Realism in International Relations: Anarchy, Self-Help & Power - Essay Sample

Introduction

Realism can be considered as one of the most enduring approaches to international relations. All events in international politics make sense and can be described through relatively clear and immediate principles of international anarchy and self-help. Realists argue that states act in pursuit of power and national interests to serve the interests of their citizens. In particular, international order originates from concentrations of power instead of from shifting balances of power. Conversely, in liberalism, international politics can be explained through the key assumptions of democracy and human rights. Liberals stress the wellbeing of all human beings as the fundamental foundation of a just political regime. On the other hand, anti-imperialism asserts that nations act to gain dominance over weaker states, which can be explained through the principle of self-critical attitude.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In this hypothetical scenario, the realists' perspective on President Trump's claim that the U.S has historically promoted freedom around the world would be that the president is only concerned with continuing America's pursuit of its struggle for global power and national interests. In addition, they would claim that America's definition of human freedom is based on their form of morality that it uses to justify its conduct. Moreover, in the speech, President Trump states that they have a responsibility to act when their values are at stake.

Conversely, the liberals would base their view on President Trump's claim on the liberal institutionalism of pre-WWII period advocated for by Woodrow Wilson. Liberal institutionalism stressed that countries must protect the important freedoms of human beings, a thing that support's President Trump's claim. Further, the liberals would argue that the U.S's hegemonic primacy sets a stage to achieve stability and peace around the world (Leffler2005, 69). Moreover, the liberals view emphasizes international cooperation.

The anti-imperialists would view President Trump's claim as a proclamation of America's imperial mission to control weaker states, which they disguise as a historical promotion of human freedom. In particular, although the attack would liberate the civilians from King N'Jadaka's violence, America would gain control in the kingdom of Wakanda, which is unjust as they would be dictating the institutions of a foreign country.

In the realists' view, President Trump's decision to use military force in Wakanda would be a part of a more general post-Cold War liberal expansionism, which is a result of the pursuit of American hegemonic primacy. The realists would blame the invasion on the strain of liberal internationalism that highlight the spread and promotion of democracy and idealist humanitarianism. According to the realists, the primary objective of the attack on King N'Jadaka would be the introduction and extension of American primacy in a region with high significance to American national interests. President Trump views Wakanda as a region with a demonstrated record of vibranium-weapons manufacture posing an inevitable military threat to American forces and allies. For the realists, the decisive defeat of King N'Jadaka would promise to avail a worldwide demonstration of the capabilities and willingness of the U.S. to defend its global position and dispel the doubts created during the Clinton regime concerning America's willingness to use force (Leffler2005, 69).

However, the liberals would be troubled by President Trump's militaristic approach to bring order in the kingdom of Wakanda. Moreover, liberals promote the creation of institutions and programs that protect the lives of citizens. Nevertheless, they would accept exceptionalism because the use of military force in Wakanda is officially based on humanitarian reasons for protecting the civilians. In this view, President Trump would pursue the universal realization of a liberal world order with the military force, which is the means at its disposal. By attacking King N'Jadaka, he would be ridding the world of an evildoer and hence, liberate the civilians.

Just like the liberals, the anti-imperialists would be troubled by and would oppose President Trump's decision to use military force in Wakanda. In their view, such an attack would be a symbol of America's imperial mission to expand its state hegemony over less-developed nations such as the kingdom of Wakanda. The anti-imperialists would view the humanitarian assistance to be a disguise for President Trump's foreign intervention to bring peace in Wakanda in an attempt to promote his political and economic objectives in the kingdom (Leffler2005, 69). Therefore, the anti-imperialists would oppose this decision because of the moral repulsion at the results of America's involvement in Wakanda civil war. Moreover, they believe that it is wrong for a country to have colonies or subject people as it demeans its democracy. Notably, the anti-imperialists would base their perspective on the WWII and immediate aftermath period.

Conclusion

To conclude, I would support liberalism perspective, which stresses the wellbeing of all human beings as the fundamental foundation of a just political regime. In this perspective, the U.S's hegemonic primacy sets a stage to achieve stability and peace around the world. The use of military force based on humanitarian reasons would be the only means at its disposal since the international community has given King N'Jadaka a final chance to cease his violence against civilians without success. Hence, it is liberal to act in the interests of all human beings.

Work Cited

Leffler, Melvyn P. "Cold War and global hegemony, 1945-1991." OAH Magazine of History 19.2 (2005): 65-72.