Realism defines the international system in terms of anarchy, which is the absence of a central authority. An overview of the belief of realists is that all states are sovereign and autonomous, making them bound only by their own consent. They believe that the power of the State is key and central to this system and is the only variable of interest. Thus, States must use their power to defend themselves an survive. They think of power in terms of military, economy, and diplomacy, but emphasize the determinant of international politics to be the distribution of coercive material capacity. Furthermore, realism is upheld by four assumptions. First, that the primary goal of each State is its own survival, making foreign invasion and occupation the most pressing threats. Due to this, States must constantly work to ensure that they have enough power to defend themselves and continue to advance their material interests that are necessary for their survival. Second, States are seen as rational actors, meaning that they will act in order to optimize their survival and continuation of existence. Third, States all have some degree of military capacity, with the intent of neighboring States never to be exactly known, making the world very dangerous and uncertain. Lastly, there are Great Powers, being the States with the most economic clout and military might. Realism turns international relations into a story of Great Power politics and their changes over time (Slaughter).
On the other hand, liberalism disagrees with realism on many levels. Liberalism views non-state actors as very important and influential in the international system. They believe that the state matters as well as, individual actors, and that domestic politics should be paid attention to. The emphasis is placed on the actions and interests of both individuals and groups, primarily those within the state, making their argument that domestic state-society relations are the central issue of politics. They also emphasize that interest of individuals, which may differ from those of government leaders. And so, the state is not always a unified actor, as the interests of individuals are not always harmonious. But, despite the tensions, individuals may be able to cooperate to reach common goals through political institutions. Liberalism places cooperation over competition, for both individuals and States. They also see absolute power as more important than relative power, meaning the encouragement of alliances and trade agreements. Many liberals strongly support free trade, viewing it as an avenue to dissolve divisions between states, expand the range of contacts, broaden the levels of understanding, and bring a mutual advantage to both economies within the agreement. Considering this, interdependence is key to liberalism, as it is a means to avoid war and instead, bring mutual benefits to states, moving them further from possibilities of aggressive behavior (“Liberalism”).
It is clear that these two schools of thought are very contrasting, thus they would have very different outlooks on political issues. For the interest here, the issue of focus will be dealing with terrorism. Realism and liberalism will have very different approaches to dealing with failed, failing and rogue nations. As previously states, Realism thinks of the global stage in terms of power. Thus, they are very pessimistic regarding human nature, considering this; the Global War on Terrorism is traditionally identified with realism. As they tend to discount non-state actors, they favor unilateralism view military force as a means to an end (Martin). Furthermore, realists do not believe that terrorism materially affects the international system. However, for liberals, terrorism is an ideological challenge that diverges down a path different to their core. They stand upon toleration, civility, and progress, while terrorism essentially is violent intolerance for differences, leading to humans living and dying in anger (Dunne).
However, now some may argue that liberalism should prevail as the perspective for looking at war. Realism does not focus enough of its resources on diplomatic and economic channels, and does not focus enough on transnational groups as actors. The strong suit for liberalism in this issue is that they would believe to combat terrorism through using diplomacy, security training, culture and democracy, which provides a multifaceted approach to the issue (Martin).
Another interesting issue is international development, which is essentially a product of liberal theory. As previously stated, the core assumption of liberalism is the intrinsic value of individuals, as they are the primary actor in the international system. This spread the concern for enhancing both freedom and welfare of individuals. Using this construct, development is the process of persons improving their freedom and welfare through personal and societal avenues. Development is the process of creating better environments for people to prosper and acquire their ability to provide for themselves. Its basic purpose is to enlarge the peoples’ choices, it is concerned with expanding the real choices and substantive freedoms that would enable people to lead lives they value. This brings us to today, where international development is more important than ever, as poverty is rampant across a good proportion of the globe, making a vast separation between countries being developed and those developing (Blencoe).
Considering the above, the use of developmental assistance is growing in its relevancy for achieving peace, as the use of “hard power” now has a very negative connotation and reputation. This has lead to States favoring this method less and less, seeing it as not as effective in ensuring one’s interests. This is why realists are turning to other methods for security, as they realize that waging war is not always the best solution. One method they find highly favorable is international development, thus turning a liberal structure for realist use. International development works to address the grievances of the people disaffected that conflict tends to surround. And so, conducting business with those considered poor can empower them as individuals and a community as a whole. Through international development, the efforts of helping people is beneficial both to international security interests for the state and their reputation, which is absolutely essential for developing their diplomatic ties effectively (Blencoe).
The idea of developing diplomatic ties can be very beneficial for realist thought, as building their reputation as a partner in development can give off the impression of their benevolent intention, whether or not these are actually present. Thus, realists not posit that all states need to seek out opportunities for improving their relative positions and strive for power even if their goal is only to preserve their own independence. International development is not charity and instead is the price paid for “soft power”, as it increases the ability to persuade instead of having to coerce. Soft power is the principle of diplomacy and the use of international development is the means to an end (Blencoe).
Furthermore, international development can be used to achieve domestic conditions home and abroad, both being in their best interest. States will use economic statecraft, meaning negative or positive sanctions, to influence other states for their interest. Positive sanctions are pushing the state of interest to act in the desired way through rewards for moving in that direction. The assumption with positive incentives is that they would lead the target to change their behavior to align with the original state’s interest. Another method can be tied-aid, which refers to provisions of foreign aid to developing states, tangent with conditions used to purchase goods and/or services from the donor country. This works to limit the ability of the recipient for utilizing the aid and ensures a profitable outcome for the firms within the donor country. A last method to consider is through building policy communities that would work in favor to the state’s interests. Through donating large sums of money to these policy communities, the state’s are able to establish their own policies and those dominant for international development (Blencoe).
It is clear that international development in its foundations is rooted in liberalism. However, as seen, this liberal methodology can work to favor those of realist thought. They work to benefit the individuals within a state, and by doing so can achieve their own self-interests and perseverance. It is easy to assume that liberals would not support doing this for the donor state’s self-interests, and solely that. However, it is a means to an end and works in the liberal’s favor, as either way the developing countries are being helped to better the lives of their individuals and the state as a whole.
Works Cited
Blencoe, Andrew. "A Liberal Structure for Realist Uses: International Development and
the Question of Whose Interests Are Being Met?" E-International Relations
Dunne, Timothy. "Liberalism, International Terrorism, and Democratic Wars."
Liberalism, International Terrorism, and Democratic Wars. International
Relations, 15 Dec. 2008. Web. 17 July 2016.
"Liberalism." International Relations. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 July 2016.
Martin, Bradley A. "Which Schools of Thought - Realism, Liberalism or Constructivism
Shall Prevail in the State Policies of Coping with Terrorism? and Are the Works
of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz Still Applicable in a Contemporary Warfare?"
Academia.edu. Angelo State University, 13 Feb. 2012. Web. 17 July 2016.
Slaughter, Anew-Marie. "International Relations, Principal Theories." INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS, PRINCIPAL THEORIES. Princeton, n.d. Web. 15 July 2016.
