International_Politics

Saturday, December 4, 2010 International Politics Essay 1 2010 Name: Chan Jing Hui Student ID: 367109 International Politics Essay Topic: ‘Now that the Cold War has ended, realism can no longer explain international politics’. Critically analyse this statement. Realism should not be understood as a single stream of ideas but a theory with continuity with room for growth and adaptation as the world evolves. However, all forms of realism share the common platform of statism and sovereignty, self-help and the survival of states. Realism was highly successful in explaining the events that occurred during the Cold War. The Cold War begun with the power vacuum in the international system left by World War 2, where the basis of powers of Germany, Britain, France and Italy were destroyed and replaced by a strong US and a militarily hardened Soviet Union (Bisley 2007). The existence of these two superpowers created a bipolar power structure in world politics and hence, the breakdown of their alliance coupled with the increased tensions over Western Europe. Classical realism accurately explained the event in Western Europe where the propagation of power and domination triggered a perpetual great power competition. However, realists failed to predict the sudden demise of the Soviet Union and the unipolar international structure that emerged. As liberalism took center stage in international politics, many viewed it as the end of realism (Dunne & Schmidt 2008). Even so, it will be shown that realism is still relevant today in international politics as the world faces challenges in the form of the fading relevance of multilateralism, emergence of a powerful China, and the threat from rogue states in Iraq and North Korea. First and foremost, multilateralism today is under challenge once again bringing realism back into the picture. John Gerard Ruggie defined multilateralism as: ‘the generic institutional form in international relations that coordinates relations among three or more states on the basis of generalised principles of conduct without regard to the particularistic interests of the parties’ (Newman, Thakur & Tirman 2006, p. 5). The end of the Cold War signalled the rapid ascend of multilateralism with the growing role and legitimacy of the UN coupled with the formation of new institutional forms such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), security and economic communities such as the EU, and good examples such as ASEAN and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC). However, as these multilateral institutions continue to grow but so have their opposition. Many will point to George W. Bush’s administration in the aftermath of 9/11 when the US waged war on Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretext of the ‘War on Terror’. While the invasion of Afghanistan was justified under the realism principle of security after Al-Qaeda’s terrorist attack, the Iraqi campaign has drawn huge criticism. The Bush administration’s decision showed how multilateralism was challenged by the hegemonic power of the US through the declaration of war on Iraq without the sanction from the UN Security Council. That action may have shifted international politics towards unilateralism and weakened the role of multilateral institutions. Realism is well alive again as its characteristics of survival and security of its own nation state becomes the ultimate goal for the US (Rosefielde, Mills 2007). Furthermore, the emergence of China as a great power in the Far East in the 21st century has also revived realism in international politics. China has seen its rise as a global power, credited to its rapid economic growth. The Chinese have grown into important trade partners to the global market and many Western corporations have opened manufacturing plants there. With its growing powers, it shifted from its previous “five principles of powerful coexistence” foreign policy to “putting Chinese interest first” which supports the shift towards realism rather than liberalism (Kapstein , Mastanduno 1999). For instance, China’s economic policies are usually prioritised before taking its effect on the others. Besides, its focus on China now sees itself as a challenger towards US dominance and also faces the permanent separation of Taiwan from itself. (Rosefielde, Mills 2007). Furthermore, the Chinese view US presence in Central Asia as an American strategy to surround her, hence, her current focus in nationalism and military build up are well aligned with the realist agenda of security, balancing the power and expanding its influence in the region. In short, this development in international politics can clearly be depicted using realist principles regarding the balance of power, self-help and security. The liberals’ counter-argument is the pessimism of China’s ability to challenge the US as a superpower when its bureaucracy is still run by an authoritarian government while labour and human rights practices are still controversial. However, the current economic success of China in spite of these non-liberal principles clearly places them in pole position to rival the US s in this century. Thirdly, the threat from rogue states such as North Korea and Iran is also a convincing argument for realism in international politics today. The apparent status of the US as the sole superpower, both economically and militarily and its uneasy relationship towards these two states since the aftermath of the Korean War and the Gulf War would stem the perception in the latter that acquiring nuclear weapons would balance their power with US conventional military supremacy. The realists also believe that the invasion on Iraq would make North Korea and Iran redouble their effort to acquire nuclear weapons. (Newman, Thakur & Tirman 2006). They perceive it as a powerful deterrent to guarantee their state security in the anarchic structure of international politics where there is no overriding authority to prevent the US from declaring war on them. However, there is a counter argument presented by the neo-conservatives who say that the invasion of Iraq would serve as a warning to North Korea and Iran for them to back down from their hostility especially in regard to their WMD programme. This argument, though theoretically plausible, does not seem to depict North Korea and Iranian ambitions and their actions today. In conclusion, it has been shown that realism can still explain international politics today as it presents a strong argument for the decline of multilateralism, the emergence of China as a great power and the threat of rogue states in Iran and Iraq. It is evident that the US has used war against Iraq and Afghanistan to showcase its superpower status while undermining various multilateral agreements in the case of arms control, the environment, human rights and trade in favour of advancing its own interests. Besides, realists also theorise that with the unmatched power of the US, it is not surprising, that they are the loudest advocates of liberalism and globalisation, while most of their actions have a realist agenda (Dunne & Schmidt 2008). Hence, realism is clearly not irrelevant after the Cold War and is very much alive in international politics in the 21st century and taking it further, many have suggested that a realist century awaits us. Bibliography Bisley, N., ‘The Cold War’ in Devetak,R., Burke, A., & George, J., An Introduction to International Relations: Australian Perspectives, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007. Cox, M. ‘From the cold war to the war on terror’ (Chapter 4), Baylis, J., Smith, S., Owens, P., The Globalization of World Politics, 4th edn., New York, Oxford University Press, 2008. Dunne, T., & Schmidt, ‘Realism’ (Chapter 5), Baylis, J., Smith, S., Owens, P., The Globalization of World Politics, 4th edn., New York, Oxford University Press, 2008. Ikenberry, GJ., America Unrivaled: The Future Balance of Power, New York, Cornell University, 2002. Kapstein, EB., Mastanduno, M., Unipolar Politics: Realism and state strategies after the Cold War, New York, Columbia University Press,1999. Krasner, S., ‘Sovereignty’, Foreign Policy, January/February 122 (2001): 20-29. (ISSN 1/1/1986+). Louis Klarevas, ‘Political Realism: A Culprit for the 9/11 Attacks’, , (accessed on 26 October 2010), May 2006. Newman, N., Thakur, R., Tirman, J., Multilateralism Under Challenge: Power International Order, and Structural Change', New York, United Nations University, 2006. Rosefielde, S., Mills, DQ., Masters of Illusion: American Leadership in the Media Age, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2007. Snyder, J., ‘One World, Rival Theories’, Foreign Policy, November/December issue 145, pp.53-62. Waltz, Kenneth N. ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’,