The Real
Issues: International Relations
How Structural Realism Shows America Needs a More Liberal, Multilateral Approach to Foreign Policy
By Charles Kirchofer, Dec. 17th, 2008
Home Politics
Page
I actually should be finishing work on part two of my series (if
you can call something that when it only has one part) on the big
issues for Barack Obama in foreign policy. Or I could work on my
planned article on why the stock market is not a casino, even now.
Instead, I want to take a few moments to do something unorthodox. If
you were thrown off by the title of this article (thinking "what the
f$!k is 'structural realism'?!"), have no fear: I'm not about to get
all theoretical on you. What I will
say, however, is this: there are two major schools of thought on
international politics (and maybe a third or possibly fourth, depending
whom you ask). These are realism and liberalism. Realists believe
nation states are the central players on the international scene and
that these states live in a competitive environment. Liberals believe
the world is becoming ever more integrated, that NGOs, international
organizations, and transnational corporations have seriously reduced
the influence of nation states on world affairs, and that there is
something called the "international community," whose desires may be
universal and are to be put above national interests. OK, that's it for
the theory. Here's the unorthodox part: rubbish, I say. I'm about to
argue for a more liberal American approach to foreign policy for realist
reasons. That's right: the two terms are a false dichotomy, which is
why I say they're both right and therefore both wrong, which means we
are free to combine reasoning from both "schools" as they fit.
The realist foundation
OK, maybe there's going to be more theory than I promised, but stay
with me. Structural realism holds that the number of great powers in
the world (called "poles") decide the system's structure,
which, in turn, influences outcomes. For example: the world before 1945
was multipolar, with most of the great powers right next to each other
in Europe. Because the competitors were next to each other and relied
on each other for resources because they were all relatively small, it
was very unlikely that there would be any lasting European cooperation.
Indeed, though they tried, this was the case. After 1945 the world
became bipolar, with the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. as the great powers.
Now, with none of the great powers in Western Europe, the countries
there were no longer in a position where they had to compete with each
other. Cooperation was then possible. The result? The European
Community and later the EU, complete with a shared currency. Liberals
would say the Europeans just finally learned their lesson and learned
to cooperate, but everyone thought that in the late 19th century and
after WWI, too. Do ideas and public opinion matter? Sure, but I think
this structural explanation explains the timing better and is the more
likely underlying enabler (combined with factors the liberals point
out).
Nice history lesson, so what's this have to do with anything?
Good question. The world
today is no longer bipolar, it's become unipolar, or possibly
multipolar. Militarily, at least, the world is definitely unipolar,
with America the military superpower (it's military spending is more
than the spending of the next five top military spenders combined).
Good for the U.S., right? Well, not really. Realists predict that
states always move toward balancing power. This would mean essentially
everyone else would align against, or at the very least refuse to
cooperate with, the United States. European countries may not have
agreed with the Vietnam war, either, and yet cooperation remained high
because the system was bipolar. It was the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. Faced
with that decision, they largely stuck with the U.S. Diplomats
will tell you cooperation has become more difficult. Realists would
argue this process was set in motion after the fall of the Soviet Union
(meaning the tendency would be present even without the Iraq war).
That said, I think we can agree the Iraq war certainly helped to ally
states against the U.S. This is bad news. The U.S. was used to playing
the world polkic force during the Cold War. It was indirectly
encouraged to do so by the presence of the other pole (the U.S.S.R.),
and it was also constricted by the Soviet presence, which checked U.S.
power. In the 90's, the U.S. suddenly saw itself changed from a
superpower to what some called a "hyperpower." With all this power
sitting around, some felt it was time to use it to change the world
according to their own standards, just as realists would have
predicted. Hence: the Iraq War.
What does this mean for us now? Regardless of whether the world is
(still) unipolar or if it has become multipolar, cooperation is likely
to become more difficult. My conclusion? Start thinking like liberals.
Start welcoming cooperation, rely more on "soft power" ("winning over
the hearts and minds" of the world, making them want to be more like us
and want to cooperate with us), encourage reform in, and support the
workings of, international organizations (particularly the UN and
NATO). As I've mentioned before, it's time to dust off old time art of
diplomacy, because coercion is simply going to meet with ever more
resistance and become ever more counterproductive for global and U.S.
aims.
In the end, the realists accurately describe how the world works, but the liberals accurately prescribe
what we should do in the current environment. So we should speak softly
and be more friendly, everyone already knows we're carrying a big stick
(and I'd advise keeping it).
Comment
View
Comments
Politics
page
Home