Realism v. Liberalism to fight terrorism.

The definition of terrorism varies to each state. The actions that each state choses to take against terrorism, depends on many factors including; assumptions made concerning the threat, the capabilities of the state as, well as the capabilities of its allies, and how the rest of the international community will grade the threat. The Obama administration decided to tackle terrorism based in the European model, which, takes into account that each state wants to stay as independently as possible, when it comes to economy and security.

Strategies made by any given state rely on the risky obligations and hidden opportunities. How a state chooses to encounter the issue is based on how they state will use the opportunities and oblations in its favor based on how they perceive the magnitude of the threat is, knowledge of other states involved, and how they assume the reactions will be at home, as well as abroad.

Basically, a state should make a decision keeping in mind the major facts of realism, while trying to maintain a liberal view on foreign policy. For example; the Bush administration viewed the issue as very important and high threatening towards the stability of the United States. They decided to choose the main theoretical proposition of realism, which states that each state has self-interest and they must always be fighting for security and power. By choosing this theoretical ideal the United States stopped us from relying on international institutions, depending on alliances and to shape the international systems trough spreading democracy, even if it was by force.

On the other hand we have the Obama administration, which chose a more liberal approach, which is concerned with power overridden by economic and political considerations and the desire to prosper but, commitment to liberal values. And they did this by using every resource of American power, using alliances, partnerships, working with “multilateral institutions”, and the combination of hard and soft power.

But, which approach was more successful? I would like to argue that because of the strength and the spread of globalization and the popularity of organizations that have significant political influence but are not allied to any particular country or state; A.K.A nonstate actors, the liberal approach is more affective. Although, I personally think hat the use of the realism principles used by the Bush administration set up the stage for the Obama administration and their success.

I think the liberal approach to counterattack terrorism is a good way to tackle the problem even though; liberalism ignores the role of power, it increases the cooperation of other states that share the same rules of values. By using rationality and mitigating anarchy with international intuitions, for example; IOs and NGOs, liberalism makes tackling the problem such as terrorism, easier. It sends the message of informality with other states that share the same points of view. Let’s face it when it comes to war or other matters of importance, it is better to be standing with a lot of people to back your opinions and believes up, then to be standing alone. Liberalism urges states to work together because institutions have more legitimacy than solo actions.  

While, in the other hand we have realism, which basically tells us that states are like a bowling ball and are ready to attach or “knock down any pins in their way” because, each state that is a realist will act in their own benefit with anarchy always in their mind and with strong military to back them up.

So, in a way the Bush administration, which was all about realism, used the power of the military to fight terrorism but did not get very far. It costs a lot of money and a lot of lives. Sure, it set the United States aside form the rest of the world because, after 9/11, nobody will mess with the United States, in a way I like to think that it reminded everyone that once we did drop two-atomic bombs, and it seems like sometimes the world forgets who dropped them. However, it seemed like the United Sates alone was fighting this war against terrorism and we were alone in the fight. With the Obama administration and their using of liberalism to fight terrorism, gets not only one or two states to work together but, it gets the entire world aware of this issue.  

Female Success in Politics in Response to Tickner's Principles

            Recently actress Emma Watson gave a speech to the United Nations addressing Woman’s Rights. A part of Watson’s speech that I find particularly interesting is when she points out that “women are choosing not to identify themselves as feminists,” simply because their “expressions are seen as too strong, too aggressive.” This passion and strength commonly found amongst feminists, such as Watson, are qualities that many powerful female political leaders exhibit as well. Political theorist, J. Ann Tickner refers to international politics as a “man’s world.” Thus, female leaders who overcompensate and act masculine usually achieve the most respect and power in the political world. In this blog post, I will prove my argument by giving a few examples of female leaders, who have assumed power and critique alike, based on their masculine character, and later analyze the affect of one of Tickner’s six feminist principles in the political realm.

            More woman are beginning to enter the political field, however, their male counterparts still vastly outnumber them. Why is that? According to Judi McLean Parks, Ph.D., professor of organizational behavior at Washington University in St. Louis, when people are asked to describe a political figure, “the character traits [they] associate with leadership positions are stereotypically masculine, such as being assertive or competitive.” Thus, the public generally dislikes when women violate stereotypical gender expectations because it clashes with their pre-established archetypes, such as ‘leader.’ These stereotypes and norms have kept women out of the political sphere for centuries. So when female political leaders, such as Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher acclaim power, it is clear why they receive scrutiny as well.

Thatcher and Clinton are considered successful because of the way they conduct their policies— in an assertive and masculine manner. Their character is what helps them strive in the patriarchal political arena. Margaret Thatcher was the first female Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Nicknamed the Iron Lady, by a Soviet journalist as a critique, Thatcher nonetheless embodied strength, courage, and determination both domestically and internationally. The Falklands War is an excellent example of “her resolve to stand against any threat to British interest.”  When Argentine military forces invaded and occupied British territory, Thatcher perilously ordered the British military to take back the islands. Seventy-four days later, Argentina surrendered, and the islands returned to British control.  Hillary Clinton was the 67^th U.S. Secretary of State and has been a heavy hitter in politics for decades. During her tenure, Clinton advocated for military intervention in Libya in response to the Arab Spring. She was also known for her use of smart power, a combination of hard power and soft power, in efforts to assert U.S. leadership around the world. Her tough and ambitious approach to politics is what makes her stand out in the field.

J. Ann Tickner released a reformulation of Morgenthau’s six principles of political realism in her article “A Critique of Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism.” The principles are suggestions to help us think multi-dimensionally about international relations. For instance, she stresses the idea of dynamic objectivity. This means taking different viewpoints into account, not solely the masculine view that has always ruled politics. However, as great and inclusive as these principles sound, they can’t be implemented. Politics and leadership have always been linked to masculinity. Changing archetypes, as I’ve previously mentioned, is not an easy task and is mostly always rejected by the majority. Women who have succeeded in the political field have always been attributed to having masculine traits. Margaret Thatcher, known as the Iron Lady, for her strict conservatism and Hillary Clinton known for her ambitious goals.

I’d love to see more women thrive in politics, however based on previous examples; it’s dubious that Tickner’s optimistic principles will prove successful.

Sources: http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/11287.aspx

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/rogan-thatcher/

A critique of rationality and liberalism

A central tenet of liberalism is the idea that rationality or rational thought will lead states or actors in the international system to act in a manner that will lead all rational states to being able to accomplish their self interests since they would share those interests and common beliefs with other states through bargaining and negotiation.  I have a quibble with this line of thought because actors acting rationally refers to acting on “an action belief or desire if we ought to choose it,” as defined in class. I believe rational thought can mean different things in different contexts. For example, in economics, a rational thinker will do the best to achieve their objectives, according to Greg Mankiw’s 10 principles of economics. To a liberal, acting rationally economically might entail relying on another state for trade.  Realists would view this kind of interdependence as a glaring weakness since a state’s economic stability is so contingent on the stability of a different state. Through reasoning and thinking rationally, a realist could easily come to the conclusion that the risk of entrusting your economic security in another nation outweighs the benefit of economic stability. To use another economics term, the realist thinker is risk averse and the argument could be made that reason and rational thought were used to come to this conclusion. It seems to me that liberals see the idea of rationality as concrete and objective. That if one is thinking rationally, they are adhering to a set of principles that coincide with liberal thought. However, I believe actors have the capacity to reason but I do not think that there reasoning inherently leads to action or outcome that is viewed rational. Like Professor Shirk mentioned in class, a jihadist terrorist who believes conducting suicide-bombing missions is best for their interests could say their actions are logical. As someone who is not religious, I can say that action is unequivocally illogical.  But people can use religion to rationalize and justify their actions because it is ingrained in their schema that all actions in this life will determine if they are rewarded or punished in the afterlife. This is a hurdle that is difficult to ignore and I think liberals tend to overlook when assessing socio-political structures in international relations. In that extreme instance, the political actor is, subjectively, acting rationally. Liberals believe that we can use rationality to end politics, which I think is a hopelessly optimistic notion. I believe as long as we have different states, with different cultural backgrounds, and different beliefs, customs and norms, there will always be politics. I do agree that there are other actors that matter in international relations, however; institutions, for example, are often manifestations or extensions of states power. Like we addressed in section, the UN is arguably a manifestation of the U.S. power and its interests are often shared with the United States and other democratic republics in the world. States interests change and adapt of overtime and like constructivists, I believe they are socially constructed and not necessarily developed through deliberation and negotiation. Additionally, like constructivists, I think making sure that everyday practices like rationality are defined and not just assumed is important. Assuming actors will act rationally because that is what is best for everyone’s interests is dangerously presumptuous.

Liberalism in the Context of Global Climate Change Policy

On September 23^rd, over 100 world leaders assembled at the United Nations Climate Summit in order to address the increasingly prevalent issue of global climate change. President Obama stood before the congregation of world powers and emphasized the importance of acting immediately, acting quickly, and most importantly, acting together. The way in which the international political community has responded to the growing environmental crisis reflects many of the central tenets of liberalist political theory. However, the lack of progress towards an effective international resolution highlights the flaws inherent in liberal theory, and provides an example of the discord that can result from such weaknesses.

In the study of international relations, liberalist theory views both states and institutions as key actors, and emphasizes the ability of institutions to facilitate cooperation and interactions among states. For example, the development of international climate change treaties and policies relies heavily on the involvement of powerful states, such as the United States, and global institutions, such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The creation and success of climate change policy on the international level also greatly depends on the cooperation of states with one another and with other relevant actors. For example, over 73 countries and 1,000 companies and investors have agreed to support placing a price on carbon in order to best reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. With the help of institutions such as the World Bank Group and the World Economic Forum, the supporters of carbon pricing will soon form the “carbon pricing leadership coalition,” which will allow for the further expression and development of their ideas regarding the reduction of GHG emissions.

In addition, liberalism focuses on the propensity of states to depend on each other in order to ensure their own security and well-being. Because climate change is such a trans-boundary issue, the welfare of a state is truly dependent on the actions of many other states. Carbon emissions in one state are not contained in that state alone, and therefore, the climate change that occurs as a result has far-reaching impacts outside of that state. The inherently interrelated nature of environmental issues means that the opposite is also true: efforts to reduce climate change in one region will automatically reduce climate change in other regions as well. This interconnected relationship is reflective of the liberalist view of power dynamics, which states that absolute gains are more important than relative gains, and power is not seen as “zero sum.” States are not competing to determine who will achieve the highest level of environmental health in comparison to everyone else; rather, every state is attempting to improve the environmental health of their state for the sake of the state. It does not hurt the state if others also benefit as a result of their actions.

However, it is important to point out that many previous international climate change resolutions have failed despite their lofty goals and high expectations. Such failures seem to reflect one of the primary flaws that can be found within liberalist theory. Although interdependence can be very useful and mutually beneficial, it can also lead to mutual vulnerability. Climate change is the perfect example of this issue as environmental policies will only succeed if every state cooperates. For example, if all states shut down every source of carbon emissions tomorrow, the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would drop dramatically. But if China refused to participate in this exercise, it would not matter what any other state did – the amount of greenhouse gases could still rise to a dangerous level. Therefore, the interdependence of states that is associated with global climate change policy – and with liberalist theory – can lead to both great change and tremendous instability.

Sources:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=48787#.VCg1xfldWSo

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2014/09/22/73-countries-1000-companies-investors-support-price-carbon

Blog Post 1 - Thomas Sullivan - Realism vs. Liberalism in the Bay Game

When discussing the core beliefs of realist and liberalist theories, it is difficult not to notice other instances in which they may be applied outside the realm of international relations. One outlet to which these theories may be applied is that of another class in which I am enrolled this semester AREC200, or “The Chesapeake Bay Ecosystem: Intersection of Science, Economics and Policy.” This course deals heavily with the importance of preserving the Chesapeake and restoring it to as healthy a state as possible. Through the use of an online simulator game students are able to assume the role of a worker in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. By assessing the roles that we have been assigned in AREC200, there not only stands the possibility to explain the theories of liberalism and realism in a narrower context, but also as to why liberalism is a more accurate theory to describe international relations.

The point of this simulator is to teach students how certain choices impact the health of the bay. However, if the different roles are viewed as states, the game can serve as an example of the ways realism and liberalism depict IR. Realist theory dictates that due to anarchy between states, the states must resort to self-help. When acting out of their own self interests the actors, in this instance watermen, farmers, etc. are going to act in a way to maximize their own profits. They will choose high yield, low cost farming practices with detrimental effects on the health of the bay. This is the most desirable option as it reaps the highest profit, or in terms of international relations, stands to allow for the greatest accumulation of power.

However, one key factor that realist theory fails to recognize is the importance of other actors, primarily institutions. In the realm of the bay game there are additional roles of regulators for various industries. The crop regulator acts as an institution of sorts by moderating farming practices in order to minimize the detrimental effects on the bay. This is done through incentivizing the farmers to make ecofriendly choices. Realist theory would suggest that the farmers ignore the regulator as it may cause a loss of profit, or power. However, my classmates have proven multiple times that the regulators have an important say in how they act.  These regulators also act as a way of mitigating the anarchy between states. With regulations and incentives put into place it can establish trust between actors not to cheat each other out of a profit or out of a healthy ecosystem by choosing a cheap, detrimental farming practice.

When looking at the bay game in terms of liberalist theory, it is clear that it is a more accurate manner of describing the relations between actors. For example, liberalist theory says that states will act rationally. This is evident in the realm of the bay game as no one wants the bay to remain unhealthy. Rational actors would make choices that improve the health of the bay, while at the same time giving credence to incentives set down by the regulators, or institutions. By doing so they better themselves and the environment.   

After looking at liberalist and realist theories in a small sense, they can more easily be understood in the larger sense of international relations. It can be seen that actors will choose to behave along the lines of liberalist theory on a small scale, so we can infer that they will also do so on a large scale. Realist theory does not accurately describe the way states act in the realm of the bay game, demonstrating that liberalism is the more appropriate of the two to describe relations between states.