It has been almost a year in my Intrela class when we discussed the three levels of analysis in relation to the approaches of Realism, Liberalism and Constructivism from its human nature, internal characteristics of the state to its system structure and Processes. In connection to this, the last session was a review from what I have learned in the past year. Yes, it is a bit Information overload having read the articles of Stephen Walt and Jack Snyder but at the same time fulfilling to absorb those information which transcend over time. On the other hand, every theory that they discussed offers a strain for looking at a complex side of understanding. They help explain the assumptions behind political oratory about foreign policy. Even more important, the theories act as a powerful check on each other.
For the first theory, we discussed Realism which emphasizes the enduring propensity for conflict between states. It is a “struggle for power” among self interest states and generally pessimistic about the prospects for eliminating conflict and war. Realism during cold war is imperialistic in nature – the more theory you have the more power you gain. Its power and interest mainly focuses on States’ national interest, and that time the solution to the naive belief that international institutions & law alone can preserve peace; the misconception led the states to war.There has been and offensive and defensive conception that The Soviet Union, being the Offensive and the U.S. being the defensive and what we call the M.A.D or the Mutually Assured Destruction. The next theory that was discussed was Liberalism which identifies several ways to mitigate the conflictive tendencies of states. It stipulates about the economic interdependency on states and spread of democracy. According to Woodrow Wilson, non-state actors play a vital role because they are the drivers of economic prosperity which is an interest at a state and Peace is achieved by the “Balance of power.” According to Samuel Huntington who wrote the Clash of civilization also discussed the main causes of war were the clash of culture, tradition and ideologies and Democratic Peace Theory by Immanuel Kant claim that democracies were more peaceful that the autocratic states. I asked a question about U.S. regarding of them being a liberal country and not fully encompass the traditions of a liberal world, like the issue in Koto Protocol, but in the end, I got an answer that they give more importance to their economy rather than environmental concerns. During the 9/11 U.S. policy showed strength for they can easily alter their policy to meet the reality from liberal to being a realist during Bush’s administration. I now understand the difference between Positivist theories which encompasses realism and liberalism having “One truth” and Post Positivists having truth with many variations and a truth that is defined by the context and analyses issues within the context of society constantly question national interest. On a random thinking, REALISM & LIBRERALISM can go together not only to develop military but also economy.
We also tackled about China as a powerful state from its Population, wherein they send their people to different countries to share their culture and will give them more power, to China’s rights in South China Sea having the reason that they are simply a civilization makes a lot of sense. On the other side of the coin, during Marcos’ administration, he was trying to preserve and protect out territorial integrity in the case of SABBAH.
But during PGMA’s administration it was given away by our former president the areas to the Morro Islamic groups which basically showed that PGMA don’t preserved our territorial integrity. The last theory that we tackled was about Contructivism, the Constructivist’s main theoretical position is “State behaviour was shaped by elite beliefs, collective norms and social identities. It focuses n the individual interest, its main instruments were Ideas & Values, discourse (discussion, events, actions & activities)and its main limitation is, it is better at describing the past rather than anticipating the future. The Bottom line s that these theories helped me to understand all the things that had happened, that is happening and that will happen in the future; these are just some of the theories in international Relations that we can relate on our Foreign policies for revisions as well as for policy making in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment