How Kenneth Waltz Argument Of Offensive Realism?

At this point in time, the main actors in the international system are nation-states seeking an agenda of their own based on personal gain and national interest. Significantly, the most important actor is the United States, a liberal international economy, appointed its power after the interwar period becoming the dominant economy and in turn attained the position of hegemonic stability in the international system. The reason why the United States is dominating is imbedded in their intrinsic desire to continuously strive for their own national interest both political and economic. Further, there are other nature of actors that are not just nation-states, including non-states or transnational,

The current overwhelming dominance of the unprecedented modern American empire in the realm of world politics generally agreed upon by experts and scholars around the world. There is little to refute the argument that there is any state that comes close to the strength of the Americans in a vast number of areas, most notably economically and militarily. Present debate among experts in the field of international relations revolves around whether the Americans can maintain their primacy for upcoming generations. Robert Dujarric and William Odom, both experienced and respected scholars of international relations, declare in their 2004 work, “America’s Inadvertent Empire,” that America is in a solid position to keep a tight hold on its place at the top. Vividly explaining America’s path to dominance while emphasizing the current state of domination, the authors effectively present the abilities of the empire while also illustrating the potential threats that could bring it down.

In present day now we still have problems with power between countries now. In an article by Toby Craig Jones he starts out saying how the in the Middle East the oil production has enchanted global powers and the United States has been particularly powerful. It is surprising on how we are the ones in power even though we aren’t the ones producing the oil. All this oil production is happening in the Middle East where Americans aren’t really liked because we had troops their taking control of things. From being over there more and more terrorist groups are rising trying to take over the power. All countries are fighting for the same thing, power.

Nye elaborates the three distinct sources of soft power: culture, political values and foreign policies; and also hypothesizes the limitation of soft power. Moreover, he interprets the altering role of military power and an interaction between hard and soft power. The confronting situation he mentioned that a balance between military and soft power is playing an important role is terrorism reinforced by global information age. Finally, he classifies today’s power in an international information era into three aspects: military power, economic power and soft power; and again he maintains the growing existence of soft power. He presumes that America will be no longer the great nation, and Asia will take place. Also, non-government institutions and groups will possess their own borderless soft power; therefore, political game in near future will depend on multiple routes of communication that define problems and diffused cultures and ideas which relate to global prevailing

However, both rely on how the U.S. came to be what it is today: power. Thus, power is an American virtue. Although the world is changing, this phenomenon is not new. There will always be a new thriving nation, a devastated one, new technology and science, but what doesn’t change are the lessons learned from our unique history. Power is what has guided the U.S. from its past and into the current world order. These two conflicting ideas also resemble two types of power that can make up a U.S. foreign policy. In a world transformed by globalization and terror organizations, it is important to develop a foreign policy strategy that reflects the context of modern society to protect American

Realism and Liberalism are two extremely prominent theories of international relations. These doctrines exhibit sagacious perceptions about war, foreign affairs and domestic relations. The fundamental principles of protocol in which we rely upon aren’t always apprehensive (Karle, Warren, 2003). By interpreting the data one could fathom these ideas. The assessment of these faculties wield noteworthy dominance about the concepts of international affairs. In analyzing this data, you will comprehend the variant relationship between Realism and Liberalism.

Realism is a theory that depicts world politics as a ceaseless repetitive struggle for power. In other words, political realism seeks to explain international relations between states in terms of power. Realist “views that nation-state as the most important actor…because it answers to no higher authority;” in other words, it is an anarchic system (Kegley, 27). Some traits of realism are that states are sovereign, non-cooperation among states, and the exclusion if morality in policies.

In his article, “The Future of the Liberal World Order”, John Inkenberry discusses what he sees as a global shift in power, from the Western and Northern powers such as the United States and Great Britain to the more Eastern and Southern developing states like China, India and Brazil. This potential shift in power has sparked a fear in many people. This fear, as the global power switches from West to East and North to South, stems from the thinking that these new nations that are coming to power will abolish the liberal world order that we all know. I however believe that instead of challenging the United States for power and changing the world order to more reflect their ideologies, these emerging nations will instead seek a greater position of leadership in the already existing world order. Firstly, I will provide an argument of Inkenberry’s main arguments and why realists’ have started to worry. Second, I will show how China is rising to threaten the United States superpower position in today’s world order, and finally I will illustrate ways which show that China is not challenging the Liberal World Order and why.

In this essay the conservative theories of Realism and Liberalism will be compared and contrasted in connection with the study of International Relations. Post World War I International Relations was established as a formal discipline with the eructation of the Woodrow Wilson Chair at the University of Wales, given the worldwide urgency to create international order and stability in the wake of the war. Realist in International Relations view human nature and the states behaviour practically and truthfully, adopting a matter-of-fact attitude instead of visualising how the political institutions ought to function. Liberalists

One of the stronger points that classical realist theory made is the idea that war is inevitable. For the time period upon which classical realism was thriving, it was much more likely for interstate conflict to arise as there was no strong central system of collective security like the United Nations. A state and a neighboring state could and would co-exist with each other, but realist theory assumes that eventually conflict will arise from power conflicts between them. The real achilles heel of this theory shows here; this just is not the case in the world anymore with worldwide collective security.

The current international system is fragmenting rapidly since the end of the Cold War. A lot of regions in the world are still trying to find the balance of power in the international system, which the U.S. often intervenes to provide its brand of “global leadership”. Some countries like China are emerging as a global power since a few years ago. Subsequently, this will lead to a major threat to the U.S. status as a global major power. The rise of power by China in the international scene signifies the unpredictable nature of the international system. I would argue that the three most critical challenges for the U.S. arising out of this environment are the future world globalization that will cause a conflict between its domestic and foreign policy, the rise of China as a global power, and the ever globalization of terrorism. I believe that the U.S. should be pragmatic in handling its foreign policy and handle each situation independently without a fix doctrine in order to minimize the unintended consequences produced by the globalization of the world.

Morganthau (Cited in Haas,1953, pp.445) argues that the Balance of power can be viewed as either a description of any state of international politics in relation to power distribution or a policy or action intending to distribute power. From this framework we can use the balance of power to both understand static moments in history to observe where power lies at that moment in time and to look at how states themselves actively implement foreign policy for their own power related interests whether that be looking to balance the set of scales or to tip them

If we look at our world today and at our world seventy years ago we will observe many changes that world has had. Technological progress, climatic change, increasing process of globalization, view toward politics and international relations. A couple of years ago hard power was dominated in conducting foreign policy and managing international relations. As years go on, old methods of politics are becoming irrelevant, inapplicable and sometimes even dangerous. However, some states, as the USA, still used to think that hard power is quite good mean of conducting politics, while Europe is considered to be the incarnation of soft power.

According to Jackson and Sorensen (2003), the leading contemporary neorealist thinker is undoubtedly Kenneth Waltz (1979). His starting point is taken from some elements of classical and neoclassical, such as independent state existing and performing in an anarchical international system. Waltz’s Theory of international Politics (1979) seeks to provide a scientific explanation of the international political system. A scientific theory of international relations leads us to expect the certain pattern that states to behave in predictable ways. In Waltz’s view the

In “Structural Realism...” Waltz defends his theory of Structural Realism against criticism that its tenets are no longer valid in a post-Cold War world. The international system, he writes, is still anarchic, even though that system is unipolar instead of bipolar as it was during the Cold War, and that states still seek hegemony and power. A nation 's ideals and internal factors may count for something (he posits that the US intervention after the collapse of Yugoslavia was the result of such pressures),3 but they certainly shouldn 't. States should make decisions based on the idea of maintaining their own security and maintaining a balance of power in the international system.