that humans are by nature self centered (Walt 31). The realists argue that states are by nature aggressive and always occupied with security issues.
For the purpose of this essay, I will assess the strengths and weaknesses of Neo-Classical Realism; focusing on the theory’s core assumptions about the International System and how it interacts with units. I will discuss the theory in relation to the international politics of the region, with particular reference to the build up to the Iran-Iraq war. Neo-Classical Realism has updated and systematized certain insights from Classical Realism , as well as incorporated key tenets from other Realist paradigms. For Realists, the International System is anarchic; creating the conditions of self-help and a balance of power, both of which determine state behaviour . Proponents of Neo-Classical Realism contend that it is relative power in particular which determines a state’s foreign policy .
Despite the emergence of alternative approaches, realism remains the dominant theoretical perspective towards world politics. Realism is the traditional path that emphasizes the centrality of the state on the world stage and the pursuit of national self-interest above all else. Realism tends to be extremely pessimistic, hence the influencers of realism: Thomas Hobbes and Hans Morgenthau believe that humans by nature are selfish, aggressive, violent, unlikely to change, and that conflict is inevitable. Why have people become like that? What are major predictions by realism?
However, from another perspective, it is also apparent that politics itself produces its own series of conflicts. For example, realist theories of international relations maintain that politics is itself defined by struggles for power between political actors. This thesis is also clearly valid for a political actor such as a nation-state’s internal politics, as in democracy, for example, there is clear conflict between political parties regarding what policies to pursue. Accordingly, conflict is unavoidable for politics. The question as to whether political institutions in contemporary societies remain adequate to resolve conflict is in this sense profound, to the extent that it is a question concerning the essence of politics itself.
Power has been related to different forms such as political economic, military and even psychological. Power has widely been considered to be the classic determinant of conflict between interstates. Realists view power as a source of state preference. Animosity is constantly caused around power relations which in turn determine why states go to war and why politicians emphasize the role of power in conditioning distance. There is a non-linear relationship of power between the plural perspectives of realism.
The human condition and its significance to International Relations have been in debate for centuries. Classical Realist thought has focused on the inherently aggressive and selfish nature of man and assumed that it is these qualities that ensure war and conflict are inevitable aspects of human society. Alternatively, neo-realism emphasises the system structure of international politics. R.J. McShea discusses the significance of the human nature tradition throughout the study of international relations. The endeavour to rid the world of the evil of war and the advancement of the conditions for peace have been developed from the assumption that the interaction of the states, and the way they ought to conduct relations among themselves, are dependent upon the nature of man.
Realism is a theory that suggests the need for anarchy in the global arena, whilst at the same time realist doctrine suggests that stability can only be achieved through a “balance of power”. With this said, are the doctrines of Collective Security and Defense fundamentally different from realism or does the idea of a “balance of power” mean that even the anarchical law of Realism is destined to seek order or at the very least is at the mercy of its necessity? Evaluation of the bounds of realism and the examination of the “practiced” institutions of Collective Security and Defense can hopefully clarify this. It is essential therefore to define the fundamentals of realism, collective defense and security in order to understand the differences between them and possible correlating factors necessary in the overall evolution of Realism/Neo-realism. Realism as defined, actually applies to pretty much anything.
On the other hand, neoliberalism contributed to clarification of the complexity constituted by different actors and problems in the issue, while demonstrating the rationality of states, as well as the birth of the institution forming international norms. Therefore, the author believed the two perspectives are not contradictory, but complementary. Analysis Framework Neorealism-Structural Realism What neorealism believes is fear and distrust originated from the anarchy of international system, resulting in the pursuit of power for survival. As stated by Mearsheimer (2010), power is the currency of international politics. The statement addressed a simple but important question: “why do states want power?” While “human nature” is always claimed by the classical realism, the neorealists, or the structural realists such as Mearsheimer specified the structure or architecture of the international system which forces states to pursue power.