Realism and Liberalism in Foreign

Realism and Liberalism in Foreign Relations

As the civil war in Syria careens into its second year of savage sectarian violence, forcing the American government once again to consider the possibility of military intervention in the name of humanitarian aid, the philosophical approach to foreign policy favored by the ostensibly liberal President Obama has been shown to be based on a stark sense of realism. Rather than succumb to the understandable urge to apply democratic ideals to his decision making process during this time of heightened international concern, especially after reports of chemical weapons attacks have emerged from Syria's battlegrounds, President Obama has carefully engaged in a process of political calculus, weighing the potential impact of intervention against the consequences of inaction. As the New York Times observed of the Obama Administration's handling of the similarly volatile transfer of power in Egypt in 2011, "from the war on terror to the current unrest in Egypt, his foreign policy has owed far more to conservative realpolitik than to any left-wing vision of international affairs"1 (Douthat, 2011, pg. 1). Considering the vital role that the realist theory of international relations is likely to play in America's future foreign policy decisions, it is important to understand the foundational precepts on which this school of thought was founded, and how realism has been adapted to the constructs of the modern geopolitical map. The realist approach to foreign policy has been the dominant ideology of international relations since Thucydides penned his History of the Peloponnesian War, exposing the

1 Douthat, Ross. "Obama the Realist." The New York Times, February 07, 2011.

mythology of war to be merely myth, while revealing the truth that the greatest of conflicts are typically rooted in the pragmatic pursuit of political power.

Since the introduction of realist thought thousands of years ago, the evolution in terms has led to the introduction of neorealism, and scholars who are proponents of this progressive worldview "have generated two theories of foreign policy, offensive and defensive realism, which both start from the assumption that the international system is comprised of unitary, rational states motivated by a desire for security"2 (Rose, 1998, pg. 149). The overriding tendency of states to act in accordance with their own self-interest forms the basis of realist theories of foreign policy, because as history has routinely demonstrated, instances in which an ideal becomes worthy of self-sacrifice are a rare confluence of cultural circumstances, rather than the normative method of governance. From this perspective of neoclassical realism, the framework of international relations represents nothing more than "the record of rational states reacting properly to clear systemic incentives, coming into conflict only in those circumstances when the security dilemma is heightened to fever pitch"3 (Rose, 1998, pg. 150). The escalating conflict in Syria has borne this theory out once again, proving that, despite the idealistic calls for aid voiced by liberals, unless the situation presents a clear security risk to the United States and its interests abroad, the foreign policy realism of President Obama will preclude the use of direct military intervention.

2 Rose, Gideon. "Neoclassical realism and theories of foreign policy." World politics 51 (1998): 144-172

3 Ibid.

Standing as an alternative to the rigidity of realism-based foreign policy, the progressive model of international relations known as liberalism is predicated on the notion that domestic political philosophies should provide the guiding principles for geopolitical conduct. Rather than attribute the distribution of power among states to their relative capability to exploit resources, as realism proposes, a liberalist foreign policy holds that each state's distinct internal attributes, including cultural composition, religious affiliation, economic system, and governance structure, are the determining factors in its overall approach to international relations. One of the central aspects of the liberal worldview of foreign policy has emerged to reflect the increasing economic interdependence which has been created by globalization and the spread of democracy through capitalism. In light of the fact that major wars between democratic nations, which are typically trading partners involved in lucrative import/export arrangements, are relatively rare from a historical standpoint, "liberals argue that economic interdependence lowers the likelihood of war by increasing the value of trading over the alternative of aggression ... (as) independent states would rather trade than invade"4 (Copeland, 1996, pg. 5). Unrestrained liberalism has often been touted by proponents as the prudent path to world peace, even as the world inches closer to a state of open conflict, such as through the Wilsonian foreign policy instituted by President Woodrow Wilson prior to World War I, or the Bush doctrine's fallacious notion of instilling democratic ideals in Iraq by virtue of an outright invasion. In fact, many scholars insist that "the human rights movement was built on a Wilsonian platform, insisting that governments make

4 Copeland, Dale C. "Economic interdependence and war: a theory of trade expectations." International Security 20, no. 4 (1996): 5-41.

specific pledges regarding their treatment of their citizens"5 (Ikenberry, 2009, pg. 107), which is an informative indicator of liberalisms efficacy considering the host of humanitarian issues still plaguing the international community.