In the early 1990s, Fukuyama predicted the End of History. One is witnessing a shift in geopolitics, moving from a unipolar world to a multipolar one, or even bipolar according to Chinese scholars like Jin Carong, special advisor in foreign policy for the Government . As Kagan wrote in his book, it is 'the return of history and the end of dreams.' Nation States are once again the main actors on the world stage and it appears international organizations or even the US will not regulate international relations as it was once believed. China is 'the' up and coming superpower and has no intention to remain regarded as a nice regional power by the US, limited to the policy of the Asian zone.
[...] Another issue is the status of Afghanistan and Iraq. Both countries were fully recognized autocracies before the US overthrew the Talibans and Saddam Hussein. Since the US, both countries cannot be regarded as autocracies anymore but are they yet democracies? They appear more as a hybrid regime, on the fault-line and thus in neither category. Indeed, in these special cases, a freshly elected government tries to restore its legitimacy in its territory while receiving help and orders from Washington and NATO. [...]
[...] Russia is trying to keep alive the illusion of a strong army by buying new uniforms for about 4 million dollars and postponing structural needed reforms and changes. By incorporating Eastern Europe in the European Union, Brussels started to realize that it had imported another problem: the rivalry between Russia and the freshly established eastern democracies. The European Union might not have the tools to face up Russia; post-modern policy will not be as efficient as cutting oil and gas. [...]
[...] Realists study these conflicts from an individual perspective while Neo-Realists focus on the world chaos. On the other hand, realistic means ‘practical' or ‘implementable' in the sense we really understand World Politics like Is this division the mere consequence of Kagan's thoughts and ideologies related to his political beliefs or is it a realistic and real phenomenon? The first part of this paper will focus on the realist aspect of this theory. To what extent is this theory the result of Kagan's beliefs? [...]
[...] Finally, as a result of the two previous parts, we will analyze to what extent is the Middle East a key zone in the conflict opposing democracies and autocracies. How realist is Kagan's thesis? Robert Kagan graduated from Yale and Harvard University. He then earned a PhD from American University. Kagan only served Republican Administration, like between 1984 and 1986 when he worked at the State Department Policy Planning Staff as a speechwriter for Secretary of State George P. Shultz. [...]
[...] Indeed, he shares the dominant view on the end of the end of history and highlights the rise of China and India in a plausible perspective. Consequently, the ideas in this book cannot seriously be regarded as a basic tool of neoconservative propaganda and should thus be cross-examined with facts. To answer this first part, Kagan's thesis is realist in the sense understood by neo-conservative realists but without appearing as a tool of propaganda. II) How realistic is Kagan's thesis? [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
