On Realism and Liberalism Iran and US

War, and so does peace, consist the most dramatic of issues in politics (van de Haar, 2009). Who wages the other and who promotes what Who wins what or does any body, really These things render even the academics demoralized, confused and, sometimes, hopeless, but, energized, all at the same time. Books have been written talks and lectures have taken so much time of on-lookers and seemingly concerned foreign policy makers and politicians alike. It is irrefutable that this is actually, if not the, one of the dilemmas that the world has to face, most of the time, forcibly. It is inevitable for other countries to be affected by every decision that other nations make. This is the exact reason why intergovernmental international organizations were formed as a supposed response to the need for a sort of order, which is, in truth and other words, to avoid war. This however assumes that the individual nations would, not necessarily submit, but comply with each others natural instinct, or for that matter, every humans to survive.

On the context of classical liberalism, a theory which is characterized by a reliance on individualism and spontaneous order, it is indeed the interest of a nation to survive and that national interest is, and will always definitely be, human interest. This feature takes into consideration the nature of humans, governed by both reason and passion. One must note, though, that this interplay between the two governing forces is always limited, and reason, a most important force, does not always win over certain intentions. Human nature has not always been the most favorable of things in this world. Every action a state puts into play is a state action and, at the same time, a human action (van de Haar, 2009),
Just lately, Iran President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made a move that did not only stir so much attention of his constituents, mostly the opposition, but the rest of the world, especially the United States. In a recent article by Zoe Magee of ABC News International, Ahmadinejad declared Iran as a nuclear state and in his customary fiery rhetoric, Ahmadinejad vowed not to give in to bullying by the West (2010). He said that the country will be increasing its uranium enrichment from 3.5 to 20, a rather significant increase that raised dozens of questions, and about a number of eyebrows. This decision will seem to imply just one thing the creation of more nuclear weapons. However, in the same speech that the president delivered in front of millions, he said that the increase would most certainly not be for the creation of a nuclear bomb, but for cancer treatment and other medical purposes. Only a few nations outside Middle East believed the said claim. In another article released on CNN.com, an interview by networks correspondent, Christiane Amanpour with Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, the general stated that in addition to diplomacy and sanctions, the United States has developed contingency plans in dealing with Irans nuclear facilities. Furthermore, the news article explained that the Iran rejected the proposed deal by the P5 plus one -- permanent U.N. Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany to defuse the uranium enrichment program. Iran countered by giving them until the end of January to accept its own proposal (Amanpour, 2010).

It is apparent that this exchange of decisions and supposed deadlines showcases how human nature is seen as something that tends towards wrong doing. This is obviated by the continuous close watch of other countries to each others decisions especially those decisions that may endanger them. Despite the fact that a claim for utmost good was explained, trust is an issue or possibly, a threat.

Political Realism explains that, on the international, it is the nation states that must maximize their power. Furthermore, foreign policy is done for particular interest, that is, to advance the interest of the nation or state that forms the said policy. This is a feature of political realism which is denoted as descriptive political realism. This aspect always assumes a self-serving motive even if the foreign policy may appear to be altruistic. Another aspect to consider is the prescriptive political realism which states that whatever the actual state of international affairs, nations should pursue their own interests (Moseley, 2005). This may seem to be the argument of both sides in the predicament presented by the articles aforementioned. Prescriptive political realism further assumes that the nation states have their own means to employ so as to uplift their national interest. The West seem to have the interest of the majority, which is to regulate the power of nations, may it be done because of threat or because of sheer enjoyment in maintaining themselves on top of everything else.  Wherever both nations are coming from, on the context of political realism, they both just are enriching themselves at the expense of other nation states.

Peace, as according to both theories, is not present and the state of war is not as well. What the
International community is experiencing now is a state of anarchy where there is no single power over all nations. War could be a result as per the liberalists, if and when just causes are present. Realists foresee war when the competition for the same resources is at hand. The news articles particularly shows how nations seem to try to outwit each other and read each other as themselves but always with consideration to human natures instinct to survive and to promote each others self-interests. One sides interest could be for the better of the state of the international community, the other sides could be so too. But each sides interest could always be focused on their own. As Gen. Petraeus said as his final words in his interview by CNNs Amanpour, theres a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head, if you will.

0 comments:

Post a Comment