Political Realism

According to foreign policy in a realist’s mind, it is how we get from “the way the world is” to “how the world should be.” It recent events, the United States and ISIS clearly both have their own versions of how the world is and should be. According to the U.S., the world's borders should be protected and  relationships between foreign countries, various religions and beliefs should be civil. To ISIS, it should be their extremist ideas and ways believed across the Middle East.

According to Morgenthau and the Six Principles of Political Realism “Political realism does not require, nor does it condone, indifference to political ideals and moral principles, but it requires indeed a sharp distinction between the desirable and the possible – between what is desirable everywhere and at all times and what is possible under the concrete circumstances of time and place.” The United States desires to have peace and under these circumstances of dealing with terrorist groups such as ISIS it is important for them to be dominant and efficient. ISIS believes their religious and political beliefs should dominate the Middle East and they will kill anyone in their way of that. 

In the past, the U.S. has dealt with terrorism in many different ways, from compromising for hostages to exploiting terrorist leaders, the U.S. has done it all. But against ISIS it is much different. ISIS, a group of extremists in the Middle East, is one of the toughest situations the U.S. has had to deal with in the last decade. As the Six Principles of Political Realism emphasizes, states are the rational actors when dealing with certain matters such as foreign policy. In this case, the U.S. and ISIS are these rational actors.

The United States is seemingly more powerful than any of the terrorist groups in the world, but because of the three realist theories, balance of power, security dilemma, and offense/defense they struggle with being rational and preventing war. Due to the security dilemma, “one state’s security is another states insecurity,” ISIS and the U.S. have been using more intense military actions such as U.S. air-striking ISIS in Syria and ISIS beheading people whom don’t believe in their extremist ideas. This demands both states to practice offense and defense, according to the realist theory. Although U.S. maintains a good balance of defense and offense, ISIS practices a more intense offense. Recently, this has caused the U.S. to play more on offense to maintain security internally and in ally countries.

In comparison, U.S. tends to be more reasonable than ISIS. The U.S. is outsourcing to other states for military support, training Syrian soldiers to protect their state from the inside as well as coming up with strategic plans of preventing a war with the extremists. ISIS on the other hand has not been very reasonable. They have refused any compromise or proposal the U.S. has offered. They focus more so on being strategic and using the media to broadcast their actions such as beheading non-believers to show what they are willing to do and scare people from not joining their cause. 

All in all, more than 50 European, Asian and Arab countries have joined forces with the United States to stop ISIS. Thus, further proving ISIS is seen as unreasonable with their foreign policy. While most advances of ISIS have been halted, US and their allied leaders know they have a long fight ahead of them to dislodge them. 

Unpacking the U.S.-ISIL Conflict

The topic of ISIL and what to do about them has captivated people all over the world.  It has been a source of fear, debate, concern and aggression.  It is important to understand your enemy in order to effectively harm them, and in my opinion, one of the main reasons the Western European Democracies are having a difficult understanding ISIL is because their beliefs are constructivist while those of the U.S. and its allies are a based on realism.

Since World War I, the U.S. has been fighting to insure that it remains the dominant world power thus allowing us to protect our interests.  Protection of our interests is the reason we fought the German’s in World War’s I and II, entered into a nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union, attempted to stop communism from spreading into Vietnam, placed sanctions on Iran, and have started an airstrike against ISIL.  The U.S. is reluctant to allow ISIL to gain more relative power.  We see this as a direct threat to our interests and security, rightfully so.  As ISIL gains more power, we watch our interests and those of our allies in the region lose power.  As realists, watching ISIL gain relative power is taken as a direct threat to our well being.

Realists are very state-centric.  As a government, realists like to deal with states and governments that are given legitimate authority from its citizens, as opposed to organizations with no legitimate power.  ISIL’s only real legitimate authority comes from its members itself.  Nobody who is conquered by ISIL wants to be ruled by them.  In this sense, they have no real legitimate authority, which is troublesome to realists.  This fundamental difference between realists and constructivists has caused a lot of violence and frustration when trying to deal with ISIL.  They are a group, just as gangs, organizations, corporations and charities.  They are influential, but have no real authority.  Constructivists believe that the main actors in international relations are NGO’s and other groups, as opposed to states.  Groups like Al Queada, ISIL and Boko Haram have certainly made the case for this, through their high level of influence and low level of legitimate authority.  In order to deal with them, we have to recognize ISIL as a threat, which gives them some sort of legitimacy.

ISIL’s fundamental struggle stems from its own identity.  Their individual identity is so strong they behead westerners and persecute people of other religions simply because they believe everybody should be aligned with them.  Their identity and their cause is so derived from their history.   As a result, their history dictates their goals and future plans.  These are all things that we Americans struggle with.  We obviously care about our history and to an extent it informs how we behave.  However, we don’t still have a grudge with the British and the French dating back to colonial days, and we have distanced ourselves from slavery, all actions that show some disconnect between our history and our current policies.  ISIL shows no such quality, which is one of the reason it has been so difficult for western countries to control them.  Most realists would care about their history, but not let it influence their decisions and actions to the extent displayed by ISIL.

The only area where ISIL and western countries find common ground is in their dedication to ideals and values.  We, as a democracy, are very passionate about our values and our democratic system.  ISIL, as a group, is very idealistic and acts based on their own values, despite how much we disagree with them.  This passion for our ideals is one of the only things that we can find common ground on.  Values are a very powerful driver of behavior, and have led to fighting throughout history.  Victory in war could potentially boil down to which side is more successful at spreading their own values.  ISIL becomes more influential as they spread their ideals around the world, but the democratic and humane vales that we have as a western society could temper their influence.

Aside from ISIL’s barbaric violations of human rights, western democracies are having difficulty with them because of certain qualities that are engrained into our identity.  In this case, realism clashes directly with constructivism, and that clash is part of what has prompted such a strong international response.

Tickner and Morgenthau

In J. Ann Tickner’s Essay, A Critique of Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Realism, she describes how a majority of people view International politics, diplomacy, and military services as male dominated areas. Women often get overlooked in these terms and are anticipated to focus on economic issues or matters of justice. Even if women are found to be in a top position in foreign policy they have to strive to get the same respect as their male colleagues. One of the reasons why women are not as well respected in the industry is because people have misconceptions of what women are capable of doing. A stereotypical view many have is that women can’t make the decision of an issue dealing with forceful power. Tickner’s essay is meant to highlight how Morgenthau’s principles focus on a male dominated perspective and how she added a feminist perspective to them. By adding a feminist perspective towards his principles she hopes it will make the international relations field more attainable towards women. Realism and Morgenthau’s principles focus a great deal on power, if a balance was found between masculine and feminist theory it could help with current issues facing international politics.

      Morgenthau’s six principles are written in ways that favor masculinity. His first principle is that international politics is based off of objective laws that have roots in human nature. Tickner mentioned Evelyn Fox Keller’s research that the universe is,  “represented by concepts and shaped not by language but only by the demand of logic and experiment” and that knowledge is socially constructed. In class we discussed how words are often seen as either masculine or feminine. The word objectivity is viewed as a masculine word while subjectivity is viewed as a feminine word. Objectivity is absolute while subjectivity is feasible and said to be irrational. It is vital to think in not only in an abstract way but in a contextual way, as well.  Contrary to Morgenthau’s view, the world changes constantly and it is crucial that laws are subjective and able to be changed with time. Different behaviors need to be implemented to prevent further conflicts between nations. By adding a feminist theory to the principles it may help prevent future wars. Also adding a feminist viewpoint would help with issues, such as, economic interdependency that are difficult to oversee with Morgenthau’s principles.

Cooperation is also something Morgenthau’s principles lack almost completely. Morgenthau focuses on complete power and mainly that aspect only. The Feminist theory targets cooperation rather than competition. Tickner had said that working with others is empowerment. The component of power is vital in politics and should not be overlooked but should not be the main focus of a whole ideal. In a study done by Gilligan, she found that girls are typically more likely to partake in-group play that requires sharing more than boys are. Women use different types of problem solving when dealing with conflicts. The feminist viewpoint would solve international conflict with soft power rather than just hard power. With that theory it would help create alliances with other nations rather than raising negative tensions with them. Therefore, it could help prevent future wars or other conflicts. Underplaying cooperation hinders international relation, as it is a way to defend politics and human life.

The purpose of Tickner’s essay is not to say that a feminist view should over power masculine viewpoints on issues relating to international relations but more that there should be a balance between them. Working with both viewpoints can help with ending or containing international conflicts. Feminist theories add to helping with conflicts within international politics. Also, if more importance is added to feminist theories, the field of international relations would become more appealing towards women. International relation should not just be inclusionary and seen just a male dominated field. There should be a discourse that gives women and men the same equality over their contributions in politics.

U.S. vs ISIS Realism

Morgenthau’s six principles of political realism, explains the events currently taking place in ISIS. We have two opposing forces, namely the U.S. and religious extremists, trying to push their political agendas in the same geographical territory. Under this theory, we will examine both states intentions, and discuss why war is most likely inevitable based upon previous and current political actions.       

Political realism makes us believe that states behave as rational actors when dealing with matters of foreign policy, and that we as spectators can predict future actions based off hard evidence. The U.S. is looked upon to be the most relatively powerful state in the world. The U.S. has a vested interest in protecting its borders from any potential terrorist attacks. Ever since 9/11, the U.S. has undoubtedly made security its number one priority through the means of advanced weaponry, counter-surveillance technology, and a vast amount of troops. Organizations such as the NSA are working around the clock in order to intercept any terrorist activity before any attack happens. It is clear that the U.S. is practicing both the offensive and defensive theories of realism in order to maintain its security. 

On the other hand we have ISIS, which is comprised of Islamic radicals, who are gaining more power in the Middle East. When we take a look at ISIS from a realist point of view it is obvious why there is tension between the two states. ISIS has already had conflict fighting U.S. troops during the war in Iraq. ISIS has made it clear that they are here to stay and have plans of using any necessary force against non-devout Muslims, especially westerners. Isis is gaining support through hard and soft power. They are using the territories’ resources, (especially oil) they take over in order to acquire more economic power, which will translate into even more military power. Media exposure is helping ISIS’ cause in gaining support from outside individuals.

            

Analyzing both states foreign policies from the realist perspective; the U.S. is definitely more reasonable than ISIS. Although the United States is straying away from conventional realism in the sense that the U.S. is heavily relying on ally support from other states in combating ISIS, the U.S. is more likely to have success in the struggle against ISIS with minimal amount of causalities. This is a rational act that will further the U.S.’ goal of establishing more democratic states. Originally ISIS started as a terrorist organization, which wouldn’t even be considered as part of the equation of international policy under realism. However ISIS is more military minded than the U.S. and isn’t relying on support from other states.  Of course this is a result of their building from the ground up and not having many connections with large states, but we cannot overlook their daily economic gains and progressive agenda. On a global scale ISIS has more latent power than relative power because other nations don’t consider them to be a real state.

           

  War is inevitable between the two states because of the security dilemma that has enveloped both parties. Realism teaches that mankind is inherently evil so it would be foolish for the U.S. to sit by idly while ISIS gains more military power. As stated earlier, ISIS is not hiding the fact that it wants to oppress state actors who do not conform to their way of thinking. This political mindset can only lead to an even more chaotic international policy. It is no surprise that other states have joined the U.S. in air-striking ISIS because a combatant such as ISIS will not cease unless they are obliterated. 

1st post: Scottish Referendum through the lenses of Realism and Liberalism

           On September 18^th, 2014 a vote that had been planned for two years, one that was longed for by a generation of Scottish political leaders, and destined since the unification of the island of Britannia nearly four hundred years ago; the citizens of Scotland voted for autonomy. Early in the campaign process it looked as if the “no” vote for independence had a clear and decisive majority; however, polls tightened, and in early September the “yes” in support of independence vote was projected to win by a slim margin.  But on the morning of September 19^th, with the vote from the previous day being counted and announced, the Scottish people voted to stay in the United Kingdom, confidently with a 55% to 45% margin.

            The decision made by the Citizens of Scotland is supported by the international relations theories of Realism and Liberalism. In terms of domestic issues certainly, but also in the scope of security and standing in the world these two different perspectives explore vital factors the Scottish people had in making their decision.

             A contentious issue during the campaign for independence was in the event of a “yes” vote win, what would happen with the nuclear warheads, warships, and submarines located in Scotland. Probably these vital defense and strategic weapons would have been systematically removed from Scotland, leaving the now independent Scotland defenseless, with a very powerful southern neighbor.  Although an altercation between the two nations seems unthinkable, a realist like Morgenthau would be very concerned with an insecure Scotland.  With a disparity of power so great, the UK would become a hegemony in the British Isles relative to Scotland and Ireland. For a Realist, the security dilemma created is the only thing that matters and the economic, cultural, and political assets the Scottish may have as an independent nation are insignificant.

Liberalism provides a more objective and realistic reasoning for why the Scottish voted “no.” The first and most obvious use of liberalism, in the debate stems from the emphasis liberalism puts on rationality. Individuals are rational, and therefore states should be rational.  Although rationality is difficult to access Scotland opted for security, over the chance of self-reliance. Moreover, the fact that there was a vote for separation is a triumph, which is exemplified in the democratic peace process. Two democracies will not engage in warfare, and in this situation the countries in the United Kingdom instead of engaging in warfare to separate themselves from one another, a simple vote was called. Economic interdependence is a vital theory of liberalism, using the microcosm of Scotland and the rest of the UK partner countries. It is clear the separation of one or all of them would have devastated the collective British economy. War becomes more costly with economies linked. With governments separated currency, regulations, and taxes would all be altered. Even the threat of such changes causes insecurity, which can severally effect financial markets that in turn could cause an economic downturn in the entirety of the UK and have a rippling effect across the globe.  This modern globalized world, explained in Opello and Rosow’s The Nation State and Global Order, developed through the unification of territory, the creation of the contemporary state ergo the UK, and the surge of capitalism, which shaped liberalism, separating it from Realism.

            Though imperfect for analyzing the cause and possible effects of the Scottish independence vote, Realism and Liberalism are important lenses in which to view the situation. In the 21^st century, these 19^th and 20^th century international relations theories will need to be modified as globalization and threats to it spread from Scotland to countries and regions across the globe.