U.S. Foreign Relations From A Realist Standpoint

Tomas Iturregui
Professor Shirk
Internationals Relations
September 20, 2015



           For a long time now the U.S. has been seen by the world as one of the greatest if not the greatest world power. It currently has the largest GDP and one of the largest military's in the world. The U.S. has been seen by many nations as a "world police" because of all the foreign conflicts and engagements they get themselves involved in. Due to this, the U.S. has many rival states that some may even call enemies. Although generally I don't always agree with the realism, I think it's imperative that the U.S. keep a realist mindset in order to protect its national security from foreign threats.

One major threat to U.S. national security are terrorist groups such as Isis and Al Qaeda. A strong military and special force groups are essential in the fight to combat terrorism. Ever since 9/11, the U.S. has taken a hard stance on terrorism by drastically increasing its security in airports and fighting terrorism head on such as when special forces killed Al Qaeda’s leader Osama Bin Laden. The U.S. must continue promoting an image abroad that it will not succumb to terrorist threats. This is also especially crucial for the U.S. since not only do these terrorist groups hate the west, but even more so the United States. Many may argue that the U.S. spends too much on its military budget, but it’s vital in the fight against terrorism and really is part of the U.S.’s cultural identity. If they were to cut down the defense budget they’d be seen as weaker and more of an easier target.

Another threat comes from states such as Russia, China, and North Korea. Both Russia and China are large powers with two of the best economies in the world like the U.S. has. North Korea is also a massive power, but less is known about their true military potential due to limited media allowed into the country. All three are seen in a sense as rivals to the U.S., and also have nuclear capabilities. A realist would argue that there’s a security dilemma going on with these states since they’re all great powers who just keep advancing their military technology and budget. This is in fact the case, so it’s necessary for the U.S. to keep up with these states in order to achieve hegemony. There’s no doubt the U.S. is a great power, but it’s all relative and all that really matters is that they are a greater power in comparison to nations such as Russia, China, and North Korea. All three countries are communist, and have some major political disagreements with the way the U.S. goes about its foreign policy. China in particular is the U.S.’s biggest competition, and many foresee the two great powers entering war in the future. So it’s always best to be prepared from a military standpoint. Physical survival is first and foremost, without it nothing else can truly be achieved.

       

         
                                        

China: Realism vs. Liberalism

           Both liberal and realist theories agree that China is becoming a competing threat to the United States for overarching power of the world’s institutions. With remarkable economic growth and an increasingly powerful central government, this is something that cannot be ignored.  However, each of these theories approach this situation very differently.  Realists argue that the confrontation between China and the United States is inevitable and that the US should prepare for this foreseen battle for power.  On the other hand, the liberal view is more optimistic, saying that although China may be surpassing the United States in terms of economic and social power, the successful rules and institutions previously put in place by the US will be upheld by China.  The argument at hand is not one regarding China’s growing power, but rather, one that is based around how this power struggle will play out between these established and influential powers.

Theorists of realism believe that due to the overwhelming economic growth of China and the consequential threat this places on the US, these two great powers will likely engage militarily sooner rather than later. According to realist beliefs, all states seek anarchy and are continuously competing with one another for security of power in society.  The main goal of great powers, such as the US and China, through the realism scope of international relations says that states attempt to become hegemon states and prosper at a faster rate than the other contenders.  At this point in China’s economic position, they are attempting to become a “regional hegemon”, much like the United States has been seen as since the creation of the Monroe Doctrine in the late 1800s.  This move towards extreme power by China could be the pivotal point that starts an engagement between the current regional hegemon, the US, and the aspiring regional hegemon, China.

            The liberal view believes that instead of an outward military engagement by China in an attempt to take over the world’s institutions completely, China will instead assimilate into the systems that the United States had previously created.  FDR established much of the world’s international institutions, such as the World Bank and the UN, which intertwine the great power states of the world and provide economic and social security.  These establishments currently provide a multitude of good services for all those involved.  While the liberal may envision China reshaping the system toward a more “Asian centered world”, they will still continue to follow the rules and institutions previously established by the United States.  According to liberalism, war is not expected due to the nuclear revolution and the imminent threat of complete disaster should a war break out between two great powers, like the US and China.  So instead of focusing on war, the US should center their goals on enhancing these institutions and making them more appealing and economically beneficial to China. 

            Although both theories agree upon the rapid growth of China’s economy and their increasing power within the world, there is a disagreement upon the resulting effects this will have upon China, their relationship with the US, and how they will go about changing the structure of the current world institutions.  Depending upon the international relation lens you look through, either realism or liberalism, you will see two distinct possibilities that may occur in the coming years as China continue to grow in terms of economy and social power. 

Counter-Terrorism and Liberalism

Kathryn Flynn


        For my International Politics in the Middle East class we recently read “US Counter-Terrorism Options: A Taxonomy”, written by Daniel Byman. This essay outlined the seven options the United States has regarding counter-terrorism tactics, focusing on al-Qaeda. Byman concludes that the best way to go about keeping al-Qaeda at bay is working multilaterally with allies. A realist would not look at al-Qaeda as a problem to be dealt with since it is a non-state actor; this essay clearly outlines why al-Qaeda is and remains a problem. It also shows that liberalism and the joining of states to work towards a common goal is the only way to slow this terrorist organization. From this information, it is clear that liberalism is the more relevant and correct theory of international relations.
Firstly, not recognizing al-Qaeda as an actor that has major impact on international relations is a terrible under-appreciation of the destruction the group could wreak around the globe. The need to keep this group as small as possible - it is impossible to eradicate terrorism - is something at the forefront of discussions between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the United Kingdom, France, the United States and many other countries.
Byman includes diversion as an option in his essay, which would try to move the terrorists focus to other countries instead of the United States. He argues that this is a terrible idea because the likelihood of the group gaining a state would increase. Likewise, if we took a ‘realists approach’ to al-Qaeda and just ignored it, the group could capture a state to control, which then would cause devastating consequences.
After considering how detrimental it would be to take a realist approach to al-Qaeda, we can move on the Byman’s conclusion of working with allies to control the terrorist group. The pure fundamentals of his conclusion rest on the idea that the United States has allies around the globe and that they work together towards a common goal. Byman points out that the United States works together with multiple countries in different regions of the world to thwart terrorist activity. This saves the United States money that they would have to spend if they tried to thwart terrorism on their own, and also helps stabilize relations between the states since they are working together.
Being able to work with these other states towards a common goal is a fundamental point of liberalism. The example of counter-terrorism just shows one way in which liberalism is a much more useful and modern-day theory when compared to realism. There are many other examples of states working together towards a common goal, I simply related it to a reading in a different class to give context to different subjects and different classes.

https://lms.dickinson.edu/pluginfile.php/816867/course/section/152653/Byman_terror_taxonomy_2007.pdf

Matthew Hunt
Professor Shirk
International Relations
September 20, 2015

North Korea’s Dangerous Bluffing Game

Given the latest headlines of China warning North Korea not to launch satellites, the North Korean Regime seems to be playing a risky poker game even with its one and only foreign partner. In recent years, the long time ally has become weary of North Korea’s nuclear developments. (Neuman) Just last year, when North Korea threatened the United States and its allies, Chinese President Xi Jinping affirmed that “no one should be allowed to throw a region, and even the whole world, into chaos for selfish gain” (Neuman). Both of these insights remind me of Realist IR theory, in that true allies do not exist. While I typically disagree with Realism’s rejection of cooperative action and third party actors, I believe that this lens can best describe the international politics of North Korea.

From a glance, the territorial shortcomings of North Korea are apparent (the state is slightly bigger than Virginia), and would presume a nation unfit to be a threat to the world’s great powers. However, in the modern world of power politics, North Korea is significant, because it has demonstrated nuclear capabilities through tests in 2006, 2009, and 2013. In combination with North Korea’s estimated 11 million military ready men and women, the nation’s military capabilities are not to be ignored. (CIA) More disturbingly, North Korea’s 2014 threats against the United States indicate what Realist John J. Mearsheimer coins as a “scared state”, or one that “will be disposed to pursue risky policies to enhance its security” (Mearsheimer). As aforementioned, North Korea has the potential power of population, including the actual power of an army, air force and navy. Nonetheless, nuclear weaponry has been the focal point of the relative gains struggle ever since its development at the end of the world war (“Atomic Bomb” HISTORY). The nuclear age indicates that North Korea’s development of long range nuclear missiles could spell a turning point in power politics.

North Korea has been catering to the world’s interest in its nuclear capabilities, thus indirectly stimulating a Realist response by using the media. This previous Tuesday, North Korea updated its Sohae Satellite Launching Station, using underground rail-system and a building that could suspiciously house long range ballistic missiles. A U.S. official has reported that “Stealth has been central to each facet of the new design”. (Hennigan) On the same day, North Korea threatened the United States, threatening to launch a nuclear attack at “any time” (Hennigan). Although these threats have been interpreted to be groundless by U.S. analyst standards, the United States cannot afford to exercise anything but caution. Under Realist theory, offensive capabilities matter, not necessarily intentions (Mearsheimer). Can North Korea be strategically bolstering the international community’s view of its relative military power? North Korea seems to draw much of its power from news of its offensive capabilities, or at the least its ability to make these capabilities economically feasible.

                  Nations should focus on North Korea’s seemingly boisterous regard to nuclear development because it, along with all states, are anarchy, in which no sole governing moral entity can enforce power over all other nations. Because of this steady state of anarchy, intentions between states cannot be realized. International politics is therefore defined as a struggle for state preservation. (Mearsheimer) North Korea can be best seen as furthering Realist discussion among the international community, since it remains one of the most concealed countries in the world. Recent pressure from North Korean ally China to reduce nuclear development has proven that ultimately the state’s interest is final. This would explain why, uncharacteristically, China has responded to North Korea’s military buildup in much the same way as the United States did this previous Tuesday.

                  Ultimately, North Korea is aware of its ability to draw global attention, and uses this at the cost of other states adopting Realist policy approaches. The recent developments of North Korea’s threats against the United States, although not atypical prompted the U.S. to remain vigilant of the peninsular state’s military buildup. Critical attention is drawn to North Korea’s advancements in nuclear missile technology. From North Korea’s perspective, the development of these potential doomsday weapons can create fear, which works as a good defense in the short term, but spells diplomatic disaster in years to come.

                                                                       

Works Cited

“Atomic Bomb” HISTORY. N.p., 10 Mar. 2014. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

Hennigan, W. J., and Brian Bennett. "U.S. Keeping a Close Eye on North Korean Satellite Launch Site." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 19 Sept. 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

Mearsheimer, John J. "Anarchy and the Struggle for Power." The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton, 2001. N. pag. Print.

Neuman, Scott. "China Calls On North Korea To Halt Planned Space Launch, Nuclear Test." NPR. NPR, 19 Sept. 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

"North Korea Sends Special Envoy To China Amid Tensions." Central Intelligence Agency. Central Intelligence Agency, 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.