Jason Ye
GVPT 200 Shirk
Mearsheimer p.29-54
September 23, 2013


  In my opinion realism is the central actor in international politics as well as the legitimate representative of our society. Measrsheime talks about how states always regard each other with suspicion, as an example when Measrsheime talked about when Germany reunited after the Cold War, France and Britain started to worries about how Germany is going to gain power from it and become a threat to them, although they have been allies for over four hundred years.
  Like the Soviet leader Josef Stalin said during a war scare in 1972: “We can and must build socialism in the Soviet Union. But in order to do so we first of all have to exist.”  The primary goal for all the states is to survive in the self-help world, and in order to do that, states have to constantly gain power through economic and military standards. For example, during the cold war, both the Soviet Union and The United State of America see each other as a threat, and in order to feel less threatened of each other, both states start to acquire more military power, so, an arms race between the Soviet Union and the U.S began. Measrasheime talked about this character of realism in the bedrock assumption part, “States can and do pursue goals, of course, but security is their most important objective.”
  Under an anarchy international relation structure, the primary goal for all states aims to guarantee their own survival, and because all states see other states as potential treats, no state can depend on another state. This tends to cause each state to view itself as independent and alone, which emphasizes on the other trait of realism, “In international politics, God helps those who help themselves” as Measrasheime would say about self-help. The other thing I strongly agree with Measrasheime is that alliance is also part of self-help and a majority of the time the ally you have today can be an enemy tomorrow. For example, during World War II, the U.S allied with China and the Soviet Union to fight Japan and Germany but soon after the World War II, the U.S allied with Japan and West Germany against China and the Soviet Union. Even after the collapse of Soviet Union, the U.S still remains an ally of Japan to counterbalance the rising power of China.
  The reason why realism is such a popular theory is because it’s been proved throughout history that states act selfish in a self-interesting world, and as Mearasheime says in the book “It pays to be selfish in a self-help world. This is true in the short term as well as in the long term, because if a state loses in the short run, it might not be around for the long haul.”

Estefania Velez, GVPT200 Constructivism

Estefania Velez

GVPT 200 – Shirk

Tickner p.15-28

            The constructivist theory that Ann Tickner supports in “A Critique of Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism” depicts the way international relations should be in today’s world. While Morgenthau claims that power is defined by the self-interest of every state, Tickner believes that power should not be a competition but instead a collaboration between states. Tickner’s cooperative strategy allows for a more globalized perspective on how to make ends meet for most states without having to go to war or live in fear of being attacked by other great powers.

            Tickner is correct when she says that international relations are mainly dominated by a masculine standpoint because society associates femininity with staying at home and taking care of the kids while the men work and make the laws. If these masculine and feminine traits were combined, international relations would become more appropriate for the nations and the political standpoints that exist today because there needs to be a balance between the dichotomies that society has created for men and women.

Realism was a suitable theory back when the United States was part of the isolationism movement because it supports the idea that states put their self-interests and security before anything else. However, things have changed since then and the United States, along with many other states, have formed alliances to maintain peace and not live in fear of being spontaneously attacked by one of their allies. Tickner’s proposal is to be on good terms with other states as a way to maintain security and allies. This is the correct path to choose because it is important to find common ground and not let nuclear weapons become involved. If states continue to increase their power by increasing their security, things could get dangerous for the world because of the accessibility that many states have to nuclear and chemical weapons.

Because Morgenthau believes that power is based on who has the most control over others, he defends the claim that states act aggressively towards one another in order to survive. This way of thinking not only limits the amount of allies that each state has, but blocks ties that could be of use in the global economy, culture and/or politics. The reality, as Tickner emphasizes, is that states need to work together to accept each other’s views and once this is done, those who share common beliefs will unite to strengthen their views. The world needs this type of perspective because, although it is impossible to know whether states have good or bad intentions, keeping an optimistic view and trying to work with them instead of against them will lead to a better outcome globally.

Constructivism is what is best for the world right now because we need a system that accepts everyone states views and ideas. Tickner’s views that knock down the stereotypes held for males and females in our society are required to balance out the realist theories that have played a large factor in international relations and in society. It is time to let realism go and allow a more understanding, open-minded theory influence the way global politics is defined. After all, there cannot be international relations if we allow realism’s security and power theories burn bridges that were never insubstantial to begin with. 

Yasemin Unal: Liberalism

Yasemin Unal

Professor Mark Shirk

GVPT200FC

23 September 2013

               It is my belief that Liberalism is the best theory to fully explain the complex structure of International Relations. This is due to the fact that Liberalism captures and explains the essence of International Relations  with regard to modern times and interests. My argument is concentrated on the fact that independent states today rely on interdependence, rationality, and universal institutions for their survival and success; therefore, Liberalism is the best suited theory, because it embodies all of these principles.

               It is an undeniable fact that today's international interdependence is a crucial element in the success building a strong economy. Interdependence allows a state to specialize in a particular field, whether it may be agricultural or technological, and produce as much of that good as possible with much efficiency. Also through this system of interdependence states cooperate with one another, which helps to build a better international community. Since interdependence allows for trust and reliance to grow, states begin to see each other as less of a threat and more of as an ally for their resources. Therefore with the world economy growing through states relying on other states for resources they do not have, it is less likely for wars to manifest.

               Wars are less likely to be a major concern for states who are interdependent due to the importance of rationality.  When one state begins to depend on other states for the resources they need to survive, it would not be in a states self interest to wage war against them. On that note rationality and self interest complement each other, because both embody that a state will act with reason and in a manner that is logical for the situation . Consequently, rationality plays a key role in Liberalism, because it helps to explain how states act and value other states. Furthermore, I find that as one state begins to value the importance of rationality in their politics, they start valuing their citizens as "individuals" with a stronger presence in government. My final point on rationality is that this process of utilizing "reason and not custom" allows for the threat of anarchy to diminish.

               Liberalist believe that anarchy does exist, but that it does not necessarily have a dominating presence due to international organizations; I agree with that thought. As a result of these institutions, such as the United Nations, it is also my argument that world conflicts could be prevented. Undoubtedly, these institutions cannot guarantee that states will obey their "international law". Nevertheless provide a good and solid foundation, since these institutions represent a higher law  and provide international "norms" that individual states can follow. On that note, one cannot disregard that these international organizations can prove fundamental in helping secure human rights in various states.

               In the final analysis, my argument has been centered on why I think that Liberalism is the major theory to help explain International Relations. This theory proves to be paramount because it's major principles is what helps guide states in securing their interests in the modern age. States undoubtedly utilize interdependence to their own benefit, through this relationship self interest is created by rationality, and the usage of international organizations help to preserve world order.  

Shiran Zecharya

GVPT 200 Shirk

Mearsheimer p.29-54

In John Mearsheimer’s scathing depiction of the fear and lack of trust that have long dominated international politics, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Mearsheimer asserts that when states exist in anarchy, one state cannot gain power and security without decreasing those of other states. Based on this realist assumption, one would conclude that China’s recent rise in power threatens the future of global peace and the US’ status as the only existing regional hegemon. This perspective, however, fails to take into account the proliferating influence of interdependence in global politics. The United States and China have become increasingly interdependent since the two reestablished diplomatic and trade relations in the 1970’s and the success of their economies rests on the prosperity of their respective markets. This interdependence will prevent tension from ensuing between the two as China’s influence on the world continues to grow. Furthermore, as globalization continues to alter the nature of international relations, interdependence will prevent future violence from occurring among states as polarity and regional hegemony continue to shift unpredictably.

Realists, such as Mearsheimer, often argue that since it is impossible to know other nations’ intentions, they constantly fear when other states make relative gains. This fear in conjunction with the security dilemma concept lead most realists to conclude that China’s growing strength could have negative implications for not only the US, but the world as a whole. As China’s power and influence continue to grow, many see the nation as becoming a regional hegemon in the east, as the US is in the west. Furthermore, many would assert that China will soon begin to promote its desires abroad more aggressively and could potentially reignite Cold War-era divisiveness and tension or, to the extreme, war. While this logic holds a great deal of validity when looking at the causes of and conflicts within the Cold War, it is unlikely that a similar situation would occur now between the US and China because of globalization and their improved economic relations.
                 These changes became apparent in the 1970’s when President Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, visited China in an attempt to reestablish diplomatic and economic relations. As China’s economy opened up to trade with the west, Chinese leaders such as Deng Xiaoping began to institute a series of reforms intended to modernize its economy. Economic changes within China and the new found relationship with the US brought the two to be principle trade partners. Additionally, it is widely accepted that China’s economy would suffer without American demand, and vice versa. Now, about a decade into the 21^st century, there is minimal evidence that China’s growth may threaten the US or lead to conflict in the future because the two are economically interdependent. Furthermore, this economic interdependence facilitates cooperation and mitigates tension between the two. Therefore, although it is unlikely that China’s growth will slow in the near future, it is also unlikely that this growth will bring about conflict.

Interdependence is undoubtedly changing the way world leaders conduct foreign policy, acting as a glue that forces states to rely on others to ensure their own prosperity. In a globalizing world, states must depart from their self help ideas of conducting foreign relations and embrace the new found interconnectedness that is altering the way states perceive each other. As a result, leaders will begin to lean toward cooperation and diplomacy as solutions to conflicts that seem to previously have been only resolvable through military might. 

Lauren Wilhelm

September 18, 2013

GVPT 200

Measrsheimer p.29-54

            Of all of the theories discussed, realism is the most accurate in terms of discussing international relations. Measrsheimer says it best when he states the five bedrock assumptions of realism. Realism calls for the most straightforward and blunt outlook on world politics and, although it is somewhat pessimistic, that’s because it is honest. One of the main tenets of realism, the issue of security, argues one of realism’s greatest points. The most important thing is in fact physical survival because if a state does not exist then what does it matter how well its economy is doing or how many trade routes it has. It must keep the state as a whole and its leaders safe and then move on from there.

Another tenet of realism that I strongly agree with is the view on power. Realism acknowledges the fact that great powers do in fact fear each other causing the constant power struggle. Relative power matters the most according to realism, which makes the most sense in the large scheme of things. If one state gains power through a means that allows another state to gain power then they have to consider all of the possible outcomes of the other state growing. For example, if the original state in question gains a large amount of power by taking over majority of another state, and this allows yet another state to use the small remaining resources from the remaining territory not yet taken over to expand and create allies, then there is potential for the lesser state to overthrow the more powerful state with its newly formed allies. Because there is always a potential threat of war or struggle with another state, powers, especially great powers must always be on the defense. Liberalists don’t always like this view because they see it as pessimistic and uncooperative but if history has taught the world anything it’s that your ally today may be your enemy tomorrow.

I also strongly concur with the realist assumption that all powers act rationally. There are many different ways to define rationality and everybody’s understanding of rationale varies. However states in an anarchic system must act rationally especially when there is such a stress on relative gains and power. A state must think through every possible decision as I discussed earlier and decide what would be best for its state as a whole. The state must think “strategically” as Measrsheimer said. Therefore rationality is key. The two tenets of relative power and rationality go hand in hand together.

           People that are drawn to realism like it so much because it is, well, realistic. It also is not just some far-fetched theory that only makes sense when you string a group of ideas together purposefully so that the only logical outcome is the one that you have created. It’s main tenets and the bases for it have been proven throughout history. States fear each other hence the constant power struggle to get a leg up on each other. They also all posses some kind of military power and will strengthen it when a fellow state does the same and they feel threatened. This is what led to the arms race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union causing the cold war. This is a perfect example in history that supports realism. Realism helps not only to describe the way states act in this anarchic world, but it also gives reasoning for why it is almost impossible to achieve “world peace”. Realism is definitely the most solid theory in my opinion and gives the most candid view on world politics.