Essay on The Reality of Political Realism

Realism is an international relations theory with a lineage that dates back to thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli and Thucydides (Forde). Because the conditions for international relations are inherently anarchic, with neither hierarchical power nor expectation of reciprocity to enforce cooperation between actors, realists insist that the sole responsibility of the state must simply be self-preservation. As foreign policy specialist George Kennan wrote, “other criteria, sadder, more limited, more practical must be allowed to prevail” in spite of morality.

President Woodrow Wilson had secured the political clout to establish foreign policy after World War I. However, the Europeans, especially the two major powers in Europe, England and France had the right to be circumspect of several aspects of Wilson’s plan. The German Delegation utilized President Wilson’s analogy that, “no single fact caused the war, but that in last analysis the whole European system is in a deeper sense responsible for the war…” (Comments of the German Delegation, 1919). European leaders could have taken offense to Wilson’s plan. President Wilson’s represented a nation that was protected by thousands of miles of oceans, and during the war the United States suffered no loss of infrastructure and economically their markets made money during the war. However, that was not the case for the European political leaders. They truly had an ax to grind against Germany. France with closer proximity to Germany than England elected to be protective and leery of Germany’s intentions after the war. Germany on the other hand was distraught over the terms laid before them by the Europeans at the Paris Peace Conference. The Germans believed they were being singled out, and that through the attrition of their sovereign territory they were losing vast economic resources and their ability to establish self-determination and self-preservation.

Another principal attribute that disqualifies realism in debunking the Afghanistan War is the fact that America made concerted efforts to gain support from the United Nations (UN) before commencing the invasion. This contravenes the assertion put forth by the realist theory that, a nation does not take the international system or organization into consideration when taking actions directed towards safeguarding its survival. The autonomous action stipulated in realism is particularly essential when a state is threatened and cannot afford to trust other nations. In

The states are the most important actors in realism. Realism is a broad intellectual tradition that explains international relations in terms of power. More specifically, when states work in an effort to increase their own power in relation to other states. With Realism there are claims made, such as the world is a harsh and dangerous place, and the only certainty in the world is power. If a state is powerful, that state will always outlast its weaker competitors. In addition to this, the most important and reliable form of power is military power. Another claim is a state’s primary interest should be self-preservation, and due to this, a state should seek power and protect itself. Realism has a very defined foundation, and that is dominance. The looking glass of realism sees the world through recognizing the winner and the loser.

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 one of the oldest and most popular theories in International Relations. It offers a perspective about competition and power, and can be used to explain the actions between states. An example of realism is the U.S. reaction – or lack thereof – during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

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.

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

Realism tends to focus on the struggle for power between states in an anarchic international system. The major actors of realism are the states themselves. Realism presents a realistic view of international relations and focuses primarily on how the world is literally, rather than how it ought to be. Realist believes that states are rational, unitary actors whose aim is to enhance their power and security by all means. There is evidence that Iraq was a unitary actor who, just as the realists believe, fought in order to enhance its power and security. Though, some could argue that the Persian Gulf War was justified, there is sufficient evidence that concludes otherwise. Whether or not the public considered the Persian Gulf War justifiable, the main issue is that it was a battle that resulted in the death of thousands of lives, both soldiers and civilians.

Realism, liberalism, and Marxism are all different perspectives that can be used to analyze situations and aid government officials to understandings and agreements in relation to trade. Lawrence Herman 's article focusses on the potential destruction of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) caused by the disturbing and unacceptable proposals by the United States president, Donald Trump. There are many different views on Free trade but three main perspectives are the realist views, which claim that all nation-states have to rely upon their own resources and security and act in pursuit of their struggle for power and self-interest, liberal views, which approve of free trade, and lastly, through Karl Marx’s theory of Marxism.

Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism as theories used in the study of International Relations

In a world where the drive for power and the will to dominate are held to be fundamental aspects of human nature as the Classical Realists would argue, the necessity for International Organizations cannot be dismissed as some liberalists argue. According to Iriye 2002, IGO’s consists of institutions that come into existence through formal agreements among nations and represent their corresponding governments (Iriye 2002, Pg. 12-14). With that in mind, some liberalists argue that joining international organizations and institutions like the United Nations socializes some leaders so that their motivations are more benign (Dunne 2011, Pg. 103). I am convinced to a certain extent with this idea as I feel that even though classical realists argue that every man has within him the desire to rule or the desire for power (Dunne and Schmidt 2011, Pg. 90). When several leaders come together all from different IR theoretical backgrounds (liberalists, realists, constructivists) each decision they make comes collectively thus not leaving too much room for their individual biases based on their theoretical perspectives to impact important international relations issues "negatively". Although I highly doubt if anything can be done to control the human desire for power accumulation as a classical realist would say, a part of the psyche of man, I do believe the liberalists argument to be of substance.

Realism focuses on the balance of power and how it impacts of actions of state actors within the international political system. Morgenthau said that, “The aspirations for power on the part of several nations, each trying to either maintain or overthrow the status quo, leads of necessity to a configuration that is called the balance of power and to policies that aim at preserving it” (Morgenthau 1967,131). He goes on by explain that not only is the balance of power and the policies that protect it inevitable but also that they are essential for

Realism in international relations theory is one of the dominant schools of thought in international relations. Realism or political realism prioritizes national interests and security concerns in addition to moral ideology and social reconstruction. The term is often associated with political power. The term is often associated with political power.

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.