Realism Approach to Eliminate Terrorism

Cam Hainey

Professor Shirk

International Politics

September 17^th, 2017

A Realism Approach to Eliminate Terrorism

            When looking at the realist theory I started to relate it to a class I took called Global Politics of Terrorism. When looking at the content of that class and the realist theory I believe that States take a realist approach when confronted with terrorism. Terrorism is using coercion because it is trying to force a state to do something and states then use coercion to fight the terrorism and force them through military forced to end the violence they have created.

            Terrorist groups threaten a states security and therefore the only way IR approach that focuses on security is realism. The first thing that I related to this class was the balance of power. With terrorism, states will come together and combine forces to eliminate or prevent terrorism from spreading or threatening states any more. This balance of power occurs among recognized states coming together to eliminate the threat of an unrecognized state. In many cases the larger more powerful military force wins, and most of the time the recognized states that combine military powers have the larger more powerful military and therefore are able to dominate the terrorist group most of the time. For example Al-Qaeda threatened the security of many states, those state (such as United States, Germany and Great Britain) then came together and created a military force that was too large and powerful for Al-Qaeda to overcome and ultimately has been reduced to a much less of a threat then they were 10 years ago.

            The “war on terror” is one that can be fueled by the need to have cultural power as well and security of a states identity and image. States view terrorists as a threat to not only the state itself and it’s survival but also the culture and identity of the state. The United States receives more support in the fight of ISIS in some sense because they pose a threat to the western culture. There values are different then the wests and the culture of ISIS is different then that of Western Civilization and Europe, which poses a threat all alone because in realism any threat to a states identity is a threat to its survival. This need to protect a states identity and culture to survive from a threat from a different culture or different groups identity is dealt with military power. This realist approach is how states approach terrorism.

Ultimately though when it comes down to it, states are worried about self help before mutual benefits. When a terrorist attack occurs in a foreign state the initial reaction of a state isn’t to send help to that state but to first decide if there is any threat to their state first. The terror attacks in France for instance, when those attacks first occurred the US sent people over to investigate, and their first priority is to decide if there is any threat to the US. With all of this, this is why I believe that in the case of terrorist states take a realist approach to solving and eliminating terrorists.

           

Why Liberalism Is Better Than Realism

There are many International Political theories around the world. Two of these theories that are very prominent around the world are liberalism and realism. In my personal opinion, I feel that realism is wrong, and that I most definitely agree with liberalism. Within the realist theory, individuals emphasize that relative gains are better than absolute gains, and that economic gains are only helpful to help improve militaristic gains. Realists also believe that military power is always dominant, instead of trying to cooperate with other countries. I personally that this couldn't be any farther from the truth, and that there are many other options rather than going to war with a another country. Liberalists believe that the world can be a very harsh place, and that the consequences of using militaristic force definitely outway the benefits that could be gained. Liberalists also believe that use of economic power is way more effective than the use of military power, and that there is much more you could gain. As well as this, liberalists believe that if universal laws were developed, they could help create cooperation between countries and eliminate the need for militaristic force. There are many examples of how liberalism has prevailed over realism around the world, and how overall realism is wrong and liberalism is right.

One example of why liberalism is better than realism is the relationship between the United States and China. The United States and China are two economic powerhouses, and if they did not have a diplomatic relationship, it could be very detrimental to both countries. Both countries recognize the other as an economic partner, and both countries benefit as a result of this partnership. This partnership helps boost the economies of both countries, bettering both countries while limiting the chance of a militaristic conflict. From a realist’s standpoint, whenever a conflict has occurred between these two countries, militaristic force should have been used to resolve the problem, instead of a diplomatic approach. If this has occurred, these countries could have lost this economic relationship, weakening the economies of both of these countries. With the liberalist theory, these countries have been able to resolve any problems diplomatically, saving the economic bond between the two countries.

Another example of how liberalism is better than realism is the creation and the use of the United Nations. The United Nations was created to help promote international peace, which is a big aspect of liberalism. The United Nations helps to stop conflict between countries, and prevent wars from breaking out. This shows that the United Nations was created using liberalist ideas, once again proving that the liberalism theory is better than the realism theory. If the United Nations was created using realistic ideology, then they would promote war and militaristic force when arguments would arise between countries, which would not benefit the world in any way. There are little to no scenarios where militaristic force would be better than a diplomatic approach, shown in past experiences where countries were completely destroyed because of war.

Those who believe in the realism theory of international politics are obviously those who result to violence, and prefer rash decisions rather than trying to approach from a diplomatic standpoint that could be better for both countries. Through these examples, it can be seen that the liberalist theory is far safer and overall better for countries around the world than the realist theory.        

Trump: Realism or Liberalism?

Caitlin Maloney

09/17/2017

Trump: Realism or a Liberalism?

         When looking at the concepts within International Politics, further examining realism and liberalism can be a fascinating topic. Especially, when taking these concepts and applying them to real life, to see which better explains a current situation. When exploring President Trump’s international policies it is interesting to see if these plans are better explained by the concepts of realism or liberalism. As Trump has begun making changes in the United States’s international policies it seems as though he is falling into the space between realism and liberalism.

         During his campaign, many thought, and some feared, that President Trump would run the country as a realist. This was due to the ongoing rhetoric of “Make America Great Again” along with his motto of “America First.” This created the notion that Trump would be taking a realist stance, placing the United States before all other countries rather than sacrificing the country’s own interests for the benefit of other states. For example, since he has been in office he has made the choice to no longer support the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a multi-country free-trade agreement, has had a great impact on America’s relationship with many countries.

         Additionally, during his campaign, Trump stated many actions that would add to this realist stance, such as renegotiating trade agreements to better suit the United States. This contributed to placing countries into competition and possible war with each other without having any concern about the situation. Along with this was he challenged military alliances to gain more income from their reliance on American protection. This was seen through his actions to not stop Japan and North Korea from going nuclear if they chose to rely less on the American strategic nuclear umbrella.

         While Trump largely appears to be acting through realism there are a few indicators of liberalism. Though he has dismantled several international agreements, since he has been in office, he has made a few new agreements that will benefit America and other states, including others not involved. This can be seen through Trump’s efforts to create a resolution to the Syrian Civil War by establishing a harmonious relationship with Russia. This will aid many countries in forging a solution to the conflict. Moreover, Trump has stepped in to help the nuclear situation with North Korea, as he would like Kim Jong Un to no longer be in power, along with dissolving North Korea’s nuclear weapons. This would come to benefit many, if not all, states as the potential of a nuclear war between North Korea and numerous states could be devastating for all of humanity.

         Overall, Trump appeared to be a realist through his campaign motto of “America First,” which had the world expecting actions that would simply suit America, rather than the benefit of other states. However, some of his recent statements have shown an interest in creating relationships that will do just the opposite. Yet, some of his actions thus far do not seem to be aligned with these thoughts. Thus, this combination of differing thoughts and actions have placed him into the gap between Realism and Liberalism.

How the Feminist Theory Could Save United States’ Foreign Policy

Masculinity is both a blessing and a burden in International Politics. From the very beginning, masculinity has been glued to politics because of large male involvement. This has led to many futile occurrences. From denying the right to vote to women, the poor, and people of color, to slavery and colonization, and, finally, to the President of the United States of America to improvise a threat to North Korea. According to Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics, “In 2016, 105 (77D, 28R) women hold seats in the United States Congress, comprising 19.6% of the 535 members; 20 women (20%) serve in the United States Senate, and 85 women (19.5%) serve in the United States House of Representatives.” As stated in a New York Times Article written in May 11, 2017, the President’s cabinet includes only 6 women out of the 33 positions, none of them being of color and all of them holding extreme conservative beliefs. The lack of feminine point of view in the US government has been costly to the nation. United States’ politics would be more efficient if it involved masculine and feminine perspectives.

The feminist theory wants to explain how gender can intermingle to make a more just government and, in turn, a more just world. Traditionally, men in powerful positions do not tend to think of military action as a last resort, but rather as one of the ways they can gain military power. By giving another perspective to an issue, women could provide insight on how to deal with world crisis in a more mature and caring manner. Typically, women consider military action a last resort, which would increase the chances of growing other kinds of power that do not threaten other countries and do not create tension between nations. The world would not have to live in the realist frame of mind, if there were more women in power or in a position to do good.

Blog 1: Liberalism vs Realism Theory

Elif Okan

17 September 20

Out of the theories we learned about I believe that liberalism is better and easier to believe than realism. I think that the United States should use the liberal approach rather than the realist approaches. While there is no wrong approach I believe the liberal one is the best out of realism, liberalism, —Constructivism, and —Feminism. Instead of talking about all four theories, I am going to compare the liberalism and realism theories. I personally believe that in order to do well you need to be able to cooperate with others and there are some things that no one should do even if it is not a written law or if you live in another country. Countries should be able to help each other and form allies when needed instead of trying to take over and dominate each other. That’s part of why we have institutions in place all over the world like the United Nations, the European Union, etc. We should be able to exchange with and help each other so we both gain something to help both states/counties.  

An example of this is terrorists. It would be easy for the United States to say that it does not involve us so there is no reason why we should get involved and we should just leave it to the other states to handle. While yes the United States went after Al Qaeda because of 9/11 so it did affect us, it does not have to be a reason for us to claim way against terror like we did. This is especially true when you look at the amount of people that died in 9/11 as compared to other things. While a lot of people died from the attack it was not as much as how many people die from other things over a year. After the United States did get involved Al Qaeda's leader Osama bin Laden was killed by US Special Forces which greatly affected Al Qaeda greatly. If the United States choose to do nothing because terrorists in general does not affect the United States greatly, then they never would have killed Osama bin Laden. 

Another example of why liberalism is better than realism is North Korea. The United States itself does not really have to worry about North Korea attacking us or bombing us because they are so far away. The countries that have to worry about North Korea are countries close by like South Korea or Japan. A realist would say not to worry about North Korea since they are not a threat to us. A liberal would say that we should be worried about North Korea and try to make sure they do not try and bomb other countries close by like South Korea or Japan. If North Korea actually did bomb countries close by like South Korea or Japan then both the United States and the United Nation would not sit still and just let North Korea go saying that it is not their problem since they are not directly involved but would instead take action against North Korea. North Korea knows this which is why it is likely that they have not done anything even though they have threated to bomb other countries and launched two missiles over Japan and into the ocean recently. North Korea has done stuff like this in the past too but nothing happened in the end. Now if there was no United Nations and each country was on its own and North Korea knew this then the way they act could have differ and they could have caused serious harm by now. I believe taking the liberal approach over the realist approach was and is better for the Unites States and other countries. North Korea and terrorists are just two examples of why. 

Taking the liberal approach over the realist approach also means that the United States does not struggle for power trying to be and remain dominant over others and instead can trade easier with others. If the United States was zero sum and only cared about the fact that if they traded with say China than China would gain more and be ahead of us, then they could not trade. Instead with a liberal approach they can see if the trade deal is good for them personally instead of comparing themselves with others and trade which could benefit them. That’s how the United States and China can trade with each other.  

Overall, I would say that the liberalism theory is better than the realist theory or the —Constructivism theory or the Feminism theory for the reasons listed above.