• 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. Superpower Relations 1945-90

    * Stalin refused to say if he would abide by the Yalta Declaration. How did active rivalry between the superpowers develop between 1945 & 1948? Stalin grew more suspicious and fearful of the USA because of its nuclear advantage. * On 16 July, the USA tested the first Atomic bomb in New Mexico.

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

    Drawing on the historical precedents of the purge trials and traditional American hostility to communism, totalitarianism, and Stalin, those who held this point of view saw little hope of compromise. "There is as little difference between communism and fascism," Monsignor Fulton J.

  1. To what extent can Britain's policy towards Germanybefore Munichbe defended?

    His views on defence strategy carried great weight in the debates about it in the House of Commons in 1934-5, and he had strong views on foreign policy issues. For example, he made a decisive intervention in the discussion about applying oil sanctions against Mussolini's Italy in 1935 saying that

  2. The Foreign Policy of the Lone Superpower

    One of the most prevalent kinds of cultural exchanges are the educational exchanges between the American citizens and citizens of other countries. Probably one of the most popular of these is the Fulbright Scholarship. The Fulbright Scholarship Program is the flagship educational program sponsored by the United States Government, under

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

    During the presidency of Andrew JACKSON (1829-37), a sharp bipolarization occurred again in the nation's politics. Of Scots-Irish descent, Jackson hated the English, and he was, in turn, as thoroughly disliked by New Englanders, who thought him violent and barbaric.

  2. The United Nations and the Iraq Conflict

    continued as the advocates of the newly improved multinational organization when the UN was adopted.11 Therefore, these countries implemented a veto power for themselves within the Security Council, which has proven to be both a useful and extremely detrimental tool.

  1. History of the United States

    These imports were designed to raise funds to pay wages to the army as well as to the royal governors and judges, who had formerly been dependent on colonial assemblies for their salaries. Nonimportation associations immediately sprang up in the colonies to boycott British goods.

  2. Introduction - US policy to Southeast Asia in general

    self-determination throughout the War years had fuelled his ambitions and those of other nationalist leaders - they looked to the US for support), also American equipment was supplied to the Dutch and French to fight nationalism in Indonesia and Vietnam respectively, with the Made in USA labels removed.

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