Idealism and Realism are two strongly opposed views of foreign policy. At the core of this opposition is the issue of power and security in politics. Realism establishes a separation between politics and ethics in order to understand and comprehend international events. Realists don’t oppose morality to politics, nor power to law, but rather oppose the utopian peaceful society to the nature of society. Realists are attuned to the idea that the international system is anarchic and that serious threats emerge all the time, requiring states to secure resources for survival.
Resistance is a formidable foe in the eyes of national and global stability, but also that stability - in the eyes of history - has been a foe of democracy and freedom. So where and when do we (America) define a resistance as legitimate or illegitimate? Is resistance solely based upon our governmental beliefs (Communism vs. Democracy) or solely upon the impact the resistance has on national interests? Or is it to a point, good vs. evil? If the latter is the case than how can we (America) remain a champion for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while truly ignoring all cases of resistance that don’t impact our bottom line even when they are on the side of good?
Realist main focus is History. And for survival the competition is important. There are three types of Realism: 1) Classical Realism: Any action from the state in the International politics is due to the human nature. 2) Structural Realism: The International politics depends on International system i.e. states are in Anarchy.
The third characteristic is that the international structure is marked by a certain number of poles, during which a struggle for domination takes place. From this Waltz derives the theory of the balance of power according to which states - in addition to other things that they may want - they tend to survive, which is an anarchic system in which states can rely solely on themselves, expressed in the so-called security dilemma. Although such a self-help system will not preserve power distribution among countries, it will affect the way that restoring balance is
It argues that the lack of an authority higher than nation-states, causes states to act only in competitive and selfish ways, and that material power determines relations between states. John Mearsheimer supports this by saying, “States are potentially dangerous to each other. Although some states have more military might than others and are therefore more dangerous”(Mearsheimer, 70). Instead of keeping identities and interests in mind when determining relations between states, realists assert that anarchy will cause states to act solely in their best interest. Kenneth Waltz attempted to explain a structural realist perspective about anarchic structure.
Countries act in ways that will best promote their power . In our current world, the best way to promote one’s own power is by aligning themselves with the hegemon, which is usually seen as the United States. One example of this would be the way the western world attempts to limit the rising power of Russia through economic sanctions. Ultimately, the Democratic Peace Theory does not explain why democracies go to war since it ignores that the potential for power and differing ideologies determine every regime type, including democracies, thus war is a possibility whenever ideologies are radically different and power can be gained through
Watson argues against the notion that the interactions between the independent states in IR is far from possibility. He says the existence of a dominant power always exercise hegemonial authority thereby creating a norms under which independent states interact with each other. This conceptual framework of states existing under certain prescribes norms finds relevant in the contemporary IR more likely after the Treaty of Westphalia. This hegemonic world order needs to be explained from an approach which best predicts events and affairs in the international system. Looking at the larger factors concerning
In fact, many people who accept the Realist thinking because it provides a logical reasons and until whenever will continue to exist so that it lowers its theories. In view of the Realists, the State is the main actor, while the non-state actors is not important. Realism looked at that basic human nature is greedy. Therefore, the world is always filled with conflicts of interest. Even in the larger context, conflict and war is part and parcel of the international world.
Nevertheless, the most dominant theories or perceptions of what causes wars are Realism and Liberalism. These two theories place emphasis that the state is a single rational actor. In simpler terms both theories are system level theories that place emphasis on the state being the main actor in international relations.
In this quote, the realist’s position is confirmed. Indeed the antagonism in international relations currently exists in high percentages. Power politics and interests rather than democratic views are the driving forces of the word. Quoting Lord and Harris (2006) “the main criticism of cosmopolitanism is that its civilizing project presumes a degree of universality which is far from present at the global level and its morally contestable whether it should be”. Concluding this first part of explaining my thesis on why realists are against the idea of global polity and they don’t see it as a viable or practical plan at least not based on current political situation, I will now present arguments in support of why global polity can not