Neo Realism vs. Liberalism Compare

Neo Realism vs. Liberalism

Compare and contrast Neo-Realism vs. Liberalism. Pick a historical event and discuss how each theory would explain it. Which one do you think is more accurate and why?

Neo-realism is when there is a focus on looking at the international structure through anarchy. As states will act in their own self-interest based upon: their distribution and capabilities (through an international configuration) organized by the major world powers. Under this theory, each state will act within this system to achieve their own self-interest. This will push nations to engage in proactive thinking about the policy decisions of: their rivals and how this could have an impact upon their areas of influence. Where, the stronger nations would want to prevent other powers from gaining too much influence at their expense. At which point, some kind of action must be taken to restore this balance in favor of the country. This is important, because this shows how neo-liberalism is based off of anticipating the problem (through preemptive action) via international institutions (to achieve their own self-interest). ("Neo Realism," n.d.)

Liberalism stands for equality and the rights of the individual. This is because Liberals view the government as an extension of the people, as they will receive their permission to govern the citizens (based upon their willingness to accept different policies and procedures). When the citizens become upset, this power can be placed directly in check, by them demanding changes. This is important, because this is the basic principal of liberalism. As a result, there is a constant focus on a host of different issues to include: freedom of speech, respect for human rights, an emphasis on constitutions, the rule of law, freedom of religion and free / fair elections. When it comes to foreign policy decisions, these ideals are often reflected in how the U.S. will deal with a particular nation state. This is important, because it shows how the liberal ideology is based upon supporting the basic principles of individual rights. As a result, there is an emphasis on working within the international community, to achieve the different objectives (i.e. The UN and WTO). ("Liberalism," 2010)

Neo-Realism vs. Liberalism and the Iraq War

When you analyze Neo-Realism with the Iraq War, it is clear that this was an approach that was embraced by the Bush Administration (in the events leading up the invasion). Where, the White House would claim that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. This would force them to seek out some kind of military action (through the UN Security Council) to address this issue. However, once it became clear that there would not be enough votes, the U.S. withdrew the resolution and would begin the invasion (leading a coalition of the willing). These are friends and allies of the U.S., who shared similar views about what was occurring in Iraq. At which point, the subsequent invasion would take place and the government would be overthrown. These events are important, because they show how Neo-Realism was the political philosophy of the government. As a result, they would use international institutions to support their own self-interest. Once they were no longer willing to support these views is: when they would create their own coalition and conduct the invasion anyway. ("U.S. Names Coalition of the Willing," 2003)

From the Liberal perspective, the Iraq War is considered to be illegal. This is because, the Bush Administration failed to seek the support of the international community before conducting an invasion. They felt that if the White House had taken a different approach about Iraq and WMD's (mainly allowing more time for inspectors to confirm / deny the existence of such programs). This would have created a favorable outcome in line with international law. This is important, because it shows a common theme that is often embraced by the Democratic Party and heads of state (i.e. The EU). Where, they would criticize the war and the conduct of these events, by constantly pointing out how these actions are against international law. ("The War on Iraq," 2007)

Which one do you think is more accurate and why?

Neo-Realism is more accurate. The reason why, is because it is taking a proactive approach to the problem by using international institutions. However, once they become ineffective, is the point that some kind of action must be taken. In this case, the ability to break away from institutions that are indecisive is the key in being able to maintain some kind of global stability. While this approach may be controversial, it is saving the world tremendous challenges down the road that will be more difficult to solve. History went through a similar stage with Nazi Germany. Where, they were allowed to violate international accords, until they were strong enough to attack their neighbors. In the case of the Iraq War, one could draw a similar parallel, as Saddam Hussein (the leader of Iraq) believed that he was a modern day Hitler (the leader of Nazi Germany). ("Saddam Hussein vs. Adolph Hitler," 2010)