For my final blog post, I am proposing that I use the following essay prompt as a guideline “take an IR perspective of your choice and explore the role of national interests, values, and location in shaping theoretical output”. I want to take the theory of realism and explore the important of national interest, or more specifically, self-interest, and examine different case studies to illustrate how realism is relevant in present day politics. My intention is to begin by describing the relevance of national interest within the theory of realism and then use the following examples of this theory playing out in real life: Britain’s exit from the European Union, the United States’ withdrawals from international agreements in recent years and Russia’s strategic alliances to increase its own power.
The first part of my post will explain the core tenet of self-interest under the theory of realism. I have listed several sources in my bibliography regarding the theory of realism, and will most likely use some articles for the course reading list. I’m not sure yet if I will narrow in on classical realism or neo-realism, but will examine key thinkers like Waltz and Morgenthau to make a decision that would best suit my argument. Basically in this introduction I will seek to explain how self-interest and nationalism are central to the theory of realism, and then argue my belief that these concepts best account for the actions of states in present day international politics.
For my Brexit portion I will discuss how Britain chose to leave the EU on a basis of self-interest, to avoid being tied the interests of the collective institution of the EU (and perhaps illustration this as failed example of idealistic institutionalism). Another main reason that voters chose to the leave the EU was to reduce immigration thereby focusing on national needs. To gather my info on Brexit, I will use the Birkinshaw European Public Law journal, as well as the following BBC article https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887. I wanted a European perspective, as well as a British perspective and I think by using these two sources, and perhaps more, I will be able to illustrate Britain’s self-interested motives in exiting the EU, which will support my argument that realism best explains the self-interested nature of states.
The next portion will focus on the United States and situations in which it acted in its own self-interest and/or to gain more power. Certainly, under Donald Trump, the US has pulled out of climate change agreements, humanitarian aid promises, and international trade deals. He has done so claiming that these agreements or commitments did not in any way benefit the US, or even led to large financial cost for the United States. He has therefore demonstrated that the US will act in its own interests, and has also been repeatedly using the specific term of “nationalism” to establish US dominance at political rallies and in speeches. I will use the Kevlihan et. al article to discuss motives for “humanitarian intervention,” the Narine article on the withdrawal from the TPP, and the International Organizations Research Journal to explore the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords.
In terms of Russia, I want to examine their involvement in the Syrian Civil War. I find it interesting that they are the only relatively major world power fighting on the side of the Assad Regime, and especially considering they remain a permanent member of the UNSC where most of the other permanent member’s side with the US. It is my contention that Russia’s involvement in Syria stems from self-interest. Russia’s refusal to demand Assad step down stems from their claims of the importance of respecting the Sovereign state. I think that it is better argued that Russia is most focused on its strategic alliance with Iran, and acts in Syria to show loyalty to Iran. I will use the Strategic Comments journal article to support this argument. Depending on how I get with that point, I may also explore Russia’s extreme support of Trump and their motivations behind this using the Zweynert article. I think there the case could be made that Russia is setting itself apart from the rest of political leaders by embracing Trump to serve as a way to gain political power.
The main argument of my paper will be that the international relations theory of realism centers around the belief that states will act in a self-interested matter, cooperating with the international community only when it advances their own national interests. By giving the examples mentioned above involving Britain, the US, and the UK, I will support this argument by providing recent accounts of political interactions that align with the theory of realism.
Bibliography
Bell, Duncan. 2017. Political realism and international relations. Philosophy Compass 12 (2): e12403.
Birkinshaw, Patrick J. 2018. brexit. European Public Law 24 (1): 1.
Firoozabadi, Jalal Dehghani, and Mojtaba Zare Ashkezari. 2016. Neo-classical realism in international relations. Asian Social Science 12 (6): 95.
Kevlihan, Rob, Karl DeRouen, and Glen Biglaiser. 2014. Is US humanitarian aid based primarily on need or Self‐Interest? International Studies Quarterly 58 (4): 839-54.
Narine, Shaun. 2018. US domestic politics and america’s withdrawal from the trans-pacific partnership: Implications for southeast asia. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs 40 (1): 50-76.
Russia’s syrian stance: Principled self-interest. 2012. Strategic Comments 18 (7): 1-3.
USA withdrawal from paris agreement – what next? 2017. International Organisations Research Journal.
Zweynert, Joachim. 2018. Contextualizing critical junctures: What post-soviet russia tells us about ideas and institutions. Theory and Society 47 (3): 409-35.
Online News Sources