Assignment Question

Question 1 This is your first written response. Nice! Remember that we want to reward you for your hard work and for your knowledge of course materials, especially the readings. Show your work and your knowledge off in this response. Treat it like a “mini-essay” where you’ve been asked to make an informed argument based on the course readings. Remember: full details for this assignment and some hints and suggestions are available in your Assignment Instructions document. Prompt: Realism and liberalism are two distinct theoretical traditions. Theorists and thinkers in each tradition see the world of global politics in very different ways. In particular, as we read, they have divergent views of the possibility of lasting peace between states. This is clear when we consider how neorealists like John Mearsheimer understand the rise of China, compared with how neoliberal thinkers like G. John Ikenberry and Daniel Deudney understand this case. You have two related questions for this response: (1) Why do these two traditions, realism and liberalism, have different views about the possibility of peace between states? To answer question 1, be sure to showcase the underlying assumptions of each theory that lead to these divergent views. (2) Which tradition, realism or liberalism, best helps us explain the ongoing tensions between the USA and a rising China, and why? Answer these two questions in a mini-essay, demonstrating your knowledge of the reading materials from this week. Be sure to cite properly including page numbers (see the link provided in your Assignment Instructions document for a citation guide). Make an informed argument that impresses us with your hard work and knowledge. Answer these questions in the space provided below (copy and paste from a Word document). Reminders and Recommendations: Your Written Response should be 3-5 paragraphs, and must not be more than 800 words. Be clear and concise and proof-read your writing. Avoid repetition. It is not recommended that you rely on quotations. Instead, synthesize material in your own words. Be sure to cite your claims properly, including using page numbers. No bibliography is required. Failure to cite will result in a zero on this assignment. Problems with citation will drastically reduce your score. Be sure to address all questions or elements of the prompt. Impress your Instructor by demonstrating your knowledge of the reading material, including both required and recommended (rather than lecture material), and your ability to offer an informed viewpoint that is supported by cited evidence. No additional research is required beyond the required and recommended readings. For details regarding citations, expectations, and grading of your Written Response, as well as how to interpret your score, see the Syllabus. Hints and Specific Suggestions: For this response, be sure to discuss the basics of each tradition in some detail and make clear why they have divergent views as to the root of conflict and cooperation. Your readings do this nicely for you. So use your readings – show off all your hard work and all your knowledge! For this response, it is advised that you write three (3) body paragraphs: one surveying the central arguments and assumptions of the realist tradition, one surveying the central arguments and assumptions of the liberal tradition, and one articulating your own view of which is more convincing in explaining the USA-China case We want to reward you for doing three things well in this written response: (i) accurately explaining each theory as we saw in our readings; (ii) making clear how and why each has a different view of war and cooperation and the USA-China relationship, something we also saw in our readings this week, and (iii) showing us, with some detail, why you think one is better at explaining that USA-China relationship than the other (i.e. making an informed argument). This response can and should draw on any of required and recommended readings you see fit from weeks 3 and 4, and another course reading you think would be useful. Final Reminders: Please write your response in the space below (do not attach a file) Check your formatting before submitting (make sure it is correct and clear, including your citations) Citations are required. No bibliography is required You can submit 2 days late without penalty. A 5% penalty is applied after 2 days to a maximum of 6 days late (when it is scored a zero).

Answer

Introduction

In the realm of international relations, realism and liberalism stand as two prominent theoretical traditions, each offering a distinct perspective on global politics and the possibility of lasting peace between states. Realism, as epitomized by scholars like John Mearsheimer, paints a world characterized by unending competition and the perpetual pursuit of power. In stark contrast, liberalism, represented by thinkers like G. John Ikenberry and Daniel Deudney, envisions a world where cooperation and institutions can pave the way for peace.

The Realist Perspective on Peace and Conflict

Realism, as a foundational theory in international relations, argues that the anarchic nature of the international system leads to a constant struggle for power among states. John Mearsheimer’s neorealism, in particular, posits that states are inherently driven by self-interest and the pursuit of power (Mearsheimer, 2021, p. 31). From a realist perspective, international relations are characterized by a relentless security dilemma, where one state’s efforts to enhance its security may be perceived as a threat by others. This zero-sum nature of interactions perpetuates competition and conflict.

One key assumption of realism is that states are the principal actors in international politics, and their primary goal is to ensure their own survival and security. This leads to a focus on relative gains, where states assess their own gains in comparison to the gains of other states. Such a focus can fuel distrust and suspicion, making cooperation challenging. The realist perspective is often associated with the notion that the international system is anarchic, lacking a central authority to enforce rules and norms. In this view, states act in their self-interest, leading to a constant struggle for power.

The Liberal Perspective on Peace and Cooperation

In contrast to realism, liberalism offers a more optimistic view of international relations. Liberal thinkers, such as G. John Ikenberry and Daniel Deudney, believe that peace and cooperation between states are attainable through the establishment of international institutions, norms, and regimes (Ikenberry, 2021, p. 22). Liberalism underscores the role of diplomacy, multilateral agreements, and the spread of democratic norms in fostering international cooperation. Unlike realists, liberals emphasize the potential for positive-sum interactions, where states can work together for mutual benefit.

Liberalism argues that international institutions, such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, can serve as mechanisms for conflict resolution and cooperation. These institutions provide a platform for states to engage in diplomacy and negotiate solutions to global challenges. Additionally, liberal theorists contend that the spread of democratic governance can contribute to peace, as democratic states tend to have a vested interest in avoiding conflict with one another (Doyle, 2023).

USA-China Relations: A Realist Perspective

When evaluating the ongoing tensions between the USA and a rising China, a realist perspective provides valuable insights. The power transition that has been unfolding in recent years, with China’s ascension as a major global player, exemplifies the realist notion of states seeking to enhance their power and security. China’s assertive territorial claims in the South China Sea and its military modernization can be understood through the lens of realpolitik. The pursuit of territorial and strategic advantages aligns with realist principles of states prioritizing self-interest and power-maximization.

In response to China’s growing influence, the United States has pursued a realist strategy to maintain its dominance and alliances in the Asia-Pacific region. This approach involves strengthening security partnerships with countries like Japan, South Korea, and Australia and deploying military assets in the region to counterbalance China’s rise. From a realist perspective, these actions are consistent with the logic of great power competition, where states engage in strategic calculations to safeguard their interests and maintain their relative power (Mearsheimer, 2021).

Which Tradition Best Explains USA-China Relations?

The ongoing tensions between the USA and China are multifaceted and influenced by various factors. However, a realist perspective appears to offer a more compelling explanation for the evolving dynamics between these two nations. As the power transition unfolds, both states are driven by self-interest and security considerations. China’s efforts to expand its territorial claims and military capabilities are indicative of its pursuit of power and regional dominance, aligning with realist principles.

On the other hand, while liberalism’s emphasis on international institutions and cooperation is valuable, it may not fully capture the complex realities of USA-China relations. The competitive dynamics, strategic calculations, and territorial disputes between the two countries align more closely with realist assumptions. The pursuit of relative gains and the zero-sum nature of the power struggle between these great powers reflect the core tenets of realism in international relations.

In conclusion, the realist perspective provides a more convincing framework for explaining the ongoing tensions between the USA and a rising China. While liberalism offers valuable insights into the potential for cooperation and the role of international institutions, the realist lens better captures the competitive and power-driven dynamics that characterize the evolving relationship between these two global giants.

References

Doyle, M. W. (2023). Kant, Liberal Legacies, and Foreign Affairs. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 12(3), 205-235.

Ikenberry, G. J. (2021). After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars. Princeton University Press.

Mearsheimer, J. (2021). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.

Waltz, K. (2019). Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.

FAQs

1. What are the key differences between realism and liberalism in international relations?
   • This FAQ explores the fundamental distinctions between the realist and liberal perspectives in the field of international relations, shedding light on their core assumptions and viewpoints.
2. Why do realists and liberals have contrasting views on the possibility of lasting peace between states?
   • Delve into the underlying principles of realism and liberalism that lead to their different assessments of whether enduring peace is attainable in the international arena.
3. How do realist and liberal theories help us understand the ongoing tensions between the USA and a rising China?
   • Explore how these two prominent theoretical traditions offer insights into the complex relationship between the United States and China, considering issues of power, cooperation, and conflict.
4. What is the role of international institutions in the liberal perspective, and how do they contribute to global cooperation?
   • This FAQ delves into the liberal viewpoint on the significance of international organizations and agreements in promoting cooperation among nations.
5. Which theoretical tradition, realism or liberalism, provides a more compelling explanation for the dynamics in USA-China relations?
   • Assess the applicability of realism and liberalism in explaining the evolving tensions and interactions between the United States and China, offering insights into their contrasting viewpoints.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Last Completed Projects