In
every species, be it physical, like an organism, or abstract, like a state, the
primary goal of existence is survival. This goal is apparent throughout the
theory of realism as explained in Measrsheimer’s article “Anarchy and the
Struggle for Power.” As it is every state's goal to survive, this theory can be
applied to explain the world of international relations. In the following
paragraphs, I will argue, using Measrsheimer’s article and the foreign policies
of states, that all governments, in the past, present and future, compete ruthlessly for power in the anarchic system and use any means to obtain
and keep the status of regional hegemony.
The foreign policies of the United
States within the past seventy years have generally included maintaining a global
peace and spreading democracy throughout the world. Though these goals can be
linked to aspects of realism’s rivaling theory, liberalism, the sole reason for
these pursuits is to defend the state in order to protect its title of a great power. When our foreign policy is stripped down to the bare bones, it is
clear that, though it may seem the main goals are peace and democracy, these
are only covers for the true ambition of survival. Measrsheimer explains,
“Survival dominates other motives because, once conquered, it is unlikely to be
in a position to pursue other aims,” (Measrsheimer). If states fight for lesser
goals such as peace, it will become increasingly hard to maintain their survival.
Therefore, any and all states will choose to survive over lesser pursuits that
simply help maintain survival. An example of this policy in use is the Vietnam
War. On the surface, this war was seen as a defense of democracy;
however, the United Sates faced clear threats to their survival. Vietnam was in a state of turmoil and the government that was beginning to emerge was communist. Communism was
seen as a threat to the United States as a global power, as its rival power at
the time, the Soviet Union, was also a communist state. Because of the stand off
between these two powers, the Soviet Union had the ability to jeopardize the
United State’s status of regional hegemony, and they therefore needed to enter a war to keep communism from becoming a dominant form of government. This struggle for power is a prime
example of how states follow the aspects of realism to survive. Even now, the
United States is still fighting other states, such as Afghanistan and Syria, in
the pursuit to maintain their power.
Realism has been driving the
intentions of states throughout history because of its basic principle of the
need to survive and, while doing so, achieve and maintain absolute power. All
global struggles, including anything from small stand-offs to global wars, can
be attributed to the need to survive. We will continue to see these ideologies
define the foreign policies of all states throughout the world because in the
struggle to survive, those who fight the hardest will be successful.
Interesting essay. But would a realist really say that Vietnam is a good example of a state following its national interests?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that the driving force behind a state's decisions is the need to survive. However, I would not consider peace a lesser goal in the international system as many threatening situations occur as a result to a lack of peace among nations.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jordan; while peaceful alliances may be seen as a lesser goal, I think that these alliances and a state's meticulous neutrality are just as indicative of their want to survive. While realists may not acknowledge tactics of survival other than physical aggression towards opposing states, the fact remains that cooperation and peaceful actions may be just as effective in ensuring the continuance of a state.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of your points. The point I was trying to make with this essay was that these other goals, such as peace, are representative of the main goal of survival. Looking back, I would edit my essay to make this point much more clear in the thesis.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to whether a realist would consider Vietnam as a good example of a state following its national interests, I would say its not the best example, however, I would argue that because the US felt as though the spread of communism was a threat to their survival, it can still exemplify a state following its national interests.