Foreign Policy
Realism is undoubtedly one of the major foundational schools of thought that define and anchor global politics around which most if not all the other theories revolve around. It is a thought founded on basic key foundations and assumptions that seek to define how states and nations relate on international platforms (Jervis 46). These assumptions according to Smith includes groupism, which holds that nations or states survive best when they face each other in a bid to push their interests in groups and not as individuals (21). Groupism holds that people, nations, states and countries are likely to identify themselves in a group that in itself is a source of solidarity and at the same a fertile ground for conflict eruption (21). Second, realists believe that egoism and self-centeredness drive and influence opinionated behaviors and interactions between nations. Rosato and Schuessler reiterates the realists’ postulation on selfishness that inhumanity is simply humanity subjected to pressure (890). Lastly, realism holds that power-centrism is a cornerstone facet of global politics. The ability to control, influence and mobilize in order to get what an actor wants plays a bigger role in shaping international politics (Smith xvi). Based on the beliefs of realism, an identifiably and distinct realist loom to foreign policy is realized. A realist’s approach regarding foreign policy bearing in mind that global politics is always in a state of anarchy connotes that states tend to align or orient themselves towards the most powerful actors in international politics at any given time (Jervis 61). Actors in global politics tend to be skeptical about the intentions of foreign policy rather than their own self-interests; they tend to be look beyond mere words, treaties, pacts to the authority, and realties that realists believe play in foreign policy.
This paper seeks to explore and exhaustively examine how realistic actors conduct foreign policy in global political platforms. It presents recent examples of how realism continues to influence and direct how foreign policy is conducted. The main focus is on different nations and states such as the US, China, and Russia, which can be seen as influential and critical in the process of decision making at a global level. Through integrating fundamental beliefs and ideals of realism, this paper opens up a new dimension on how nations have interacted and continue to associate in a realistic fashion.
In March 2003, the United States which is a key player in global politics led the invasion of Iraq notwithstanding the fact that the invasion had no official mandate from the United Nations Security Council (Rosato and Schuessler 810). In the traditional global political community, both non state actors and states actors both play and coexist. Mearsheimer writes that the most important non-state actors which shoulder the burden of stipulating the codes of conduct between states and nations are called international institutions (12). These institutions include the United Nations where state members have a chance to be represented both in the general assembly and more importantly the Security Council.
Decisions are reached, and resolutions are made in such institutions, but the realists thought that states are the key players in international politics and their primacy or independence cannot be influenced by what can be termed as an international regulatory body holds. Despite chapter VII of the Security Council resolutions being binding, the UN could not force one of its players to stop the invasion because US’s foreign policy is particularly its affair (Mearsheimer 41). The decisions to invade Iraq came after it was controversially agreed by the US government that Iraq posed a serious security threat to the west under the leadership of Saddam Hussein. The decision can be seen as egoistic, self-centered and from a realist’s point of view according to Jervis was meant to seek dominance and control global politics 49.
State actors in international politics have been implicated in the violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The treaty came into being in 1970 encompassing the norm and belief that unregulated expansion and spread of nuclear weapons would weaken the security of all states across the globe (Ruzicka and Wheeler 74). North Korea, which is a signatory of the treaty, has adamantly tested nuclear weapons more than twice with Iran being a major suspect implicated in the development of these weapons since 2002. North Korea’s and Iran’s foreign policies on nuclear weapons are founded on realism in the sense that their decisions to make the weapons do not obey the stipulations of the International institutions.
The US, France, Russia and Germany have been pressurizing Iran to halt the process of making nuclear weapons leaving the questions as to whether the treaty was binding to all nations or it was simply meant for the powerful and willing states (Rosato and Schuessler 812). The decision by Iran to continue with its mission of developing nuclear weapons is driven by the need to dominate the Middle East through making neighboring states vulnerable and threatened. Just like in realism, Iran seeks to survive and build a bargaining power in global platforms through policies that can be seen as geared to balance the western powers. The western powers led by the US on the other hand seek to maintain their superiority through suppression of Iran nuclear industries which might strengthen their enemies and pose a serious security threat.
In the modern anarchic international political system, inter-state power struggles and competitions continue to define and shape global politics. In 2008, Russia chose to respond to its poor and deteriorating national security through invading its neighbor Georgia (Mankoff 121). Consequently, Russia conducted several invasions into Ukraine in 2014 and till date, it has been accused of supporting separatists who are in constant fight with the Ukrainian government in the eastern parts of the country. Russia as a realist chose to invade Georgia particularly after it gained NATO membership and this meant that troops from the organization would be deployed in the country to guard its southern borders.
On the other hand, just after forces allied to European nations replaced troops allied to Russia and Ukrainian president, Russia invaded Ukraine in March hoping to maintain its political influence over the country (Mankoff 99). Russia borrows the ideals of realism that in order for control and self-interest to be guaranteed and served, dominance over other players within the system has to be maintained. By seeking to maintain political control and influence over Ukraine, Russia would ensure that it grows its economy through harnessing Ukraine’s resources. By so doing, peace would be guaranteed to Ukraine; a phenomenon that confirms the principle of relative gains over absolute gain in realism (Jervis 44).
With its rising influence and power in international politics, china has become even more self-assured and dominating with its “near abroad.” China has been seen as a threat to the US primacy in Asia after making what can be seen as controversial steps, claiming ownership of disputed islands, set up military bases and camps in waters that have since witnessed a lot of conflicts (Storey 93). As if that is not enough, china has developed martial capabilities whose aim is to deny navies from other countries right of entry to south china seas.
In an effort to keep the region in control, the US under the leadership of president Obama reoriented its foreign policy to refocus its military and ambassadorial efforts in the region. According to Smith, in July 2016 a special tribunal was constituted by the United Nations under Annex VII and it gave a ruling that was not in favor of china over its maritime claims (97). However, as realism hold, individual states are the final decision makers and thus the ruling has not been obeyed or enforced. The two actors in international politics both with great influence and power interact realistically to balance out just like in a typical anarchic political system. Both the players are guided by their self-interests to control trade and influence major decisions in the larger Asia continent.
In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia and Israel continue to engage with Iran in inter-state competition for power and control of security in the region. The Iranian government has since been viewed as a threat to world security and nations in the region which hold the belief that civilian nuclear program is a time bomb. Iran is among the countries that breached the NPT and since 2002 it has been involved in civilian nuclear power program (Ruzicka and Wheeler 80). However, the country has been associated with secret development of weapons of mass destruction. This move has shifted a lot of international attention to the country with the US, European allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia threatening to impose financial sanctions on the country if the development is not stopped (Rosato and Schuessler 813).
The development of these weapons by Iran possess a significant security threat not only to Saudi Arabia and Israel but also to the whole world at large. This is because such weapons would ultimately get into the hands of militants and other terror groups believed to be funded by Iran. In order to neutralize the ever growing security threat from Iran, Middle East nations seeks to balance out power through forming alliances with the west in order to push Iran to its limits to halt nuclear weapon development. In line with Smith’s assertion, Iran’s realistic foreign policy to continue with the development is purely to seek dominance and control of the anarchic international political system.
In conclusion, realism continues to influence and shape how nations interact around the world. Nevertheless, acknowledging the relevance of realism based on the annotations made in this paper does not rule out the role of other non-realist factors. Liberalism among other non-realist factors also influence to a larger extend foreign policies and state behaviors. International politics continue to be dominated by factors that form the foundations of the realists’ school of thought. Anarchic global politics continue to take center stage, states with military forces and sovereign governments are the key actors and the struggle and competition for power, dominance and control is never-ending. These factors will go a long way in influencing universal long-term developments in the international political system. Ultimately, the general public, learners, practitioners and foreign policy developers ought to culture a good understanding of realism so as to critically explain and shape the global community and world around them.
Works cited
Jervis, Robert. “Realism, Neoliberalism, and Cooperation: Understanding the Debate.” International Security, vol. 24, no. 1, 1999, pp. 42-63.
Mankoff, Jeffrey. Russian Foreign Policy: The Return of Great Power Politics. Rowman & Littlefield, 2009.
Mearsheimer, John J. “The False Promise of International Institutions.” International Security, vol. 19, no. 3, 1994, pp. 5-49.
Rosato, Sebastian, and John Schuessler. “A Realist Foreign Policy for the United States.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 9, no. 04, 2011, pp. 803-819.
Ruzicka, Jan, and Nicholas J. Wheeler. “The puzzle of trusting relationships in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” International Affairs, vol. 86, no. 1, 2010, pp. 69-85.
Smith, Steve. Foreign Policy. Oxford: Oxford Univ Press, 2016. Print.
Storey, Ian J. “Creeping Assertiveness: China, the Philippines and the South China Sea Dispute.” Contemporary Southeast Asia, vol. 21, no. 1, 1999, pp. 95-118.
