International Relations have traditionally focused on the State and its ability to survive. Major theories of international relations try to adequately explain and therefore predict security developments and constructing international relations in the world in which we live. The predominant theory during the second half of the 20th century has been Realism, which assumes that nation-states are unitary, geographically-based actors in an anarchic international system with no ultimate authority capable of regulating interactions between states. This is due to the non-existence of a world government. Secondly, it assumes that sovereign states, rather than international institutions, are the primary actors in international affairs. As such, a state acts as a rational autonomous actor in pursuit of its own self-interest with a primary goal to maintain and ensure its own security, and thus its sovereignty and survival. Realism holds that in pursuit of their interests, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative levels of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's military and economic capabilities.
Nevertheless, if Realism has shown its ability to be a parsimonious and very essentialist theory useful in accounting for historical actions, one of its major weaknesses remains that it is limited in both explaining systemic changes, such as the end of the Cold War, and predicting future events.
[...] In fact, Realism theory views the outbreak of war as the result of a security dilemma. If a nation-state feels as though it is threatened then it will raise the power of its military. The aggressor responds in a similar fashion. War is won by the most militarily powerful nation-state. Yet, this theory is inadequate when trying to understand issues that transgress nation-state boundaries. Terrorism, for example is a non-state actor. Therefore, applying the Realism theory leads to recognizing non- state actors. [...]
[...] The question to raise here is: Is Israel a strategic asset or a strategic liability for the United States, in realist terms? Considering that the US support for Israel is not primarily the result of Holocaust guilt or shared democratic values; nor is it produced by the machinations of the ‘Israel Lobby', it arguably underpins the Pax Americana in the eastern Mediterranean. It has compelled Israel's key Arab neighbors to reach peace with Israel and to enter the American orbit. [...]
[...] That is the reason why Realism seems to be irrelevant in explaining terrorism, which maybe targets the state, but is not lead by a state. Democratic Peace Moreover, from the perspective of international Realism, the ‘fact' of democratic peace should not exist at all. From this point of view, the states system is an arena of intense antagonism, and states must behave according to a specified logic to survive. Whether a state is democratic, or autocratic, or oligarchic, or theocratic should make no difference with regard to the state's functioning in the international arena, which in all cases is defined by the competitive accumulation of power. [...]
[...] This is partly because the realist theory provides a convincing justification for the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, and partly because, in the relative absence of reliable information about security decision making during the Cold War, Realism provided a framework for analysis based on the assumption that states are unitary actors that seek to maximize their power in order to survive in a competitive international system. When analyzing what causes nuclear weapons to spread, Realists therefore focus on external pressures. [...]
[...] And empire, they believe, is a drain on American resources. They are particularly reluctant to commit American troops, preferring that the United States follow a policy of ‘offshore balancing' wherever possible. These were the principles that guided Messrs. Mearsheimer and Walt when they examined the US-Israel relationship. And this was their finding: By any ‘objective' measure, American support for Israel is a liability. It inspires negative feelings among Arabs and Muslims towards America, and these feelings, in turn, serve as a paver for an environment of terrorism. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
