Introduction
The formation and disappearance of states and nations at the end of the Cold War became confusing to both policy makers and theorists. There have been arguments that the lack of theoretical preparation originates from two tendencies in the conventional theorizing. The first conventional theorizing is the dominant focus on cohesive nation-state as the sole actors of world politics makes it uneasy to determine the differences between the nation and the state. The second conventional theory according to these arguments is that traditional theory usually treats these two units as fixed (Zurich, 2009). In the modern turbulent world of politics, nation states were and still are very crucial players in these politics. This paper seeks to determine the most important actors in world politics as well as provide the reasons why these actors are the most important. While discussing the liberal and realist schools of international relations, this paper will be focusing on the divergent and common arguments in these schools as well as citing international events that have occurred in the recent Arab uprising. Further examples from other international affairs that involve the European Union and the United States as well as other international political alliances will also be used to provide further delineation on this topic. In this paper, after discussing the illustrations and arguments from both the liberals and realists, it concluded that despite their varying arguments on the most important actors in world politics, both of these schools agree that states are the most important actors in international politics. Nevertheless, there are other important actors such as multinational corporations, democracy and international organizations.
Body
Both the liberal and realists are proponents of the fact that states are crucial actors in world politics. According to the realists, they argue that states are the major actors in world politics. In the present and ancient political scene, most important discussions are either between sovereign states or between nation states. For instance, the political crisis in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya as well as other states of the Middle East, and talks related to economic measures within the European Unions are practical examples of these insinuations. Additionally, according to the realists, large state powers are usually accorded special attention because of their great influence on the international affairs. In this regard, several nations expect that the intervention of greater states such as the United States could help solve the crisis in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia as well as other states in the Middle East (Cooper, & Myers, 2011). Therefore, following the United States’ call to overthrow the authoritative Syrian regime, Saudi Arabia reportedly withdrew its embassy from the Syrian territory (Al Arabiya, 2012). As an inference of the importance of states in international politics, nongovernmental organizations, international institutions, multinational corporations, and individuals of different nationalities, as well as trans-states and sub-state appear to have limited independent control over the realist model. The limitations of the United Nations in providing a solution to the international crisis and its dependency on member states, specifically the large power states in conducting its activities imply that the realist paradigm is a reality. Most recently, the Kenyan case at the International Criminal Court ICC has become the most influential topics of debate in the African Union and the United Nation. In this case involving the Kenyan president and the deputy president facing criminal charges at the aforementioned court, the nation is seeking support from member states of both political alliances (Kulish, 2013). Reports from several media houses reveal that the president and his deputy are using tactics such as trying to convince the United Nations member states to support the idea of deferring these cases until the accused persons complete their term in office. Synonymously, the efforts of the United States to censor social media such as twitter and Facebook as well as imposing bans on imports and exports from politically unstable states such as Egypt and other Arab states also indicate that the state in politically influential compared to any other proposed actors such as multinational corporations.
The state is the highest authority as an entity in its actions except in the intervention of another foreign state, and not another lower placed political actor. The realists believe that no actor has the capacity to regulate the interactions of the state; any state is free to arrive at relations with other states at their discretion, and without the interference of any other higher controlling entity (Biersteker, & Weber, 2009). Nevertheless, there have been divergent views surrounding this assertion. Even so, the former proponents of this assertion consider it relevant to international politics where neither the United Nations nor any other larger state powers can independently dictate the interactions and interrelations between states. If the opponents of this political view had credibility of their assertions, the current political unrest in Syria, and the Palestine-Israel conflict among other interstate conflicts would have been solved if not prevented with limited disastrous results. Similarly, the conflicts involving China and Russia with the United Nations and the United States could have been easily solved and agreements reached. Simultaneously, these occurrences support another realist assertion the international system is in a constant state of animosity. For instance, in the present conflicts such as the war between the West and Al-Qaeda terror groups and the conflicts between the two Korean nations, the states are the most influential actors in the resolutions of such conflicts. For the opponents of the realist assertion that the state is the senior most authority or entity, they believe that international blocks have influence on member states. Additionally, they believe that the developing states depend on the developed states for their survival. Therefore, the latter usually has political influence on the developing nations. In this case, it therefore implies that in some states, the “state” is not the independent and the least important political actor.
Both the realists and liberals assert that humankind is not intrinsically compassionate. Instead, they are competitive and self-centered. Therefore, the national survival and security of every state is the superseding national interest of every state. While pursuing national survival and security, every state attempts to gather as many resources as it considers adequate to serve this purpose and fulfill the national goal. In this regard, states are independent actors that move independently towards unique national interests. The North American Free Trade Agreement and the European Union refer to some of the examples that evidence the important roles that single member states seek to advance national interest in the memorandum. The latter union has been faced with challenges stemming from some member states such as Portugal, Greece, and Ireland. In contrast, conflict and divergent interests as well as distrust among the states have hindered the operations of several political alliances such as the aforementioned blocks that constitute several states.
The developed and powerful states of the world such as the United States define the realist and liberal paradigm on the importance of the state in world politics. The United States has been accused of taking the advantage of the current superiority that it enjoys to inflict its inclinations wherever it considers possible, even if this would go to the extent of irritating most of its long time partners. The rising power of the Chinese nation has been an American concern; the United States has taken steps to ensure the success of the expansion of NATO into the Russian garden; forced single sided agreements on the control of arms on China and several other states such as Russia and North Korea (Joseph, 2013). It has also taken a greater part of the Bosnian peace efforts. Additionally, whenever the actions or proposals of agencies such as the World Trade Organization and United Nations have conflicted with the interests of the United States, the latter has always treated the agencies with contempt. Some of these defiant efforts of the United States include the polite incorporation at the Kyoto Environmental Summit and the refusal to support the rest of the world in the bid to outlaw landmines’ production (Bolton, 2009).
On the other hand, liberals assert that, economic independence discourage the states from the use of forceful measures against each other. These liberalists also believe that these nations believe that war has its consequences that are deemed to discourage development. Secondly, they believe that democratic nations are more prosperous than their authoritarian counterparts are. Additionally, the liberals assert that states are increasingly forgoing immediate gains especially in conflict resolutions for greater benefits. However, they also believe that agencies are equal political actors since the latter can help in shaping the decisions that states take in different situations.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there have been divergent views among political theorists and policy makers on the most important world political actor. After viewing various political views on the political actors, this paper concludes that the state is the most influential actor in world political. The most outspoken views on this phenomenon are the liberal and realist schools of idealists. According to the realists, world politics is presents refers to a battle of supremacy and power among the states with self-centered interests, thereby considering these states the most important political actors. While considering several examples from several countries such as Syria, Tunisia, Libya, and several other countries from Asia as well as Kenya that faced political unrest following the 2007/8 disputed presidential election results, this paper strongly believes that this realist paradigm is a perfect reality. On the other hand, this paper also found out that other opponents of this view consider other entities such as multinational corporations, democracy, and international organizations to act as equally important actors in world politics as the state. Nevertheless, after considering the arguments from both sides of the phenomenon, the state is the most important actor in world politics. However, some states exercise their power over others, especially on those states that depend on the former for economical gains. Additionally, states with divergent views also conflict on opinion leading to control by a powerful state.
References:
Zurich E. 21 (October 2009). Emergent Actors in World Politics. International Conflict Research. Retrieved from http://www.icr.ethz.ch/publications/emergent/
Cooper H., & Myers S. L., (August 28, 2011). U.S. Tactics in Libya May Be a Model for Other Efforts. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2011/08/29/world/africa/29diplo.html?pagewanted=all
Al Arabiya (14 March 2012). Saudi Arabia shuts embassy in Syria, withdraws staff as deaths mount. Al Arabiya News. Retrieved from http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/03/14/200762.html
Kulish N., (September 5, 2013). Kenyan Lawmakers Vote to Leave International Court. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/africa/kenyan-lawmakers-vote-to-leave-international-court.html
Biersteker T. J., & Weber C., (2009). State Sovereignty as Social Construct, 6th edition. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Joseph N., (January 25, 2013). Work With China, Don’t Contain It. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/opinion/work-with-china-dont-contain-it.html
Bolton M., (26 November 2009). Obama follows Bush on landmines: The US has announced that it won't sign the global landmine ban treaty. So much for the Nobel peace laureate. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/26/obama-landmine-ban-treaty.
