Foreign policy realism?

Hi, I'm new at this site.

I'm wondering what you think of the doctrine of foreign policy realism, defined as the belief that each nation will seek to maximize its own military power and acquire as many military advantages as it can over others, and that world politics will tend towards a "balance of powers" as weaker ones ally against stronger ones.

This seems to be a tragic and unstable way of thinking about the world, and there are some things I do not understand about its application-- for example Europe has the economic and technological ability to form a full counterbalance to US power. If the Europeans wanted they could centralize military authority, engage in an arms buildup, and attempt to increase their hard power to that their say in things such as Iraq would have more backing to it. However, Europe does not do this. The same with Japan-- it could militarize and become a major world power. Yet, it has abstained from this for decades. I can't understand how the doctrine of realism can explain the decisions of Europe and Japan. This leads me to question the validity of realism. I think this has significant implication for China's relations with the U.S. What do you think?

You do realise that a second imperialism era or even a third arms race can lead to a Third world war?
No i say best leave it as it is.

Due to globalization, increasing economic interdependencey and the increasing unprofitability of war, the world will begin to see a new dynamic take shape in the next century. International relations will begin to be defined in less and less competative terms. For example, it is possible we will never see another great power war for generations, even centuries.

So basically that sort of political thinking is becoming outdated

This is a place holder I'll respond shortly

you're mixing intention with capability.

Sure every nation will try to gain at the expense of another, but can they, in the end, achieve this?

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there is indeed a tendency to converge toward a common set of values. Which dampens desire for conflict. But the current administration, and its ideological supporters, greatly OVERESTIMATE how similar this common set of values is to their own. It's not true that everybody now wants American-style liberal democracy or American consumer culture.

America needs to accept that fact that other countries will plot their own political course, which is based on their own social-political culture. (In particular China and Russia, perhaps even the Islamic world.) The significance of the convergence is that these different political structures can now peacefully coexist. Demonization of foreign countries and systems, with a big dollop of xenophobia, will only lead back to conflict and competition over resources.

Abcdweller said:

Hi, I'm new at this site.
I'm wondering what you think of the doctrine of foreign policy realism, defined as the belief that each nation will seek to maximize its own military power and acquire as many military advantages as it can over others, and that world politics will tend towards a "balance of powers" as weaker ones ally against stronger ones.
This seems to be a tragic and unstable way of thinking about the world, and there are some things I do not understand about its application-- for example Europe has the economic and technological ability to form a full counterbalance to US power. If the Europeans wanted they could centralize military authority, engage in an arms buildup, and attempt to increase their hard power to that their say in things such as Iraq would have more backing to it. However, Europe does not do this. The same with Japan-- it could militarize and become a major world power. Yet, it has abstained from this for decades. I can't understand how the doctrine of realism can explain the decisions of Europe and Japan. This leads me to question the validity of realism. I think this has significant implication for China's relations with the U.S. What do you think?

Click to expand...

Here's some cost estimates on the Iraqi war & occupation:


There are many nations that can afford a well-trained, modern military. But only the US can afford to throw cash into a bonfire like Iraq.

==============

Given a free competitive environment, yes, many nations will seek to maximize their military power. But we dont' live in such a world. For an example, in East Asia the US imposed restrictions on Japanese military after WW2, and pressured S. Korea and Taiwan from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Also, domestic politics may prevent the nation from building up its military due to high costs. Even the US is not exempt from this -- look at the cut-back on stealth bombers and stealth fighters.

Europe has the potential in capability (military, economic) to become a counter weight to the US. But it does not have the political will.

China and Russia have the political will to serve as counter weight to the US, but both lack the military and financial capability. I don't mean nukes, I mean being world cop and sending carrier fleets to the Persian gulf to hit Saddam on the head and burn $200 million/day in occupation expenses.

The "Islamic World" is not a correct term. There is no world-wide Islamic organization that heads/represents the 1+ billion Muslims world-wide. If this was an alternate universe where all the Muslim nations become part of a Grand Caliph, then we can discuss their potential to become a major counter-weight to the US.

Every nation to a certain extent put their interests above those of others but what must be understood that Blitzkrieg in the 1930's-50's was something that even in theory Germany could not afford nor had the resources to pull of portracted war.

So in theory only the top 10-12 nations in GDP could pull off a war of any major magnitude and keep it going.

There is no way to prevent the descent to global anarchy except from a single centralized government. Eventually it'll get to the point where safe guards and deterants such as nukes and the United Nations can nolonger preserve the peace so a series of minor or major wars will eventually come to pass.

To a degree realism is the only theory of international politics worth considering in any circumstance. Ideals come second and rarely apply.

Fin McCool

Due to globalization, increasing economic interdependencey and the increasing unprofitability of war, the world will begin to see a new dynamic take shape in the next century. International relations will begin to be defined in less and less competative terms. For example, it is possible we will never see another great power war for generations, even centuries.

So basically that sort of political thinking is becoming outdated

Click to expand...

Hi

This comment is not just at you, but your comment is an Idealist view probably the opposite of realism.

Question have you heard of Francis Fukuyama: The end of history man this book was written after the Berlin wall came down he argued history is going to be predictable the US and W. Europe will permanantly be the strongest nations of the world thus liberal democracy would be adopted by every country. "thus End of History" ironically the author has abandoned his previous position to a more relistic position.:rofl:

Maybe you lot are too optimistic or plain naive, but History shows that periods of unipolar dominated world's tend to be relatively peaceful until a new power emerges. Deamnding a greater share of the wealth and predictible the est power does not want to give to much away thus causing friction.

Finally previously people believed the world world be more peaceful after 1918 and for a time it was. Germany became a liberal democracy in the 1920s generally the world was becoming more economically dependent. The crash of 1929 destroyed this view countries the world became more protectionist and foreign policy became more agressive. the next world wide depression, which will happen, hence lets not forget in a globalised era leaders still have to remember their own public has got the power to kick them out of office hence keeping your nation more happy is more important then believing in helping someone other country.