Realism Applied and Compared Essay The word document have the reading on the last page and the notes are in there as well for the assignment MLA format NOT
Realism Applied and Compared Essay The word document have the reading on the last page and the notes are in there as well for the assignment MLA format NOTES SECOND ASSIGMENT
02-19-2019
6. American Ideas: Realism
Three Themes on realism
I. foundations of American realist thought
II. elements of realist theory
III. realism in action
I.
REALISM AS AN AMERICAN TRADTION
AMERCAS ORIGINAL FOREIGN POLICY: THE WARS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 1792-1815
Not a realist: THOMAS JEFFERSON
To Jefferson
.
Foreign policy is based on freedom and conviction individual agency
He initially rejects engagement for neutrality
French Revolution: Abandons neutrality, Champions France and Revolution. America has
a moral obligation
As president: Foreign Policy is a logical extension of domestic policy: Barbary pirate War
and Louisiana purchase
Or is another force at work ?
First Principles: Alexander Hamilton
Hamiltons Pacificus Paper 1793, and Kissinger, Diplomacy,1994
Anticipating realism: Foreign policy is constrained, freedom is limited
Cautions against action on gratitude, sentiment, emotion or zeal
Notes the higher international rule of national interest
Domestic morality is not a basis for international action.
the rule of morality is not
precisely the same between nations, as between individuals.
Interning in war between France and Britain would be devastating
THE FAREWELL ADDRESS 1796
The Farewell Address develops the Hamiltonian vision of foreign policy based on
national self-interest,
Crafting a foreign Policy for a small power,
Foreign policy is based on permanent principles,
But flexible rules
Spanish- American war 1898
Rejecting the Washington Farewell approach
Rejecting realism?
Transformation foreign policy: acting like a great power
Americas invasion of Cuba, justified morally
But conquest of the Philippines is justified not by morality, but power, competition, selfinterest
(later moral justifications would justify permanent conquest in both)
REALISM PLUS: THEODORE ROOSEVELT
Theodore Roosevelt says international politics is a Darwinian competition, it is war
It cannot be shaped by law, institutions or compromise
War is an effective and desirable solution to political and economic disputes
Powerful states are entitled to take territory: European colonialism, Japan in Korea,
America in Caribbean
Kissingers lament: Roosevelts approach is not sustainable
WILSONIAN ALTERNATIVE
Wilsonian Insights:
Foreign policy requires public support to be legitimate and sustainable
Public support requires a moral foundation
A superior moral position enhances national power
The most sustainable moral foundation is a commitment to institutions and normas
Kissingers assessment of Wilsonian Liberalism
INTERWAR RETREAT FROM WILSONIAN AND REALIST ENGAGEMENT
But sustaining engagement is tough ( de Tocquevilles insight from 1835)
US Senate rejects the Treaty of Versailles, 1919,
America Subjects both Wilsonianism and Realism
Populist revolt: U.S. Senate debates neutrality, 1937
Again in the 1950s, Bricker Amendment
Again with President Trumps reconsideration of alliances
INTERWAR: AMERICA TRIES NEUTRALITY
Populist effort to avoid world war two, pursuit of Jeffersonian neutrality, acts of 193539
America First Committee, Charles Lindberg as spokesman
Opposed to alliance, balancing power maximizing, and opposed war with Germany
Historical conclusion: America helped cause World War Two (Nature abhors a vacuum)
II.
ELEMENTS OF REALISM
Writing first in 1947-48
His question: What should be the future of American foreign policy?
How to avoid World War Three?
His solution: reject exceptionalism, think systematically, think realist
Formalizing realism to explain it to American audiences
Building Hamiltonian, Washingtonian concepts, not Theodore Roosevelt
REALISMS BASIC PROBLEM
Morgenthau stress; power is the basic problem of IR
Power abhors a vacuum (Aristotle, Nature abhors a vacuum)
Failure to assert power invites loss of control or calamity
But power fluctuates, since its foundations are largely domestic and instable
And its ingredients change, with technology and economics
WHY POWER MATTERS: STATE SOVEREIGNTY
Sovereignty
The state recognizes no higher authority
The state has unique freedom of action
But sovereignty is a slippery concept
Also a legal fiction
REALISM: A UNIVERSAL THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Basic elements:
Anarchy: Basic condition, a self-help system
Sovereignty: Basic principle
State: most important actors
Power: means and ends of international politics
National interest: Power maximization
A UNIVERSAL THEORY OF FOREIGN POLICY
States constantly calculate power dynamics and improvise accordingly
Basic issue: Rise and Fall of great powers, adjusting, accommodating
Great powers maximize their influence and connections
States maximize allies and attractiveness to offset other great powers
Alliances best assure successful alliances
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS GOVERNES BY SYSTEMIC FORCES
IR is a system; more than the characteristics of the states that populate it
A system is synergistic, with its own characteristics. It has structure, which the elements
must accept.
Sovereignty/anarchy creates a system distinct from actor intentions. In other words
System structure is greater than actor agency
STATES MUST MAXIMIZE THEIR GLOBAL POSITION
Realism assumes states are power maximizers
States confront other states trying to increase their own power
States seek alliances that enhance their power and weaken rising powers,
Power maximization and alliances are your best insurance
How much of this do you see? Are states power maximizers?
CONSTANTLY CALCULATING: STATES MAXIMIZE THEIR GLOBAL POSITION
Realism is constantly calculating what can and cannot be don e
Balancing the means and ends of foreign policy
Decisions should always be based on the national interest
Confront potential hegemons, reduce secondary matters
War is always possible, even if it not likely
Constant calculation and adjusting
Balancing requires flexibility, based on interest,
No sentimental attachments, no ideological goals
Todays enemy may be tomorrows friends
Especially small and middle powers. Sometimes greater powers
So treat todays adversaries with care: today Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, ETC
REALISMS BASIC ISSUE: RISE AND FALL OF GREAT POWERS
20th century adjustment issues
– Rise of
Decline of
Germany
Austria-Hungary
Japan
Turkey
Soviet Union
United Kingdom
United States
21st Century adjustment issues
– Rise of
Decline of
China
Russia
India
United States
Turkey
Brazil
Others?
The intention of a rising or declining state is secondary
The fact of their changing capability creates problems
Under realism, how should the US respond to Russia and China?
REALISM: BILLIARD-BALL MODEL
What happens inside the state is irrelevant
Advantages:
Elegant and predictive: easy to apply,
Provides moral justification for moral behavior,
Clear priorities among 200 states, other actors and issues,
Helps explain obscure cases (North Korea) and confusing ones (Iran, United States).
Realism: Everything else is secondary
– Other actor dont matter intrinsically:
Emotional alliances (Israel)
Emotional enemies (cuba, iran(
International organizations
Multi-National Corporations (MNCs) and Non-Governmental Organization (NGOs)
leaders, INDIVIDUALS, GROUPS, ETHNIC GROUPS, RELIGIONS, CIVILIXATION, NONCE
MATTER SA MUCH
– Other issues dont matter, except as they affect the capabilities of great powers:
Emotional connections, friends, favorites (example of US and Israel)
Democracy/dictatorship (Venezuela)
Genocide and war crimes
Ethics, norms and principals
Terrorism
Individuals, gender, human rights
Not so simple: realism does not ignore international organizations
Unlike Wilsonianism, realism is not invested in international law, institutions and norms
for their own sake, Realism is skeptical of the transformative potential of international
processes,
Realism values international institutions as arenas where power can be advances,
alliances strengthened
Not so simple: the role of individuals in realism
– Realism does not deny human agency
Individuals can act as they please,
They can deny realist forces, in the short run,
But personality matters lees than system structure,
In the long run, states will conform to realist logic
Hierarchical, not popular
American realism emerged as a reaction against 1930 populism: the people do not
always know best
Framing: the word realism
Scientific: based on testable and reproducible propositions
Privileges: leaders/elites
A political orphan: realism challenges an egalitarian culture, and it lacks an emotional
appeal and goal
Realism as a response to alternatives
Realism is
Cosmopolitan: a universal philosophy, it rejects nationalism and exceptionalism,
Internationalist: rejects Jeffersonian isolationism
Statist: it rejects Wilsonian international institutionalism and norm building, advocates
alliance instead,
Elitist:
III.
REALISM IN ACTION: 2010
Presidents Obama and Medvedev sign the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ( New
START) 8 April 2010
Realists to deals. Realism permits cooperation when it is mutually beneficial
Here both accept equal limits on nuclear forces, 1550 deliverable strategic nuclear
warheads
Based on mutual self-interest, reciprocity, not affection or transformation
REALISM IN ACTION: 2013
President Obama and Putin, Enniskillen, Northern Ireland, 17 June 2013
Barriers to realism: Individual agency
Disruptive Force: Democratization
Democracy excepts moral justifications,
Reduces the flexibility realism needs,
Choices may require popular acceptance
Is realism a political orphan?
Disruptive force: Nationalism
Nationalism vs. realist foreign policy making:
Belief in national superiority, exceptionalism,
Nationalism reduces flexibility, options and choice
It inhibits compromise and bargaining
Nationalism encourage international conflict
02-26-19
7. AMERICAN IDEAS: REALISM APPLIED
I.
Using theories to explain foreign policy choices
Use theory to explain Donald Trump in 2013
31 August 2013 chemical weapons attack on Ghouta Syria.
Estimates of Dead 300-1800
Result: Under UN, Russian and US pressure, Syria eliminates its then-chemical weapons
stocks.
Catalyst for change: 2017 Khan Shaykhun chemical attack
Another CW attack, 4 April 2017
Killed approximately 60 to 100 people
Symptoms consistent with Sarin, a nerve agent
II.
REVIEWING REALISMS BASIC PROBLEM AND ELEMENTS
Power is the basic problem of IR
Power abhors a vacuum: Aristotle,Nature abhors a vacuum
Realism assumes states must maximize their power
But power fluctuates, since its foundations are largely domestic and instable
States must calculate and adjust to maximize their situation
A UNIVERSAL THEORY OF FOREIGN POLICY
States constantly calculate power dynamics and improvise accordingly
Basic issue: Rise and fall of great powers, adjusting, accommodating
Great powers maximize their power influence and connections
States maximize allies and attractiveness to offset other great powers
Alliances best assure successful adjustment
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS GOVERNED BY SYSTEMIC FORCES
IR is a system; more than the characteristics of the states that populate it
A system is synergistic, with its own characteristics. It has structure, which the elements
must accept
Sovereignty/anarchy creates a system distinct from actor intentions. In other words
..
System structure is greater actor agency
STATES MUST MAXIMIZE THEIR GLOBAL POSITION
Realism assumes states are power maximizers
States confront other states trying to increase their own power
States seek alliances that enhance their power and weaken rising powers
Power maximization and alliances are your best insurance
How much of this do you see? Are states power maximizers?
CONSTANTLY CALCULATING: STATES MAXIMIZE THEIR GLOBAL POSITION
Realism is constantly calculating what can and cannot be done
Balancing means and ends of foreign policy
Decisions should always be based on the national interest
Confront potential hegemons, reduce secondary matters
War is always possible, even if it not likely
REALIST FOCUS ON MAJOR POWERS
Balancing requires flexibility, based on interest,
No sentimental attachments, no ideological goals
Todays enemy may be tomorrows friend
Especially small and middle power. Sometimes greater powers
So treat todays adversaries with care: today Cuba, Iran, north Korea, Venezuela, etc
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE SAME WORLD
Similarities between realism and Jacksonianism:
Both are pessimistic, believe conflict is unavoidable,
Both like flexibility, albeit for different reasons
Biggest difference is degree of choice on engagement, and goals of engagement
But realism does not demonize enemies
Similarities between Realism and Wilsonianism:
Both maximize international diplomacy engagement
Realism likes international alliances and organizations
But realism rejects the norm-building aspects stressed by Wilsonian Liberalism
INDIVIDUALS IN REALISM
Realism does not deny Human Agency
Realism accept that individuals can act as they please
They can deny realist forces, in the short run
But personality matters less than system structure
In the long run, states will conform to realist logic
ANOTHER WAY TO PUT IT: HEART VERSUS BRAIN
Not a unique problem in foreign policy. A realist critique in literature:
F. Scott Fitzgerald and Great American Dream of re-invention, 1925
Fitzgerald: structural forces cannot be overcome through will alone. People must
accommodate to forces. Failure to accommodate forces leads to disappointment,
maybe destruction
Awfully sorry, Mr. Gatsby. You cant have Daisy
WHAT REALISM DOES BEST
Explain long-term continuities: usually due to power and geography
Explains sudden shifts, in responses to changing power relations
Guides future policy, by stressing trends in distribution of power
Suggests when to stick by allies, when to shift
III.
REALISM TESTED IN POST-1945 EXAMPLES
Is realism easier said than done?
Why can realism be difficult to implement?
Why did it seem much easier in earlier times
REALISM IN ACTION
Containment and deterrence, 1949
US and USSR were allies, 1942-45
Conflict and reversal, 1945-1947
The United States abandons historic principles to make permanent alliances, 1947-49
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) 1949, followed by alliance with Japan
South Korea
Accepting partial means and goals: Deterrence and containment
REALIST CALCULATION AND ACHIEVEMENT
Avoided World War Three, without losing the peace
Cold War policy rejected popular choices: neutrality or rollback
Instead realism calculated: capabilities and policies, ends and means
Accepted partial means and partial goals: assure allies, provide deterrence and
containment
Not easy; constant diplomacy and domestic coalition building
As for bigger goals: realism cautioned strategic patience; just wait.
WHY SO POPULAR TODAY?
After the Cold War
Nato grew at US urging: Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama
Partially Realist, partially Wilsonian
Debate on Russian membership in the 1990s
Also a sense of limits: Georgia and Ukrainian membership applications, sorry, for now.
TODAYS NATO RIDDLE
Realist explanations: US has global commitments, allies think regionally
Smaller countries cannot contribute enough to matter
Some larger ones not wanted to spend that much; Germany and Turkey
Above all: Nato serves US interests regardless of allied contributions
REALISM IN ACTION: AMERICA AND CHINA REALIGN
Previously bitter enemies, working to undermine each others interests.
Both reversed policies to support their own interests
Both forego
Moral goals: American democracy, Chinese revolution
Is Henry Kissinger a realist hero or an ideological abomination
Obamas gradual realist shift
Other countries can control their global engagement, allowing them more latitude, such
as Brazil, Canada, Europe, Japan, Mexico
RALISM IN VIENNA
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA, the Iran Deal) signed in Vienna 14 July
2015,
No one is happy with it (a common hint for realism),
Everyone accepts it, calculating it is the best they can get, until US withdraws 8 May
2018
Avoids war
Does not permanently resolve Iranian nuclear weaponization
ADAPTING TO CONFLICT: RESTRAINT VS ASSERTION
Steven R David on Obama Administration realism:
Pivot to Asia, 2011
Stays out of the Syrian civil War, 2011-16
Ukraine policy in 2014, carefully calculated,
Iran nuclear negotiations, 2015 JCPoA
Starts US nuclear weapons modernization, 2015
BRANDS REALIST EVALUATION OF CURRENT POLICY
From a realist perspective, President Trumps major innovation is to deny American
exceptionalism
Weakening normative leadership: democracy, human rights, climate change, etc
Weakening soft power, attractiveness, above all weakening State Department
Trump is acting in a completely original way, abandoning the American internationalist
tradition
Rejecting the basic concept of allies, excepts Israel
Denying an essential or exceptional American global role.
BRANDS REALIST EVALUATION OF TRUMP FPREIGN POLICY
Weakening realist alliance connections: Nato, Japan, South Korea,
Embracing adversary leaders (Putin, Xi) and authoritarians (Duterte, Erodgan and now
Kim Jong-un)
OTHER COUNTRIES GET A VOTE
President Trump intentionally antagonizes allies, dilutes alliance commitments, and
raises demands, conditionality
Whether this is sincere, or bargaining is difficult to say
U.S. allies, less certain of American support, quickly begin adjusting,
Allies accommodating China and Russia
Or go their own way: The Trans-Pacific Partnership example
OFFSHORE BALANCING: LET OTHER LEAD
Let other actors, closer and with more immediate interests, dominate regional
situations
Current examples: Russia in Turkey in Syria, Saudi Arabia in Yemen, African Union in
Somalia
Avoid unnecessary engagements: Democracy, reg
HOW TO DO OFFSHORE BALANCING
Anti-Wilsonian and anti-Jacksonian
Avoid democracy promotion and human rights advocacy in Africa, Central Asia, Middle
East
Avoid regime change in Iran, North Korea, elsewhere
Stress trade relations and diplomacy, Air Force
Not WITHOUT RISK
ASSIGMENT 2
BURDEN SHARING DILEMMA
European confidence in US undermines incentives to spend more themselves,
Also real disagreement about how much is enough
America wants Europe to spend more, to make the alliance more credible
But America wants to keep control
And it is in Europe for its own security; it cannot credibly threaten to withdraw
THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEM: EXPLAINING AMERICAN RESISTANCE
Munich Security Conference: US officials express suspicion of European Union security
initiatives
U.S. fears increased E.U. spending will not be effective, or it will challenge U.S.
dominance
Implication: U.S. wants Europeans to invest more, but separately, not collectively
VII. American ideas: realism applied
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The case for offshore
balancing, Foreign Affairs, July-Aug 2016, and response by Hal
Brands and Peter Feaver, Should America retrench? Foreign
Affairs, N…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
