The Intervention And Peace Mechanisms

Realism expresses a unitary state based on fear and power seeking in order for national security. This does not mean that the structure of the international system is chaotic and full of disorder, but there is no global authority that ensures security and support on the international level. With this assumption, neorealist rely only on sovereignty and must increase the distribution of power through their own interest only. This results of a state is based on self-help actors that that are prepared at all times to fend for itself. For example, Kenneth Waltz argued that “conflict was inevitable because there is no world government. We don’t have a higher body of justice that can enforce just laws in the international arena – there is no international “911” that states can call if they are attacked. (Haupt 2016, T2L1, 8). Another core assumption is that states are very wary of other states’ motives. “States’ seek to maintain their territorial integrity and the autonomy of their domestic political order” (Mearsheimer IQ2 2015). Since neorealism is fearful of other states, survival is a leading influence since their main pursuit is dominance of another state. States’ first priority of survival is to be very cautious of other states. States have no one to ask for help when they are threatened which is why their is such a incentive for national security. With this need for security, it intern creates a dilemma with other nations building up their military for their own security. This is another reason why

I learned a plethora of information about the decades leading up to the Nigerian civil war as a result of this reading. Firstly, I never knew that the process of gaining independence was a systematized and prolonged one in the sense that there were 10-year programs established to facilitate this process, including the development and expansion of “social services, infrastructure, and local industries” (Falola and Heaton 146). I don’t know why I had always romanticized the independence of Nigeria to be an abrupt and quick toppling of the entrenched colonialist systems.

War was inevitable: ‘This simple and seemingly innocuous action broke the last thread and split the last institution symbolizing Nigeria's nationhood and cohesion which had been regularly tampered with by the politicians since 1962. The rift between the Eastern Region and the rest of the country was total’ (ibid). In a meeting convened in Aburi, Ghana, by Ghanaian general Gen. Ankrah, leader of the eastern region military Lt. Col. Ojukwu understood the real issues at hand and convinced attendees that the only way for Nigeria to stay together is that it has to break apart, effectively implying secession. After a breakdown in communication, a frustrated federal government passes Decree no. 8 of 17th March 1967, which split Nigeria’s regions into twelve states. This was seen by Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon as a pre-emptive, non-violence weapon against the east. The eastern region was split into 3 states. Lt. Col. Ojukwu unsurprisingly rejected Decree no. 8 and states that the Enugu, (capital of Nigeria’s eastern region) is headed for secession. On the 30th of May 1967, the eastern region of Nigeria declares itself as the independent sovereign state of Biafra. The Federal military fired the first bullet on the 6th of July 1967. Now this essay will turn to providing a background to the development of Realism as an analytical theory of International Relations.

Realists’ belief that, “war is unavoidable and natural part of world affairs.” According to Bova, there are over 200 sovereign states, and they all interest to gain power to defend themselves. As a result, state’s feeling of insecurity causes it to take any means to feel secure whether it is through the formation of ally with another powerful state or accumulation of military and economic power. Such action threatens other states provoke them take similar actions. This cycle applies to all states, and the feeling of threat and desire to survive is innate in humans In understanding International Relations, McNamara’s lesson is useful in the regards that actions that state takes to protect itself causes the complexity and conflicts of foreign policies that human beings are incapable of

Ikechi Mgbeoji’s book, Collective Insecurity examines the hidden causes of West Africa’s civil wars and addresses an important question: “Why has the U.N. system not worked to protect people and to enhance their welfare, as intended, in Africa and elsewhere?” In his book, Mgbeoji proposes, “the solution to African political instability lies in a structural rearrangement of the African polity for the purpose of legitimate governance of African peoples.”

40% of sub-Saharan countries have experienced civil war largely because of differences in cultural and political beliefs. On prominent African civil war existed in Nigeria where after gaining their independence, cultural differences led the Ibo people to rebel against the government and declare independence as the Republic of Biafra. “A 3 year war ensued that left hundreds of thousands dead” (Ellis and Esler 1030). Similar wars existed in countries throughout the continent, greatly hurting Africa’s economic

For realists the international system is anarchical, war is an ever present threat and the survival of a state is never guaranteed. This is why security is the main focus of most realists. States are forever seeking greater amounts of security, in a never ending search.

  In Sub-Sahara Africa, during the last four decades thirty-five major armed conflicts have occurred, taking the lives of almost ten million people. There is a high correlation between the risk of conflict and a low ranking on the Human Development Index (HDI), due to the weak capacities and inability of these poor countries to guarantee the security of its citizens, rebellions and conflict have a high occurrence rate. United Nations has observed that conflicts

Taking realism as the security argument that deals directly with state security, it is accepted that nation states have valid concerns in protecting their borders and populations within from external threats, be they military force or manifestations of problems stemming from

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

Realism theory is most descriptive of international relations when there are periods of domination by two or more nations, or when multiple nations are competing with one another to create their own security. This sort of international environment creates a rivalry of power between nations and the necessity of security. It is easy for leaders of the U.S. to argue against this perspective simply because they go unrivaled in power. The U. S. is a globally dominant nation, which plays off other states to ensure that none will grow to have strength equal to theirs. Although some might subscribe to the need of security because of the frequency of international terrorism, this is not the same form as security against another nation. Terrorism is not typically acted upon under a national flag, but rather by radicalized individuals, and so security is only an extension of the U.S.’s morals being

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

Neo-realists, on the other hand, view power as a possibly useful means to an outcome, instead of seeing it an end in itself. Waltz argues that power is a useful means and rational statesmen try to have an appropriate amount of it. Security becomes the ultimate concern for states and not power. This, according to Waltz, is one of the most important modification or “revision of realist theory.” Another modification that Waltz highlights is neorealism’s use of the concept of power as a defining characteristic of structure. Neo-realist theory defines power as simply the “combined capability of a state.”

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.

For the latter half of the Twentieth Century, the dominant school of thought related to security was neo-realism. Stemming from works produced by Hobbes, Thucydides, and Machiavelli, followers of the neo-realists paradigm sought to see the world for what it was, rather than what they wished (Crawford 1991; Terrif et al., 1991). Established in 1979