Introduction to International Relations Theory & Its Problems
A Starting Point In Global Politics
--
Introduction
IR theory is difficult to define. On a textbook, IR theory is defined as the many schools of thought within foreign policy, or in other words, the many ways people interpret history and current events. But what does that even mean? To put it simply, think about IR theory as if it’s the “political parties” within international politics. Imagine political parties like the democrats and the republicans, but instead of being about domestic policy, they articulate one’s world view and stance on international politics. In IR theory, the main “political parties” of international relations are the liberalists, realists, and idealists (aka constructivists). Although there are many more diverse and diverging “political parties” within international relations, these ones are the three main pillars, or theories, that constitute the most widely established philosophies within IR theory. In other words, liberalism, realism, and idealism are the most popular ideologies of foreign policy.
Within these many different perspectives in IR theory, however, there lies numerous problems. As although IR theory is integral for understanding foreign affairs, it also inadvertently creates problems of tribalism, polarization, and lack of focus, which can distract us from the real issues at hand. It’s just like how our own political party alliances can ruin political discourse at home.
So why bother to learn about the complicated world of IR theory? In order to develop your own political compass in world affairs or to understand the political lens and perspective of another, one must at least have a grasp on IR theory fundamentals. While I certainly am not an expert on the subject, just knowing the little bit that I do has helped me immensely in better understanding the political landscape of the world and given me a starting point in the complicated world of international relations.
The Three Pillars
Liberalism:
While idealism and realism could be compatible with different types of ideologies and governments, the primary function of liberalism is to spread democratic ideals. Above all else, liberals (not to be confused with the Democratic party kind of liberal) stress the importance of globalization and international cooperation, as they see it as the only viable option to safeguard world peace and stability. Liberals reason that a more interconnected and interdependent global community would be less willing to go to (large scale) war, given that their economies would be so intertwined and reliant on the other. On the current relationship between China and the United States, liberals would say that provocations (like the South China Sea dispute) might have sparked war in a more isolated time one hundred years ago, but recent globalization and interdependency has prevented war between the rising and established power. One of the more criticized ideas of liberalism is the notion that democracies won’t compete or go to war with each other. Liberals fail to see that not only do democracies compete for influence, but democracies can still go to war from causes that transcend government ideology, such as in ethnic/religious, strategic, and resource wars. Liberals are very staunch supporters of international institutions like the United Nations, and also were the founders of the ill-fated League of Nations. They claim that without said institutions to uphold international law, only the hegemonic power(s) would dictate the global justice system, and that would only be in the capacity of their favor. All in all, liberals believe that globalization produces peace, international organizations are needed to uphold international law, and that liberty and democracy must be spread as much as possible.
Realism:
Unlike liberals and idealists, realists care much less about values and ideology, but focus much more on the distribution of power (both hard and soft) in the world order of global politics. One of the underlying core concepts of the realist doctrine is this idea of ‘the balance of power.’ The premise of the theory is that world order always strives for balance or equilibrium. In other words, for every major power, there needs to be another equally as strong (or a coalition of smaller powers) to counterbalance it. A perfect example of this would be the rival factions of the Soviet Union and the United States. While each power had their respective spheres of influence, the presence of the other prevented either (for a time) from achieving hegemonic status. Many critics of realism would say that the current presence of the American hegemony directly contradicts the idea of ‘balance of powers,’ but realists still exist in the “post-9/11 world order,” albeit in a more reformed version of their ideology. Looking at foreign policy strategies, realists have been known to collaborate with those they might not see eye to eye with under the guise of the Arabian proverb “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” An example of this in contemporary history would be the normalization of ties between communist China (PRC) and the United States by the Kissinger and the Nixon administration. While the values and culture of the US and PRC were greatly different, the US saw this as an opportunity to win the Chinese over from the Soviets. You see, starting with death of Stalin, the relations between the Soviets and the Chinese had become increasingly strained. While their political systems were polar opposites, Kissinger forgave these differences in the national interest of curbing the influence of the USSR. In conclusion, realists take a pragmatic approach to foreign policy and are willing to ignore values, ideology, and traditions, as long as it benefits the national interests of the state.
Idealism:
Compared to the other approaches, idealism is much less defined as an ideology. Unlike liberalism and realism, idealism doesn’t have any sort of political orthodoxy, as self-described idealists often have very opposing view points and disagreements with each other. With this in mind, however, although specific idealist policies are hard to pinpoint, all idealists do share some important commonalities. First, all idealists “seek to advance certain ideals or moral goals” (Wilson). They believe that rather than from military strength or smart diplomatic strategy, international power is established from the spreading of soft power, or more specifically, the exporting of values, religion, and culture all across the planet. Another thing all idealists believe is that a country’s foreign policy should be derived from its domestic policy and national values. For example, one idealist who has been in the news recently is US Senator Elizabeth Warren. In her campaign for the presidency, Senator Warren recently articulated her vision for American foreign policy in an essay she wrote for the Foreign Affairs magazine. On her foreign policy she wrote, “… the United States can no longer maintain the comfortable assumption that its domestic and foreign policies are separate,” as in her eyes, the separation of public policy from foreign affairs has contributed to “… American workers [getting] the [economic] short end of the stick” (Warren 51–52). If you have ever listened to one speech by Elizabeth Warren, you would know that one of her central political goals is to tackle the growing gap of wealth inequality in the United States. So when she writes that “U.S. foreign policy should not prioritize corporate profits over American families” or that she wants “to make sure globalization benefits middle-class Americans,” she is repeating her domestic political vision (Warren 53). This dynamic, along with how Senator Warren advocates for the moral issue of representing workers’ interests, makes her an idealist. As for critics of the ideology, one of the main criticisms idealist face is that in order to spread soft power, one must need hard power to back it up. Critics mention how countries with little power in the international community often don’t have the opportunity to export their societal values, while powerful countries like the United States dominate the discussion. To summarize, idealists prioritize morality in global politics and believe that soft power is more important than hard power.
Problems With IR Theory & Conclusion
Tribalism, Polarization, and Distraction
Just like with domestic political discourse, tribalism has also plagued the conversations of international affairs. In part, IR theory is to blame. Having created labels, and virtually political parties, for the world of foreign policy, IR theory is in a way responsible for the partisanship we see in conversations about global politics. I have noticed recently that there has been this obsession to label and categorize politicians under these boxes. For example, I recently read an article on Foreign Policy titled “Has Trump Become a Realist?” where the author attempts to fit Trump’s entire foreign policy ideology in the extremely small box of realism. As Jack Snyder so beautifully sums up in his famous Foreign Policy article “One World, Rival Theories,” “… when realism, liberalism, and idealism enter the policy making arena and public debate, they can sometimes be intellectual window dressing for simplistic world views. Properly understood, however, their policy implications are subtle and multifaceted” (Snyder 3–4). In other words, no person or party can ever fit under one box. Often times, an individual can be a mixture of two or even all three of the established philosophies of IR theory. Thus, IR theory shouldn’t be done away with, but its current use in political discussion needs to be restructured. IR theory isn’t about team sports or political rivalry, IR theory provides the “… vocabulary and conceptual framework [of international affairs] to ask hard questions of those who think that changing the world is easy” (Snyder 11).
Given that this is my first article on Medium, any feedback or criticism would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much.
Bibliography & Citations
Content Based Sources
Snyder, Jack. “One World, Rival Theories” Essential Readings In World Politics, Mingst, Snyder, Sixth Edition, Norton, 2017, 117.
Warren, Elizabeth. “A Foreign Policy For All” Foreign Affairs, vol. 1, no. 98, Jan.-Feb. 2019, pp. 50–54.
Walt, M. Stephen. “One World Many Theories” Foreign Policy no. 110, Special Edition: Frontiers of Knowledge (Spring, 1998), pp. 29–32, 34–46.
Walt, M. Stephen. “Has Trump Become A Realist?” Foreign Policy 17 April 2018. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/04/17/has-trump-become-a-realist/. Accessed 30 August, 2018.
Wilson, Peter. “Idealism” Oxford Bibliographies, 26 August 2014. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/obo-9780199743292-0089.xml Accessed 21 February, 2019.
Jacques, Martin. When China Rules the World: The End of the Western World and the Birth of a New Global Order. New York: Penguin Books, 2012. Print.
