Abstract:
By looking at empirical evidence from the transitional period between the 20th and 21 century, one can make a prediction of nature of the latter 21st century. The evidence points to the 21st century being dominated by realism.
The 21st century promises to an extraordinary one for humankind. From technological advances in communication technology to pressing issues of climate change, one is for certain; change is inevitable. The question that then remains is that of the nature of the change that the globe will experience. Will the 21st century be a utopic paradise of international cooperation or will it be a continuation of the exploitive and self-interested state system that has dominated the 20th century?
Will the 21st century be a realist one? To answer this question one needs to understand what realism theory is and how it is applicable to international relations study. One needs to then look at empirical evidence from the transitional period between the 20th century and the 21st century. Only by following this approach can one predict with any accuracy if the 21st century will be realist or not. This transitional period is the 20-year period between 1990 and 2010. By looking at the evidence, one can clearly see that 21st century world politics will be realist in nature and dominated by individual state’s self-interest.
What is realism in international relations and where did it start? Political realism has its roots in the philosophies of classical philosophers such as Thomas Hobbs and Niccolo Machiavelli. Hobbs argues that an anarchist system would always lead to conflict and war between individual parties in the system (Leviathan 2002:535). Machiavelli argues that the single aim of the political is to seek power regardless of ethical or the religious (The Prince 2009:18). While these classic philosophers may have created the precursors to realism, it would be ignorant to say that they would call themselves realists.
The theory of political realism as we know it today is a constitutive theory that says that international politics is dominated by states, and that all states act in their own self-interest because of the nature of humans themselves, acting in their own self-interest. It is a practical theory of how politics is and should be conducted. It places the importance of practical applicability of world politics over the more idealistic aims of liberalism theory. It is for this reason; the need to contrast the realist perspective with the liberalist agenda, that one needs to understand liberalism in its entirety as well. In brief, liberalism is a theory that places idealism above the more pessimistic view of realists.
Liberalism contests that states have more to gain from peaceful international cooperation than war. Liberalism has an optimistic perspective of the nature of humans and believes humans are primarily peaceful. Liberalism also states that other actors beside the state have crucial role in international politics. It is because of these opposing views that liberalism and realism and non-compatible.
Now with a firm understanding of the theories involved, one can contrast empirical evidence from the transition period between the 20th and 21st century. This evidence needs to be examined from both a realist and a liberal perspective and needs to be viewed in its social, economic and political contexts. Special attention must be given to issues that are especially pressing such as the scarcity of oil and our dependence on it, the limitations of the United Nations as a global hegemon and the importance of nation security for the realist agenda.
In 1945, the UN charter was signed which effectively create an organization that was supposed to umbrella the globe; put an end to global conflict and deliver on the ideologies proposed by the advocates of liberalism such as the then president of the United Nations, Franklin D. Roosevelt (UN 2010:1). While the initial aim of the United Nations may have liberal, the reality that one finds is quite the opposite.
In 2003, the United States of America and its allies invaded Iraq. According to the then Secretary-General of the United Nation Kofi Annan, the invasion was illegal as it contravened the UN Charter (BBC 2004:1). The reason why this instance is interesting and relevant to this papers argument is because it shows that the state’s self-interest still takes precedence over that of an NGO with considerable influence in world politics. This shows that the liberal idea that other actors play an important role is only true when it is convenient for the state. The state still has the final word in world politics, which tends to suggest that the early 21st century is realist in nature.
Realism does not only derive its theoretical argument that power is primary for a state’s national interest by having a large military force to protect national security, it also states that power is derived from economic dominance as well. It is rather the combination of the two that makes a state powerful. In February 2000, Ukraine disarmed a large percentage of its nuclear arsenal and handed it over to Russia in return for debt relief. This massive debt owed to Russia had arisen from monies owed from gas consumption (Nuclear Information Project 2010:1).
This example shows that Russia has economic superiority over the Ukraine, as the Ukraine is dependant on Russia for gas. The Ukraine is a direct threat to Russian national security because it posses such a large cash of nuclear weapons and is in relative proximity to Russia. Russia does, however, have economic supremacy over Ukraine. By using this supremacy Russia was able to reduce the threat that the Ukraine had over it. This shows Russia managed to use its power over Ukraine to protect its national security, which once again shows that realism prevailed in the 21st century.
Another pressing issue of international politics is that of state sovereignty. The international community of states gives sovereignty to other states by means of recognition of that state. Sovereignty implied that a state could make its own choices and govern itself internally. Sovereignty can, however, be taken away just as quickly. In 2000, the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America helped start a coup to overthrow the president of Venezuela. This was because Venezuela drafted a new constitution that was not inline with the United State’s self interest. Venezuela is rich in oil and the United States economy is designed to run on a cheap fuel source such as oil (Global Research 2010:1).
This illustrates the realist nature of the relationship between Venezuela and United States. It shows that sovereignty, an idea so critical to international cooperation which itself is at the heart of liberalism, is so easily overlooked when issues of nation interest are at stake. This supports the argument that the 21st century will be realist in nature.
In conclusion, while international politics has aspired to live up to liberal ideologies with the creation of such organizations such as the United Nations, the fact of the matter is that national interest takes precedent over how the system should work on paper. States are perpetually trying to gain power with military and economic dominance over other states. Sovereignty is only respected as long as it is convenient for all parties involved in international politics. To suggest that the 21st century will not be dominated by realism is to suggest that the fundamental nature of humankind will itself change.
List of References:
· Hobbs, T (ed.) 2002, Leviathan, A.P. Martinich, Broadview Press, Toronto.
· Machiavelli, N (ed.) 2009, The Prince, R. Dillion, Veroglyphic Publishing, Plano.
· United Nations n.d., About the United Nations/ History, viewed 15 August 2010,
· BBC News 2004, Iraq was illegal says Annan, viewed 15 August 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm.
· Nuclear Information Project 2010, Ukraine Special Weapons, viewed 15 August 2010,
· Global Research 2010, Venezuela: Coup and Countercoup: Revolution, viewed 15 August 2010,
No comments:
Post a Comment