Write A Short Essay On The Difference Between Realism And Id

Write A Short Essay On The Difference Betweenrealism And Idealismiso

Write A Short Essay On The Difference Betweenrealism And Idealismiso

Write a short essay on the difference between: Realism and idealism, isolationism and internationalism, unilateralism and multilateralism, preemption and provocation, and hard power and soft power. In doing so, consider the issue of nuclear proliferation or violent extremism. How would the above mentioned theories or policy models apply to either of these issues? How are these theories or policy models used by various international actors (nations, leaders, or international organizations). When discussing the above issues, how could the world benefit from different applications of these theories by the US or other actors?

Paper For Above instruction

The international relations landscape is shaped by a variety of theories and policy models that influence how nations respond to global issues such as nuclear proliferation and violent extremism. Among these, realism and idealism serve as foundational paradigms that guide state behavior and international policy making, each with distinct perspectives on how power, morality, and global order should be approached.

Realism emphasizes the importance of power, national interests, and the anarchic nature of the international system. Realists argue that states act primarily in pursuit of their own security and survival, often accepting conflict and competition as inevitable. In contrast, idealism advocates for cooperation, moral values, and international institutions as means to achieve peace and stability. Idealists believe that fostering international law, diplomacy, and shared ideals can mitigate conflicts and promote a more just world order.

Applying these theories to nuclear proliferation reveals differing strategies. Realists tend to favor deterrence through the buildup of nuclear arsenals, emphasizing the importance of power balance and strategic stability. They may view proliferation as an inevitable or even necessary aspect of national security. Conversely, idealists advocate for non-proliferation treaties and nuclear disarmament, emphasizing moral imperatives and global safety. For example, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) embodies an idealist approach by aiming to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Similarly, in addressing violent extremism, realism might focus on targeted military interventions and intelligence operations to eliminate threats, prioritizing national security interests. Idealists, on the other hand, would emphasize diplomatic solutions, social development, and counter-radicalization programs rooted in cooperation and moral engagement.

Beyond these two theories, a range of policy approaches such as isolationism versus internationalism also shapes responses to global issues. Isolationism advocates for minimizing international involvement, arguing that nations should focus inwardly on domestic concerns. In contrast, internationalism promotes active participation in global governance, alliances, and collective security arrangements. The post-9/11 context illustrates these differences vividly; some countries favored unilateral military action against terrorist groups (unilateralism), while others supported multilateral efforts through organizations like NATO or the United Nations.

Preemption and provocation strategies also influence responses to threats like nuclear proliferation. Preemption involves striking first to neutralize imminent threats, as exemplified by the Iraq War in 2003. This approach can be controversial, often justified using a combination of realist and preemptive policies. Provocation, however, may entail actions intended to deliberately provoke adversaries into confrontation or capitulation, which risks escalation.

The concepts of hard power and soft power further delineate tools available to international actors. Hard power refers to the use of military force, economic sanctions, or coercion, while soft power emphasizes diplomacy, cultural influence, and international aid. For example, sanctions targeting Iran's nuclear program reflect hard power, whereas diplomatic negotiations and cultural exchanges represent soft power efforts.

How these theories and tools are utilized varies among nations and international organizations. The United States, for instance, has historically oscillated between realist policies, like nuclear deterrence, and idealist pursuits, such as diplomacy and multilateral treaties. The United Nations embodies an idealist framework promoting global cooperation and conflict resolution.

In conclusion, integrating these diverse approaches can offer a comprehensive strategy to complex international issues like nuclear proliferation and violent extremism. Embracing realist caution alongside idealist moral outlooks allows for flexible responses—combining military preparedness with diplomatic engagement. This multi-faceted application can help the world achieve greater stability, reduce conflict, and promote sustainable peace, benefiting from the varied strengths of different theories and policies adopted by global actors including the US.

References

• Mearsheimer, John J. “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.” W.W. Norton & Company, 2001.
• Waltz, Kenneth N. “Theory of International Politics.” McGraw-Hill, 1979.
• Levy, Jack S. “Deterrence and Influence in World Politics: Empire, Privacy, and the Public Sphere.” Princeton University Press, 2005.
• United Nations. “Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).” 1968.
• Snyder, Glenn H. “The Security Dilemma in the Post-Cold War World.” International Security, vol. 19, no. 2, 1994, pp. 107–124.
• Krauthammer, Charles. “The Case for Preemption.” Foreign Affairs, 2002.
• Nye, Joseph S. “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics.” Public Affairs, 2004.
• Lieber, Keir A., and Daryl G. Press. “The End of Deterrence?” International Security, vol. 35, no. 1, 2010, pp. 7–48.
• Waldner, David. “States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control.” Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• Kaempfer, William H., and Anton D. Lowenberg. “The Economics of International Security.” Handbook of Defense Economics, vol. 1, 1995, pp. 441–472.