Western states and Security Concerns

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

One of the security challenges facing the United States (US) is the US and North Korea relations. The US policy toward North Korea is diplomatic yet firm. North Korea is our longest standing adversary. Policy toward North Korea is one of the most enduring foreign policy challenges. In this essay I will discuss the security challenge of U.S. and North Korea, the theory of international relation, realism, how it illuminates this challenge and how the instruments of

Since the 1950’s North Korea has posed as dangerous threat to The United States and its allies. With North Korea development of Nuclear arms and its consistent hostile rhetoric and actions towards the United States. With the North Korea’s development of a long range ICBM, more now than ever the United States has been put into a position where its and many of its

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,

There is no disbelief that the United States has had historical conflicts with North Korea’s dictatorial leaders. Currently there have been passing threats from North Korea’s dictatorial leader Kim Jung Un to US president Donald Trump. Using current international approaches to the North Korean nuclear problem-solutions are based on the logic of crime and punishment. “According to this approach, North Korea’s crimes – possession of nuclear weapons and violation of UN resolutions – must be punished through forceful, comprehensive sanctions. Such sanctions, the thinking goes, will cause so much discomfort in the North that the regime will be at risk of collapse and Kim Jung Un will be compelled to choose denuclearization (Moon, 2016, pg. 343).” Policy makers ideally want to ensure that foreign policy is perfected to the best of their knowledge and that national security is performing to the best of their ability. “America’s main motive has always been denuclearization in line with its nonproliferation policy, especially after post 9/11 security concerns (Petrželová, 2017, pg. 10).” To avoid similar events to 9/11 posed by North Korea, policy makers should allow counterterrorism tactics to be executed as thoroughly as possible. The protection and safety of US citizens should always be a top priority for government agencies and policy makers. Kim Jong Un, North Korea’s

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

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 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.

For realist, it is necessary to prevent war, as it to achieve the national interest of a state, and to secure its security to the extent, it could ensure its survival in the international system. Thus, balance of power is important in order for the state to achieve these interests. Besides that, the realist argue that in the world politics, there is no central government to enforce law unlike in the domestic politics, thus each state has to provide for their own

Classical realist theory is based upon the idea that human nature is inherently bad and selfish, the international system is anarchic, and the state is the most important actor in international affairs. Basing policy decisions on human nature, the state looks to maximize it’s power and security within its geographic location. Realist theory sees all conflict deriving from power struggles between states, though it is not about fostering wars; rather the opposite.

This article deals with the United States and its attempts to deal with the dangerous matters of North Korea. Some of the problems that were brought up in this article were North Korea’s plan to restart a plutonium based nuclear program at Yongbyon, North Korea’s plan to build a new highly enriched uranium (HEU) nuclear program, and the tension that emerged between the United States and South Korea. Even though many problems were occurring, there were some positive things that were happening at the time. The United States began negotiating with North Korea and South Korea about establishing railroad links, demining portions of the demilitarized zone, allowing athletes to compete in the Asian games, and allowing abductees to visit Japan.

The approach of Neoclassical Realism identifies the distribution of power in the international system as independent variable, the domestic perception of the system as intervening variable and the subsequent foreign policy decision as dependent variable. Owing to the fact that, as mentioned above, North Korea has no other resources to exploit than the nuclear to shape its foreign policy, and, in addition to that, being aware of the subordinate position it has on the international stage (from the perspective of economic and real military capability), it is here argued that its attempt to

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

It can be said that in the case of the USA and North Korea, the current tensions developed further because of the start of nuclear weapons programmes in North Korea which created panic in US government (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 2017, p. 31). Realism highlights how this shift in the balance of power threatens US security as they are no longer a more

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.