Introduction
Realism with its focus on security competition, anarchy, power and fear provides explanations and reasons why states go to war. It has exercised a large influence and dominance in International Relations Studies. Realism’s proponents argue that realist thinking extends well before the twentieth century and suggests that current theories are incarnations of the extended intellectual tradition (Williams, 2013, p.17). however, many scholars believe that realism has a dim future.
After the end of the cold war international politics experienced dramatic changes. the world has not only moved from bi-polarity to multi-polarity but has moved into an era where there is little prospect of security competition amongst great powers. We now experience lesser wars and the concept of balance of power matter little for understanding international relations. currently states view each other as members of an emerging international community and no longer as potential military rivals (Mearseimer, 2002, p.1). In this new world era there are more opportunities for cooperation which results to increased prosperity and peace for almost all states in the system.
The end of cold war also presented new security concerns to the world which demands a lot more attention than dwelling on the state-centric traditional realist approach of state defence, military and state interest; although a central problem for scholars of international relations was how to broaden the concept of security without losing its value and meaning.
Authors like Stephen Walt have given powerful statements about the traditional realist approaches to security. He states that security studies are about the phenomenon of war; defining it as the study of threat with the use and control of military force. Deepeners like Ken booth and wideners such as Buzan and Weaver have explicitly argued for the widening of the concept of security to include other subjects like economic and environmental security. Their argument grew out of the dissatisfaction with the intense narrowing of the field of security studies imposed by the military nuclear obsessions of the cold war (Hampson et al., 1998). Waltz argues that doing so runs the risk of expanding security studies excessively, stating that by this logic issues such as pollution, disease, child abuse or economic recessions could all be viewed as threats to security. He also says that defining the field this way would destroy its intellectual coherence and make it more difficult to devise solutions to any of these problems (Waltz,1991, p.213).
ARE REALIST APPROACHES TO SECURITY IRRELEVANT?
According to Andrew Moravesik Since the renaissance, western ideas on world politics has been dominated by the tradition of political realism with its emphasis on state power, national interest and unitary decision making. many features of the realist traditional approach include its longevity, parsimony and appeal to policy-makers these are perceived as the reasons for its privileged position; although realism is not without critics the most persistent and powerful of these have come from the liberal tradition over the past two centuries (Moravcsik, 1992, p.1). Liberalism argues that the realist approach to security is very limited and calls for the expansion of security being that today’s security problems are so complex in nature that they require solutions that the realist traditional approach to security cannot provide. This essay will be taking a liberal perspective to argue that the realist approaches to security are in fact irrelevant today.
Liberalism advocates for the inevitability of human progress, scientific rationality and freedom. it emphasises limitations on the powers of the state, democracy, individual rights, and constitutionalism (Burchill, et al., 2005). President Clinton in his state of union address of 1994 explicitly stated that democracies don’t attack each other, meaning that the greatest strategy to ensure security and maintain relative peace is to support the advancement of democracy elsewhere (Owen, 1994, p.87). it is without doubt that the realist approaches to security have finally come to an end.
DEMOCRACY PROMOTION
Democracy is one of Kant’s variable that try to explain how modern hegemonies hold on to their power and influence (Kant, 1970). It is of western origin and over the years it has been extended to Latin America, Eastern Europe, and East Asia where it has formed a complex, integrative world system of democracies (Ikenberry, 2004, p. 622).The united states is regarded as the cradle of liberal internationalism and democracy promotion as such The U.S. foreign policy has been principled in its support for democracy since its inception (Bridoux and Kurki, 2014, p.3).
The liberal values of Woodrow Wilson laid the foundation of democracy promotion in the world. with the creation of the league of nations, it embodied the attempt to build nations where relative peace can be achieved through collective disarmament, arms control, self-determination and freedom of the seas. His ideologies were built on the belief that free trade and the growth of international commerce, would create modernized and civilised states leading to peaceful interaction and prosperity among nations (Bridoux and Kurki, 2014, p.5).
The manner at which the U.S. has asserted its power over world politics, institutions and markets is evident that liberalism has resulted into success for both the U.S. and its allies. As a result, this has led to increased pressure on non-western states to establish liberal economies, politics and adopt U.S. polices (Morozov.2010) which are set in comparison with the U.S. per excellence. To explain further, east Asia’s democratisation has been of key importance to the U.S. for about twenty-five years. This has led to economic liberalisation, the rise of social movements and the growth of social classes in those regions.
The democratic peace theory has attracted attention for a number of reasons being that it is the closest thing we have to an empirical law in the study of international relations. It poses an apparent anomaly to realism which is the dominant school of security studies. the democratic peace proposition poses that democracies do not go to war with other democracies and that liberal ideas cause liberal democracies to tend away from war with one another. this same idea prods these states into war with non-liberal states (Owen,1994, p.87).
According to Rawls, liberal societies are unlikely to engage in war with their non-liberal outlaws unless on it is the grounds of legitimate self-defence, which may also be for their allies. Another occasion on which he argues that such parties may go to war is to protect human rights (Rawls 1999, p. 49). The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq are testimony that, the U.S, in its liberal approach to international affairs, were inclined by self-defence and humanitarianism. With this intervention by U.S. it clearly shows that oppressive regimes and aggressive tyrants can be defeated and removed.
Another case can be seen in the war in 1812 between America and England at that time England was not considered a democracy. Again in 1873 the united states almost went to war with Spain during the virginius affair but many Americans including the secretary of state argued for peace just because Spain was a republic at that time (Owen,1994, p.92).
Also, when president Benjamin Harrison called on the congress to go to war with Chile due to the Baltimore affair, Americans indicated their antipathy only because Chile was a republic. These considerations stated above prove that democracy is a reason for states not to indulge in war but this is a weakness in the realist paradigm as it provides no explanation for this democratic revolution and corporation amongst state.
As noted by the Lipset hypothesis, there is a direct connection between economic development and democracy (Lipset, 1959). Deudney and Ikenberry (2009) furthered this argument by stating that even autocratic regimes such as Russia and China don’t reject liberalism, rather, it has made them more successful being that they have access to the global markets and are increasingly dependent on it. For instance, both countries are members of WTO and the UN Security Council this gives them an edge in political power. Hence, these autocratic regimes clearly understand the power of liberalism (Deudney & Ikenberry, 2009, p. 79).
The United States on the other hand makes the process of liberalisation appealing and accommodating for counter-hegemonic ideas thereby absorbing them in the process. This has enabled the U.S. to spread democracy more easily both Russia and China, though autocratic, have adopted certain democratic ideals (Deudney & Ikenberry, 2009, p. 80). The U.S. has avoided tactics such as the exclusion of non-democratic nations like Russia from bodies such as the G8, On the contrary they have used the liberal approach which has increased their corporation, pacified them, and even converted some to democracies.
Democracy promotion has also led to the advancement and economic prosperity in less developed nations. Africa for instance, experienced democracy assistance carried out by democracy promotion agencies which provided financial, technical and material support to countries in need. It also has supported the removal of autocratic regimes giving the people a chance to experience freedom and express their desires. South Africa can also be listed as a success of democracy promotion because racial apartheid was removed which led to corporation, political stability and peace in the region.
Democracy conditionality’s has also been used as a mechanism to promote democracy in the world today. For instance, the agency of the U.S. millennium challenge corporation binds democratic progress to economic aids. It is extremely competitive because in other for any nation to receive these benefits their performance in relation to good governance has to be positive. The E.U. also uses democratic conditionality’s through conditioning future members to rules specified in the Copenhagen criteria, which requires all future member states to be perceived as democratic (Bridoux and Kurki, 2014, p.3).
INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATIONS
The realist approaches to security does not acknowledge international institutions which were created to boost economic cooperation, international norms and to reduce the need for power maximization.The realist paradigm believes that states exist within the international system which is predominantly characterized by anarchy (Wivel, 2000, p.7). This means that there is no existing central authority presiding over international politics. This is a reason for its irrelevance in the world today because the successful export of liberalism has made it a duty for other nations to strengthen their democracies, have a liberal economy and also create international institutions.
The World Bank, Nato, Imf, Un and Wto are major international institutions that play significant roles in international relations. According to Foot and Mastanduno (2003, p. 143), the development of these international organisations arose from the United State policy in the effort to create a healthy international community to further economic corporation and development of its member nations. however, both china and Russia are members of these organizations even though are strongly opposed to the western approach carried out by the U.S. The creation of the organizations listed above where born out of the American ideologies of post-war international reconstruction practices. For that reason, the platform for exercising American power changed from the previous military dominance to an American-led international system (Schake, 2013, p. 217).
TERRORISM
The shock and moral outrage of the September 11 attacks on the worlds super power, raised global attention and marked a turning point in international security studies. Richard Haass (2008) was indeed right when he predicted that the world is turning out to be nonpolar in nature. He describes this new world order as a “world dominated by numerous power centres which are not nation states and that states are now being challenged from above by regional and global organisations; from below, by militias; and from the side, by a variety of nongovernmental organizations and corporations” (Haass, 2008, p.45). it is now evidently clear that power is now found in many hands and many places other than the state.
It is important to note that terrorism has been in existence and has been a significant issue well before 9/11 with failed attempts to blow up the world trade centre in 1993 by the terrorist group Al Qaeda. The realist approach argues that states are the only key actors in the international system with legitimate monopoly over the use of force but it did not take into cognizance the growth of non-state actors. According to Jack Synder “it is harder for the normally state centric realists to explain why the world’s only super power announced war against al Qaeda a non-state actor” (Snyder, 2004, p.56). The use of violence and the brutal killings of individuals have made it mandatory for states to recognise their existence. These terrorist’s activities have generated a political conundrum for the realist paradigm as its focus on states alone has made it become irrelevant to international security studies in analysing the contemporary security issues.
It is also important to state that the primary realist theme of balance of power has been weakened by the post-cold war era. Since the end of the cold war, the realist paradigm has been baffled with the problem of why the U.S hegemony is still unchallenged and still growing more powerful. Synder states that there is no combination of nations or other powers that can compete with the U.S economy as well its militarily with no balancing coalition. This leaves a gap within the realist approaches to security as they are still trying to figure out why this is so.
John Mearsheimer in his interview with the history institute of international studies, when asked the question of the position of the realist approach to terrorism; he explicitly states that realism is strictly about the relationship between states especially amongst great powers. He went further to emphasise that al Qaeda is not a state and that virtual all realist theories don’t have much to say about transnational actors and the causes of terrorism (Globetrotter.berkeley.edu, 2002). Truly it is clear that the realist approach to security is left incapacitated in today’s world.
HUMAN SECURITY
The realist approaches to security have been challenged by the notion of human security. It focuses on the citizens as the primary referent and has speedily been promoted by the governments of Canada and Norway which have led to the creations of human security networks and non-governmental organizations that uphold their ideologies. According to Roland Paris human security is a “long line of neologisms including common security, global security, cooperative security and comprehensive security that encourages policy makers and scholars to think about international security as something more than the defence of states and its territory” (Paris, 2001, p.87).
Human security contends that diseases such as influenza poses much greater threat to individual lives rather than the traditional focus on state defence. This puts forward the many deficiencies of the realist approaches to security studies. for example, the realist approach fails to take to consideration the numerous deaths caused by civil wars, gang violence, organized transnational crimes, the out breaks of epidemic diseases, poverty, environmental degradation and hurtful disruption in the daily life of an individual whether at home, job or in the community.
The Rwandan civil war amounted to deaths which were estimated at about 800,000 to 1,000,000 by the united nations and 1,071,000 by the Rwandan government. 67% of women were raped and contacted the Hiv and Aids virus including babies born of rape. 50,000 were left widowed, 75,000 children were left orphaned and over half the children stopped their schooling because of poverty (Survivors-fund.org.uk, n.d.). The perpetrators of these acts were predominantly carried out by members of the civilian death squad the interahamwe. The group was sponsored and aided by the state, military and national police who were responsible for providing transports, fuel supplies, weapons and even created remote arears for the killings (Ppu.org.uk, n.d.). The genocide had a long and lasting impact on Rwanda’s economy till date.
This illustration above marks the affirmation of ken booths (1991) argument which notes that states are unreliable meaning that states do not have the best interest of its citizens at heart. For example, the regimes of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam Hussein did not serve the theory and practice of security. secondly he emphasises that it is illogical to place states at the centre of security studies because the state are most times the perpetrators of threats to citizens. Finally, Booth also stipulates that states are too diverse in their nature to serve as the core for a comprehensive theory of security (Booth,1991, p.320).