Weeks 4 & 5 Slides - Realism & Liberal Internationalism (PDF)

Realism Thucydides The Melian Dialogue (p. 133 in textbook) Question Why do you think Realists have held this dialogue in such esteem for so long? What is the Realist wisdom present in this story? What do Realists Believe? The Essential Core of Realism: 1. States are the only actors in...

Realism Thucydides The Melian Dialogue (p. 133 in textbook) Question Why do you think Realists have held this dialogue in such esteem for so long? What is the Realist wisdom present in this story? What do Realists Believe? The Essential Core of Realism: 1. States are the only actors in international relations that matter. 2. States must increase national power and secure their own interests at all costs. 3. The international environment that states inhabit is hostile and dangerous (it is anarchy = no central authority exists above states). Common to all realists across the different schools. The world is lawless, competitive, and uncertain.  1. Statism The State is the main international actor. a unified, rational actor. Sovereignty is its distinguishing trait. Sovereignty = within a territory, the state has supreme authority to make and enforce laws. (ie. Weber). Sovereignty is the basis of security, which makes it possible to organize civil society, culture, etc. Statism In the international sphere, which is defined by anarchy, states compete for power and security. It is a zero-sum game = more for one state means less for another. Reason of State = the state must preserve its own life or survival. (Priority #1) This survival can never be guaranteed. It is the Statesperson who acts rationally to secure the interest of the state. 2. Survival Survival is the pre-condition for all other goals. The theme of survival traces back to Machiavelli, who argued that the survival of the state was the necessary precondition for good laws, morality, and republican liberty. This is what his book, The Prince, is about. The task of protecting the state at all costs. Immoral acts may need to be performed in order to secure the state’s survival. Survival What about human rights, peace, morality, etc? Well, Realists are skeptical that universal moral principles even exist. Do not sacrifice survival or self-interest for universal and abstract ideas. International politics is no place for morality. The need for survival of the state is much more important. A state-morality (ethic of responsibility) – the state as the moral force. 3. Self Help Since there is no higher authority in the international system, and since war is always a possibility… security can therefore only be realized through self-help. States must rely on themselves, not others. The logic of self-interest vs. cooperation for the common good Realists take the former route The issue is that in doing this (ie. military preparations), a state fuels the insecurity of other states. Are these preparations for defensive purposes only or offensive? Creates a spiral of insecurity where one states quest for security is another’s source of insecurity. (The Security Dilemma). Critical Questions Does realism sound like a convincing theory of international politics to you? Can you think of any current events that a Realist lens would help understand? Do you have any criticisms of realist theory?  Critics of Realism Some argue the state is in decline in international politics, Realism’s emphasis on the and that in the age of state as the only key actor globalization, non-state actors misses a lot of the complexity of such as transnational international relations. corporations are extremely powerful – realism cannot account.  Realist theory has little place for cooperation. International politics is read only through the lens of competition, conflict, and power maximization. A very narrow, strategic conception of politics. Realist theory is not critical. It is very status-quo oriented.  But Realists insist that the world operates according to their logic. Political conditions change, but their insights, they believe, are true across time and space.  --- Varieties of Realism --- Classical Realism (Human Nature) Structural Realism (International System) Neo-classical Realism Classical Realism Key Assumption: the drive for power and the will to dominate are basic aspects of human nature (they are biological drives). And the behavior of the state as self-seeking is a reflection of this aspect of human nature. It is because of human nature that international politics is power politics. This explains features of the international system like Competition, Fear, War. Key Thinkers: Thucydides, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Hans J. Morgenthau Common Vision: international politics is a struggle for power.  How is a leader supposed to act in a world animated by such dark forces? Machiavelli – when the security and survival of the state is under threat, all obligations and treaties must be disregarded. The New(er) Realisms During the late 20th century, new variants of realism are developed. Scholars are trying to update their thinking to the times. Structural Realism Kenneth Waltz, 1979. Structural Realists agree that international politics is a struggle for power. But this is not because of human nature. Instead, structural realists believe that the lack of an overarching authority above states is the reason. It’s the structure of the international sphere that causes the outcome. The number of great powers determines the overall structure of the international system. Ie. between 1945 and 1989 there were two great powers (bipolar). Now, the international system is… Bipolar? Unipolar? Multipolar? Offensiv Offensive Realism is similiar to Waltz, but differs when describing the behaviour of e& states. Since states can never be certain about Defensiv the intentions of other states, the drive for power is continuous. States as power maximizers. e The ideal, which is almost impossible, is Realism to become the global hegemon. Defensive Realism, on the other hand, s sees states as security maximizers. It is unwise to seek to maximize power. Neo-Classical Realism Contemporary neo-classical realism emerges in response to structural realism. Can the distribution of power in an anarchical international system really sufficiently explain the behaviour of states? Additional factors must be brought into analysis. Ie. domestic politics, the perception of state leaders, state-society relationships, etc. vs. Waltz = do all states really have an interest in security/status quo? This is certainly not how all states have historically behaved. Ie. Nazi Germany. States are not merely equivalent units Ok, let’s Recap Realism sees international politics as the struggle for power/security. Classical Realists – human nature causes that struggle Structural Realists – It’s not human nature. The lack of an overarching authority causes the struggle for power. Defensive:. States are mostly concerned with security. Offensive: focus on states as agents; states are power maximizers and drive to be the hegemon. Only power can give security. Neo-Classical Realists: more factors needed, not just the structure. Question - Poll a) Realists are correct when they say that realism describes timeless truths about international politics. b) Realism may not describe timeless truths about politics, and it does have its limitations, but it still has something to offer as a theory and can help us understand world politics. c) Realism is little more than a self-serving ideology of powerful states, which helps them justify their dominance in the international system. d) I am undecided how I feel about Realism. Liberal Internationalism  What is Liberal Internationalism?  A perspective that seeks to transform international relations to emphasize peace, individual freedom, and prosperity. Liberal Internationalists promote: Liberal 1. Democratic values Internationali 2. free trade markets sm 3. multilateral cooperation 4. a rule-based international society that respects sovereignty and human rights What do Liberal Internationalists Believe? Liberal Internationalists believe in inalienable rights, in human rights. They believe that international order and justice can be achieved. They believe there are lots of opportunities for cooperation and pursuing beneficial goals for everyone. Multilateralism: the process whereby states work together to solve a common problem. Democratic Peace Thesis: the claim that liberal states are peaceful in their relations with other liberal states (they show restraint). Liberal Internationalism It’s not just about states. States are important but they aren’t the only actors that matter. There are also businesses, corporations, international organizations, churches, many different other institutions. There is an economic dimension to liberal internationalism: the promotion of economic free trade, of capitalist markets, of economic globalization. A commerce-oriented theory.  Liberals believe that the international realm can be a place where states follow the rule of law, where they are moral actors, where they work together and cooperate, and where they enhance civility, prosperity, and peace. Two Questions 1. Can you think of a political leader (now or in the past) that has taken a liberal internationalist approach to foreign policy? 2. Should Liberal states promote their values abroad? If so, is force a legitimate way to do this? Liberal Internationalism in Practice The U.S. has often described its own foreign policy as liberal internationalist , since the end of the Cold War (both Republicans and Democrats). Bill Clinton (1992-2000) = increasing economic trade, ‘the globalization president’. Human Rights. George W. Bush (2000-2008) = defeating terrorism and promoting ‘liberty, freedom, democracy.’ ‘freedom’s war’ = the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Barack Obama (2008-2016)= ‘The American responsibility to protect through promoting democracy abroad.’ Donald Trump (2016-2020) = Not a liberal internationalist. Anti-Liberal. Rejection of international institutions. Rejection of humanitarian intervention. Liberal Internationalism After the end of the Cold War, it appeared that liberalism had triumphed globally. That the international system was characterized by the triumph of liberal democracies, free trade, cooperation between states, human rights, and a rule based international society. Discussion: Is this still the case? Is liberalism triumphant? Liberal Internationalism Some believe that liberalism is dying or dead. Others think it has always been a gloss for imperialism. But Liberal Internationalists still believe in their vision of world politics. And they still pursue that vision! Approaches to Foreign Policy Lets think of contemporary Liberal and Realist approaches in terms of foreign policy. Realist Foreign Policy State focused – state must look after their own interests Concern is with survival, power, and security. Anarchic international system with no overarching power creates a situation of uncertainty, competition, danger. Cooperation is possible but security and survival are more important. Force and threat of force are still the most effective tool of statecraft. Realist policy is not aimed at radical change or reform. It is a ‘status quo’ theory. Liberal Foreign Policy Promotes ‘Free Trade’ & ‘Open Markets’ (Global Capitalism) Promotes Western Liberal Democratic Values and Institutions Liberals believe that ‘there is no other game in town.’ Cooperation, interdependency, mutual gains Human Rights In practice, morality, peace, and universal values (the traditional ‘stuff’ of liberalism) often take the back seat to national interests, especially economic ones. Liberal policy is not aimed at radical change or reform. It is a ‘status quo’ theory (much like neo-realism – there are some key commonalities between the two approaches.)  Lets Play…. Liberal or Realist!? Each of the following Slides will have an image or a quote. Decide whether the image or quote is more liberal or realist. The Board Game, Risk.  The Foreign Policy of Trudeau’s government Critical Theories of IR Realism and Liberalism are dominant – but they also have shortcomings. 1. Marxism 2. Feminism 3. Constructivism Marxism The mainstream theories serve the interests of the prevailing International order. Marxism, on the other hand, is a theory that is critical of the international status quo Key Aspects: Analyze the Totality; Materialist Conception of History; Class analysis; Emancipation/Revolution. Marxists: Global Capitalism does not produce harmony – it produces an exploitative and unjust international system that must be opposed and transformed. International trade and globalization are deeply unfair and create underdevelopment and poverty (Core/Periphery Relations Marxism Robert W. Cox challenges Realism from a Marxist stance, stating that “theory is always for some one, and for some purpose.” Realists, then, are not studying international relations objectively, but bringing their own values and desires to the task. IR Theories tend to serve the interests of those who prosper, the elites, within the prevailing order. Marxism is open about this – its aims are to develop an understanding of global capitalist dynamics in order to transform the global system. Marxism – Discussion Questions So, why study or spend time with Marxist approaches to International Relations when the Soviet Union is long gone? Is Marxism useful or is it bankrupt as an approach? Feminism Feminism: The political project to understand and end women’s inequality and oppression. Feminist scholars are concerned with the global status of women. A diverse field: liberal, socialist, and radical variants of feminism. Feminists often focus their research on areas where women are excluded from the analysis of major international issues and concerns. They also focus on how IR concepts are ‘gendered’: eg. how concepts such as the state or sovereignty have different consequences for the lives of men and women. Feminism In the 1980s, feminists asked: where are the women in global politics? This was a radical act at the time. Cynthia Enloe asserted that by asking this question we would see the ways in which women were actually present in global politics: often as cheap factory labour, hotel maids, sex workers on military bases, wives of diplomats, etc. Institutions and practices of international politics grounded on marginalizing and rendering women invisible. Enloe also studied militarization and war Feminism Feminists argue that when women are included in a study, questions will be asked that aren’t normally asked in dominant research agendas. The inclusion of women’s experiences and perspectives = an improved ability to understand global phenomena. Constructivism The argument: our actions and words make society… and society, in turn, shapes our actions and words. We create the rules in any given situation The rules of global politics are constructed. They can therefore be changed. For instance, we don’t have to have a global system of competition, arms races, security dilemmas, and war. Alexander Wendt: International anarchy doesn’t not necessarily mean competition and conflict; it is what states make of it. Constructivism States have plenty of options. They are only limited by the rules and practices they create. Constructivists believe that power is not just material – it is also ideational: the control over meanings.