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.”
I think you use great examples to support when realist theory was relevant in international politics. The Cold War consisted of almost half a century of fear, unbalanced multipolarity, and relative/absolute gains; all central tenants of realist theory. as you said realism was a very popular theory but in my opinion it has lost a great deal of momentum because of globalization. You did not really mention any recent examples of realism in international politics today and I would argue that there are not many. As the world becomes more globalized, states become increasingly interconnected and involved in other state's affairs (Syria, Iraq, etc) which does not necessarily support realism which states that states should only involve themselves in other conflicts if it is in their own national interest and a lot of the time interventions may not have a lot to do with a state's national interest. Additionally, states are becoming more economically interdependent which facilitates cooperation and mitigates fear among nations because the prosperity of their nation's is dependent upon another's. I do not think realism is far off from the way the world looks today but I do not think it is a relevant way of studying international relations in a globalizing world.
ReplyDeleteLike Shiran, I agree that your example of the arms races during the Cold War Era is a perfect way to prove that realism is still relevant. However, I do not think that realism really has that big of an impact in modern international relations, with a few exceptions in the middle east. With the rise of globalization and alliances, I think that states are beginning to see each other more as resources than threats. But I agree with your statement that states are always thinking and acting in ways that would benefit them the most.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you said about states beginning to see each other as resources not threats. Also, I feel like when theorists accept that states act in self interested ways they allow it to be a norm that will not change and little progress is likely to be made. Theorists should encourage states to conduct foreign policy from a global perspective, instead of a state centered one. If states begin to make decisions based on what is best for the world rather than what is best for their country, the anarchy that prevents progress from being made in international politics will begin to lose legitimacy. While I do agree that states act in self interested ways, I am just arguing that theorists should not accept it as set in stone.
DeleteI think you make a great point when you say security is one of the most important things that a state thinks about but as mentioned in the comments above, realism is not a great concept for today's international relations because it is too narrow minded and pessimistic for everything that states have to offer today. Instead of always having to protect themselves due to fear, states should be looking for common goals and trying to find ways that they can benefit from each other. Realism was more realistic back when the U.S was part of the isolationist movement but in today's world it just doesn't seem appropriate. I think your evidence is great because it supports and backs up your argument.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you when you said realism is the central actor in international politics. I also agree that security is one of the most important things however I disagree that in order to survive and exist they need to constantly gain economic and military power. I understand where you are coming from though, that having a military allows states to protect themselves better and it is easier to do this when you have some economic gains. But, in my opinion it isn't necessary to continuously try to gain military and economic power as long as you have enough of these to protect yourself.
ReplyDelete