International Relations

1

InternationalRelations

Inorder to predict how the world’s politics plays out, politicalscientists use three theories to explain international relationsamong states. The theories include realism, liberalism andconstructivism (David, 2015). Interest of a state, anarchy of powerand the courses of wars are the three main events that play a role indefining international relation. The whole world is in a state ofanarchy with nations having varying degree of military, economic andpolitical strengths. There is no common law that guides the universe.Different governments deal with this problem by adopting either ofthe following realism, liberalism or constructivism philosophy.

Realism

Thistheory expresses the belief that the only way one country can surviveis by gaining and maintaining a higher military position than therest of the world. The other states are considered as a threat sincethey view each other as rivals.

Liberalism

Similarto realism, this theory explains the condition of states pursuingmilitary power in order to battle lawlessness. However it viewspartakers in a whole new positions as opposed to realism and even thesolutions to the problem being different. The state of a peacefulworld is only possible if the countries comes to a mutual agreement.Formation of alliances and institutional policies for world power inorder to realize a world where every state is in good terms with eachother.

Constructivism

Asopposed to the above theories, constructivism puts into concern thethoughts and views of the people that constitute the institutions,and realms that operate within the domain of disorder.

Thefollowing discussion will enlighten on whether three world leadersnamely President Obama, President Vladimir Putin and President HassanRouhani are either constructivist, realist or liberalist.Presidentof the United States: Barak ObamaObama’sapproach on international affairs is clearly recognizable as liberal.The United States never hesitates to take military actions especiallywhen it’s a threat to its security and when its core interestdemands it. They need not to consider asking permission from anyoneto use military force unilaterally when it is the last resort.Despite all that sovereignty, Obama conscience is quite clear and heknows the outcome of a pure realistic foreign policy. In order forthe US to promote its interest and security internationally, Obamautilizes some of the important and powerful tools at his disposal.These include international associations, economic interdependenceand democracy. Since leadership is a multilateral strength, Obamaacknowledges the need of trust between his allies. NATO (NorthAtlantic Treaty Organization) ensures that all partners are protectedfrom security threats arising from outside the partnership.Furthermore, He authorizes those states likely to destabilize thepeaceful coexistence to be punished. This was evident when the UN ()imposed economic sanctions against Russia for its aggression towardUkraine. Obama administrations has a great concern on countries withweak democracy. Since outside forces can take advantage of thesituation to establish other forms of governance like dictatorshipwhich are opposed to democracy. This was well played when heauthorized NATO and Saudi Arabia airstrikes against militia groupswho are determined to establish sharia law in the Middle East. Obamahas also show great dislike to the governance of the president ofNorth Korea who does no observe democracy. In order to maintain peaceand stability in the Korean peninsula, The Obama administration hasdeployed various high-tech military hardware to the region. Obamaalso emphasizes on importance of economic interdependence among theallies given by free trade, which results to investment among countrymembers and hence prosperity. ThePresident of Russian Federation: Vladimir PutinPutinbelieves in constructivism as an order of governance. He considersthe incorporation of people’s ideas in determining the balance ofpower. Likewise, He trusts that the theory have a positive influencein stopping or preventing a war. He delivered a very clear messagethat the international community has no set of guidelines that willforce Russia to act in a particular way. Through the support of areferendum, he was able to annex Crimea from Ukraine (David, 2015).His decision came in accordance with the Constructivist view whichsupported Russia’s conduct as rational. He also viewed the U.S andher allies as a threat to its military presence in the Black seawhich is its area of military impact. The seizure of Crimea allowedhim to capture grounds for countering NATO presence in the peninsula.From a Realists point of view, the act was mainly a way Russia usedto flex its military muscles (David, 2015). This was in order tochallenge the presence of the “Atlanticist” program of NATO. Thismay be considered partly true since its act was not merely aboutsecurity and military (David, 2015). A Liberalist on the other handclaims that cooperation from states is in order for them to reachtheir national goals. This philosophy does not quite explain Russia’sact since they are a major global economic power. Its action cannotbe justified based on economic terms but rather on protection ofnational interest. This is from the fact that Russia has a largereserve of natural gas and oil which it exports to Western Europe andits surrounding states (David, 2015).ThePresident of Republic of Iran: Hassan RouhanPresidentHassan Rouhan unlike his predecessors does not stand at a realisticperspective. He acknowledges that states are no longer the only majoractors at the round table but rather more powerful internationalinstitutions like the United Nations and World Trade Organization.During his speech at the UN General Assembly’s 68thsession on September 24, 2013, he explains that the structuralviolence of realism philosophy results in to suffering of individualpeople more than the states. Since the world today is stuck in a“cold war mentality”, the only possible way of moving ahead withstates not confronting each other is by international cooperation. Hefurther explains that international cooperation does not have theroom to change in a realistic context of International politicalarena. President Hassan in his speech stresses the fact that thepresent world faces much scarier threats that never existed in thepast. Handling the challenges from a realist viewpoint cannot yieldany solution since they are international and require internationalteamwork from various states that are currently facing the threat orare likely to face in the near future. The threats include terrorismand extremism which have grown at international levels with complexnetworks of funding and communication on carrying out their attacksand radicalizing the masses. Iran’s president emphasizes on theurgent need of international level of co-operation and termination ofunhealthy competition among nations that fuel violence. Iran’spresident also explains the importance of constructivist paradigm inreference the vicious wars fought in the battle field of Iraq,Afghanistan and Syria which is a key driver to fueling internationaltensions. He also point out at Iran’s nuclear program which heargues to be part social construction of the people which is both anational identity and part of the existing international system.Apart from his firm stand against Realism clearly President HassanRouhan is a Liberalist and encourages international cooperation sincehe sees this as the only solution to long lasting peace betweennations around the world.ReferenceDavid,E. (2015). A Constructivist perspective, Journalof Political Inquiry.