• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain the essential elements of the realist and liberalist perspectives on International Relations. To what extent is the current US policy stance towards Iraq consistent with either of these paradigms?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain the essential elements of the realist and liberalist perspectives on International Relations. To what extent is the current US policy stance towards Iraq consistent with either of these paradigms? There are two prominent stances in International Relations. The schools of thought are commonly referred to as realist and liberalist. There are various names that they are called, and they can also be split further into subdivisions. However, for the purposes of this question I will just refer to the main schools of thought, and the main aims of both the paradigms. At a first glance at this question, my gut feeling is that the United States aims to achieve the same as the liberalists, that of world peace. But the current stance of the US policy is to achieve this utopia by realist methods, pre-emptive war, balance of power and deterrence. The realist stance to International Relations believes that it is the state that is the most important actor and that war is a permanent likelihood and war is never far away. The statement that can reinforce this is; "security is the dominant goal of any state"1. ...read more.

Middle

The policy being followed is one of realism, having an effect of "containment and deterrence"4 to Iraq. The best example of the deterrence that the United States has placed on Iraq was the Gulf War. The threat of nuclear weapons by America and Israel deterred Saddam Hussein from using his.5 Opposite to this stance is that of the liberalist or pluralists, which arose after World War I and the advent of the League of Nations. Prominent supporters of this were Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd-George and other international statesmen. They believe that there is a possibility of a world that is war-free. Liberalists believe that their main aim is economic success and that priority must be give to the liberal values. It generally uses international organisations to achieve its aims. With the end of the Cold War the liberalists thought that the new cooperativeness would lead to a peaceful world. However, its main limitation is that it ignores the role of power balance. It does accept the role of the state as important, but it also says that other actors such as multi-national corporations have a larger role to play. ...read more.

Conclusion

America could not easily defeat Iraq alone. This raises cause for multilateralism, which I think will prevail. Recent events have also shown that the United States will act multilaterally. The new United Nations' resolution to force Hussein to allow inspectors into Iraq, or the consequences would mean war. What would America do if a unilateral war were won? They must be willing to station at occupational force foe up to 50 years to prevent a vacuum of power. Therefore a shared responsibility brought about by a multilateral action would be preferable to the US. To leave such a vacuum would cause ruptures politically in Iraq causing civil war and the possibility of somebody more extreme gaining power. Also the world oil market would be in turmoil should such a war be fought. This is another argument for deterrence rather then a pre-emptive war. 1 Nicholson M, International Relations, A Concise Introduction, 2002, pp93 2 Nicholson M, International Relations, A Concise Introduction, 2002, pp 93 3 Financial Times, 21/22 September 2002, pp1 4 Financial Times, 30 September 2002 5 International Herald Tribune, 28/9 September 2002 6 Nicholson M, International Relations: A Concise Introduction, 2002, pp99 7 Financial Times, 21/22 September 2002, pp1 8 Nicholson M, International Relations: A Concise Introduction, 2002 pp99 9 Financial Times, 21/22 September 2002, pp1 Mark Harratt ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level International History, 1945-1991 essays

  1. This graduation paper is about U.S. - Soviet relations in Cold War period. Our ...

    What if, in a demonstration, they failed to detonate? Thus, as horrible as it may seem in retrospect, no one ever seriously doubted the necessity of dropping the bomb on Japan once the weapon was perfected. On the Russian issue, however, there now seems little doubt that administration officials thought long and hard about the bomb's impact on postwar relations with the Soviet Union.

  2. The Foreign Policy of the Lone Superpower

    slogans in English (one in French for one of the Canadian stations) so their American audience would understand them. Karl states that "If Vietnam was the living room war, Iran was the living-room revolution. Iran established the preeminence of television in instant diplomacy.

  1. Introduction - US policy to Southeast Asia in general

    Again, America's near obsession with rebuilding Western Europe is demonstrated. The police action offensive triggered off a new intensity in the guerrilla insurgency. The nationalists appeared to be gaining the upper hand and Washington became concerned over the possible materialisation of "radical elements" within the movement.

  2. Superpower Relations 1945-90

    wanted to keep Germany weak. What happened at Potsdam? With Germany defeated, the leaders of the USA, USSR and Britain met again at Potsdam in July 1945. Roosevelt had died and been replaced by Truman, Churchill lost the election and was replaced by Clement Attlee.

  1. Many peoples have contributed to the development of the United States of America, a ...

    Until ratification (1870) of the 15TH AMENDMENT, which made it illegal to deny the vote on the grounds of race, most northern states refused blacks the vote. A Nation Transformed: The South Like the North, the South was transformed by the Civil War and its aftermath.

  2. The United Nations and the Iraq Conflict

    the beginning of established societies, it has been apparent that the leaders of the world are always the richest countries with the highest levels of development and military. This allows the state to be independent of outside countries; however, will continuing to gain power through holding firm control over the smaller countries below it.

  1. History of the United States

    Rebel governments were established in each colony, and the Continental Congress in Philadelphia provided a rudimentary national government. The task now before the British was to fight their way back onto the continent, reestablish royal governments in each colony, and defeat the colonial army.

  2. Why did President Bush not invade Iraq after he had won so easily in ...

    The main strength of this source is that since it was written so long after the war, Clancy had access to documents previously sealed by the government. Its main weakness, however, is that many of the points seem as though they are a bit farfetched and that Clancy was more interested in selling a book then in writing accurate information.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work