Realism as the Better Alternative for Peace

Outline

I.???????????Introduction

A.???Overview on Peace in IR

B.????US Liberal Hegemony

C.????Realism as the alternative for peace

II.???????????Safeguarding a State’s Security Interests and Anarchy

III.???????????Withholding of Nuclear Weapons

IV.???????????Downfalls of?Democratic Peace Theory and failure to promote peace

V.???????????Conclusion

Plato's remark that only the dead have seen the end of war echoed his time's history. To comprehend the prospects for peace in international relations, one must first understand the nature of international affairs and the determining factors that cause action, reaction, cooperation, hostility, and peace between states in the international system. The formation of nation states in the 16th century raised questions about whether human freedom and independence were more important than the establishment and survival of the state. Realism and liberalism are two theories in international theory that advance these arguments toward peace and conflict resolution. In essence, the United States has sought to remake the world in its own image through liberal hegemony. This policy's supporters believe it will improve global peace. Liberal hegemony, on the other hand, was always doomed. This strategy invariably leads to policies that put a country against nationalism and realism, both of which have far more clout in international politics than liberalism. Policymakers and forefathers in the United States would be wise to abandon liberal hegemony in favor of a more restrained foreign policy based on realism and a proper understanding of how nationalism constrains great powers, reducing the likelihood of violent conflict. This essay will elaborate on the possibilities of reducing violence in contemporary global politics which have been put forth by realism through the notions of security interests and state anarchy, as well as the withholding of nuclear weapons. On the other hand, I will be presenting the downfalls and contradictions of the democratic peace theory and how the latter not only deepens the world’s division into classes but also induces more violent conflicts domestically.

States can act to serve moral purposes but only when their security interests are not threatened, and that the skepticism that permeates the realist worldview produces more "just and humane policies" despite the dark, brooding world of realism, in which states cannot trust one another and must always be prepared to engage in conflict (Mearsheimer, 2018, p.160). ?For example, Muslim communities in the Balkans suffered greatly as a result of NATO's intervention, which was prompted by international collaboration and the moral obligation to defend human rights in order to stop the ethnic strife between Muslims and Serbs in Bosnia. The international community urged Bosnian Muslims to seek refuge in UN-protected camps rather than enter Muslim areas, ignoring the realist plea to give up multiethnicity and create two separate states for Muslims and Serbs, which led to the deaths of thousands of Bosnian men and children when the camps themselves were overrun by Serbian militia in Srebrenica. The British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tried to put regional peace ahead of national security out of "good motives to preserve peace" as he decided to avoid war with Germany and adopted an appeasement policy toward Adolf Hitler. This policy backfired and resulted in genocidal proportions. (Burchill, 2005, p.57) Unfortunately, history dictated that during the Second World War that followed, Nazi Germany would go on to annex additional states, including France, Austria, and Poland.

The idea of mutually assured destruction, which is founded on the core ideas of nuclear deterrence, is another notion put out by realism for achieving relative peace. The Soviet Union and the United States of America were able to keep peace throughout the Cold War because they both had nuclear weapons. (Mowle, 2000, p. 358) The fear of complete annihilation between two nuclear armed states is the foundation of the idea of mutually assured destruction. Due to the very destructive nature of the weapon in question, both states in question will be destroyed if one launches a nuclear weapon and the other responds in kind using its second strike mechanism. Beyond the deterrence that existed between the United States and the Soviet Union, India and Pakistan serve as the most prominent example of two nuclear states never fighting each other since the Second World War. Pakistan and India have fought three major wars against one another over the Kashmir territorial dispute since 1947, but they have not engaged in hostilities since 1998, when both nations developed nuclear strike capabilities, expanding the "peaceful" capabilities of nuclear weapons and the concept of mutually assured destruction.

Democratic peace theory's presumptions that liberal states should coexist peacefully with non-liberal governments have been shown to be false from a monadic perspective, confirming the realist view of security competition in the chaotic world of international relations. Realists like Donnelly (2000) credit the security that the United States of America has supplied since the end of World War II with keeping democratic peace between democratic nations at bay. What about the time of transition that states experience before becoming democratic? The idea that advancing democracy will contribute to peace served as the cornerstone of American foreign policy in the 1990s. President Bill Clinton stated that encouraging democratization would be a preventative measure against both international conflict and domestic unrest, noting that no two democracies had ever engaged in war against one another (Mearsheimer, 2018, p. 5). But in certain transitional nations, as well as between them, the 1990s ended up being a decade of both democratization and protracted nationalist war.

Even while having fully developed democracies in every country would likely lead to more peace, Clinton's conventional wisdom overlook the risks involved in getting there. Several well-known opponents have noted that newly democratic republics are frequently neither liberal nor peaceful. Flaws in the democratic peace theory are made even more apparent when liberal imperial actions aimed at restoring democracy and universal human rights in other nations throughout the world are taken into account. In contrast to Fukuyama, he immediately shifts the blame to cultural predispositions in regions where liberal democracy has not yet taken root (Barchan, 2002, p.415). As such, Liberalism has failed in third-world nations. ?Additional criticism was offered by Mearsheimer who outlined the problems with the American initiative to spread democracy throughout developing nations in order to bring about world peace in accordance with democratic peace principles (Mearsheimer, 2018, p. 200). ?He argues that the liberal project of the United States has led to the superpower being at war "two out of every three years since 1989," implying that the liberal imperialist project of the United States to defend human rights and promote democracy has actually led to more international conflict by upsetting the peace that it seeks to establish. More information on the issues with liberal imperialism and how social engineering in developing nations hasn't been particularly successful for the United States of America is provided as well by various scholars such as (Cox, Ikenberry & Inogouchi, 2000). Since the French Revolution, the first stages of democratization have given rise to some of the fiercest nationalist conflicts in history. Similar to this, during the 1990s, there were outbreaks of severe armed conflict in a number of areas that had only recently started experimenting with electoral democracy and more diverse public dialogue. In certain places, including the former Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Indonesia, the rise of national independence movements coincided with the transition from dictatorship to more inclusive political systems, sparking separatist conflict that frequently crossed international borders. Thus, are the flaws (power, war and destruction) of this theory so well hidden under the flag of spreading democracy and peace worldwide that people are so blinded by the current political scene in the world?

To sum up, while realism does not claim to be a theory of peace, it has been demonstrated that it does so more than liberalism, the latter of which is a tool in the hands of greater powers for acquiring status, power, and resources, leaving behind damaged states, displaced and dying populations, and increased levels of poverty and hunger around the world. As Koskenneimi (1990) had encouraged, the United States did assume its position through the liberal hegemon, utilizing soft power to disseminate liberal ideologies around the world. However, this had a detrimental effect on global stability as it produced bloodshed rather than peace. Following Al-terrorist Qaeda's assaults on America on September 11, 2011, the international hegemon turned imperial and hostile against anyone who did not share its liberal worldview. States like Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have been classified as being a part of the axis of evil as a result of this failed approach. After the American invasion of Iraq in 2004, North Korea revealed its nuclear status in reaction to the security threat, and Iran is said to be working on acquiring nuclear weapons as well. For a theory that adopts an upbeat and reforming approach to international relations, liberal actions in other regions of the world continue to constitute a relative and absolute threat to peace. Conflicts will therefore continue to escalate as long as one state rules the world in the name of liberalism and democracy to uphold individual interests. Unfortunately, stronger powers misuse this school of thought since it is too ideal in order to increase their own wealth, position, and power. As a result, the struggle for power and dominance will always be the motive behind states’ actions.?

References

Barkawi, T, Laffey, M 1999, The imperial peace: Democracy, force and globalization, European Journal of International Relations, 5(4), pp.403–434.

Buchan, B 2002,‘Explaining War and Peace: Kant and Liberal IR Theory’, Alternatives, 27(4), pp. 407–428. doi: 10.1177/030437540202700401.

Burchill, S 2005, 'Liberalism'. In Burchill, S., Linklater, A, Devetak, R, Donnelly, J, Paterson, M., Reus-Smit, C., True, J. Theories of International Relations, Third Edition pp. 55-83, London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cox, M, Ikenberry, J, Inoguchi, T, eds, 2000, American Democracy Promotion: Impulses, Strategies, and Impacts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Donnelly, J 2000, Realism and International Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Doyle, M W 1986, Liberalism and world politics, The American Political Science Review, 80(4), pp.1151-1169.

Grieco, J. M 1988, Anarchy and the limits of cooperation: A realist critique of the newest liberal institutionalism, International Organization, 42(3), pp.485-507.

Koskenniemi, M 1990, The politics of international law, European Journal of International Law, 1(1), pp.4-32.

Mansfield, E. D., Snyder, J 1995, Democratization and the danger of war, International Security, 20(1), pp.5-38.

MEARSHEIMER, J J 2018, Liberal Theories of Peace, In Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities pp. 188–216. Yale University Press, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv5cgb1w.10 ?

MEARSHEIMER, J. J 2018, Liberalism as a Source of Trouble, In Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities pp. 152–187. Yale University Press, retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv5cgb1w.9

MEARSHEIMER, J J 2018, The Impossible Dream, In Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities pp. 1–13, Yale University Press, retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv5cgb1w.4 ??

Mowle, S 2003, “Worldviews in Foreign Policy: Realism, Liberalism, and External Conflict,” Political Psychology, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 561–92. JSTOR, retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/3792326. Accessed 7 Jun. 2022 . ??

Rosenberg, J 1990, What’s the matter with realism?, Review of International Studies, 16(4), pp.285-303.?

Self -Reflection Essay

In my years of experience in the field of International Relations, research was always the fundamental core of gaining knowledge and expertise whether as a student, doctor or professor practicing this relative field. Every new experience was the first experience at one time or another, especially when it comes to the extensive and wide line of thoughts and topics that IR has to offer. This essay for me would be considered as one of them.

When I was first given the assignment, I was pretty excited actually with the topics or questions presented until the actual research or writing started. It was the first time that I was so interested in conducting as much extensive research as I could for the theory I chose isn’t so much compatible with the world trend we have going on right now. Saying that I wasn’t hesitant with choosing this theory (Realism) would be a lie. Yet, I took the risk for the very first time in my life and spoke my mind which is something new for me, especially as a Lebanese citizen.

I would say that this essay can be compared to a magazine or newspaper article. I believe that the arguments I presented (despite the fact of this piece being against the Global Trend) is rational and convincing enough. I don’t mean to compare it structure but rather content wise. My aim behind choosing Realism as another “unusual “alternative for peace would be to challenge the public opinion with the line of thought that depicts the latter as a theory of conflict and war and instead urge this same public opinion to think of Realism as an actual catalyst for peace.

This essay also showed or taught me a different type of citation (Harvard Style) that I was only familiar with by theory since all our researches back in my old university used to be conducted using the APA referencing style. Not too many differences though so it wasn’t too unfamiliar for me. Another difference would be the extensive resources or types of writings that I used. What I mean by that would be that I had access to very different sources and extensive writings that I couldn’t have access to back in my country for several security or privacy reasons. This of course expresses a downfall for researches. At last, I would say that the thesis writing in this essay structure differs slightly from the structure we used to base our writings in Lebanese Universities (explicit/ implicit), with ours being used with extensive writing rather than just straightforward answers.

The main challenge for me would have been the biases that support Liberalism instead of Realism as the “theory of peace” that I almost changed my mind and just went with the flow for the sake of just answering the question. Thankfully, everything turned out well for me. Another challenge was to stick with the word count, especially with this extensive topic that in my opinion, required a higher word count.