Struggle is NOT fundamental In Walter Lippman’s The Rivalry of Nations, Lippman argues that because of the miscarriages of our American diplomacy, the United States of America has been led two savage World Wars. This is because of our “refusal to take as the premise of our thinking, the fact that rivalry and strife and conflict among states are the normal condition of mankind.” (Lippmann, 18) The author argues that the way we can resolve this issue is by recognizing that rivalry will remain and try to regulate it, instead abolish it. However, he fails to ignore the fact that interdependence plays an important role in the international society of states. With proper international institutions, Americans could have prevented the World Wars and maximized prosperity. Liberalism has allowed for individuals to gain basic human rights, rather than uncaringly concentrate on the states’ self-interests. …show more content…
However, the reason both world wars were caused was because of the lack of means to regulate the competition between the states. At the time, there was no international entity to prevent such a huge conflict from arising. Unlike the notion the author suggests, that “struggle for existence is fundamental and in the nature of things” (Lippmann, 18), conflict can be avoided. War may be the only option, in some cases, but there are many steps before such a drastic measure should be taken. Negotiations between states can lead to compromise, instead of violent
Steven Hook and John Spanier's 2012 book titled “American foreign policy since WWII" serves as one of the most important texts that can be used in understanding the underlying complexities on American foreign policies. Like the first readings that are analyzed in class (American Diplomacy by George Kennan and Surprise, Security, and the American Experience by John Lewis Gaddis), this text also brings history into a more understandable context. Aside from being informative and concise in its historical approach, Hook and Spanier also critiques the several flaws and perspectives that occurred in the American foreign policy history since World War II.
Without understanding the importance of foreign relations the American people’s way of life could be at stake. Not only could the economic strength of the U.S. diminish, but the military might of the U.S. could also be compromised. Mead argues that without the centrality of foreign policy being evident in American politics the happiness of the world is at risk. “Since the United States has become the central power in a worldwide system of finance, communications, and trade, it is not only the American people whose happiness and security will be greatly affected by the quality of American foreign policy in coming years (Mead 176). I contend that without a strong emphasis on foreign policy, we could begin to see the end of American
In conclusion, this extensive review of American foreign policy is just very broad. This topic is his shortened summary of a broad topic in a narrative arrangement, if they contributed anything to the historical understanding of this book. Ambrose and Brinkley made the topic very fascinating and easier to comprehend than a plain textbook. By writing Rise to Globalism and narrating stories without including unnecessary truths and statistics. Thanks to this book, I gained a more thorough understanding of the struggles in the Middle East after Vietnam and a new perception on where American presently stands in the world.
When an anthropologist is studying another culture they take notes on the different way of life of that culture and even try to participate in some of that cultures rituals. In order for anthropologist to get the rawest data and truly be accepted by its people that they are studying they must be extremely accepting to the society and cultural they are studying. For example, in the movie Dances with Wolves Lieutenant Dunbar takes a big bite out of one of the boffolas organs after one of the natives offer it to him. This is something not typical in the American culture to eat a raw organ, but in the Indian culture it is customary for your first boffola kill. This was an example of Dunbar using cultural relativism. The anthropologist is accepting
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
In no field other than politics does the justification for action often come from a noteworthy event and the true cause stays hidden behind the headlines. The United States’ transformation from a new state to a global superpower has been a methodical journey molded by international conditions (the global terrain for statecraft), the role of institutions and their programmed actions, and ultimately, the interests of actors (the protection of participants in making policy’s items and i...
Despite the obstinate survival of the continuity invigorated the earlier foreign policy from 1880-1919 and 1933-1948, the latter generation accentuates the divergence and the dwelling of a new aspiration. U.S. foreign policy between 1880 and 1919 and 1933 and 1948 is a paradigm of a complex input of continuity and disruption. Although undertones of the change are still present in the new American foreign policy as it is still committed to the economic and strategic interests abroad, the foreign policy during World War II still represents a significant shift and the birth of a new perspective altogether. World War I and the interwar period formed the arena of new tactics for American diplomacy, the nation’s proactive role in international affairs and multilateralism. The United States cemented its success as a global grand power through an unshakable belief in the responsibility for sustaining peace, democracy, and economic growth in the
One of the most vigorous debates focuses on the current status of the United States hegemony and whether or not it is in decline. This begs the question, if the United States is indeed declining in status, will it still be an influential player or not? I argue that the United States is losing its prominent position as the hegemonic leader of the world, but will still remain an influential player in global politics in the following decades to come. Its decline is an imminent result of their domestic issues, the violation of international laws and economic deficit, which have posed a grave and serious challenge for the United States. On the other hand, I propose that the United States will remain a dominant force due to its innovation, cultural influences around the world, and military prowess. In their articles, “How Americans Can Survive the rise of the Rest”, by Fareed Zakaria and “America and Europe in the Asian Century”, by Kishore Mahbubani, provides two distinctive and thought provoking arguments from a declinist perspective. However, both articles are susceptible to criticism and will be further examined in order to understand the United States prominent role.
World War I was a conflict that claimed over 10 million peoples’ lives, ravaged all of Europe and engineered modern warfare, as it is know today. The Great War has been scrutinized and examined through many complex theories in order to understand how such a conflict escalated to one of the most epic wars in history. This essay, like many works before it, looks to examine WWI and determine its causes through two distinct levels of analysis, individual and systemic. The individual level of analysis locates the cause of conflicts in individual leaders or decision makers within a particular country, focusing on the characteristics of human decision-making. The systemic level of analysis explains the causation of a conflict from a system wide level that includes all states, taking in to account the distribution of power and the interaction of states in the international system.
The Soviet Union’s collapse at the end of the Cold War left the United States without its major global rival. Now alone at the top, the United States’ strategic imperatives have shifted remarkably. The shift has been significant enough to prompt fundamental questions about the international order and whether this new “unipolar moment” will last. Indeed, since 1989, political scientists have clamored to define the United States’ status relative to the rest of the world. Indispensable nation? Sole super...
In order for countries to cohesively overcome international barriers, frameworks of ideal political standards must be established. Two of these frameworks constantly discussed in international relations are the theories of Neo-realism and Liberalism; two theories with their own outlook at the way politicians should govern their country as well as how they should deal with others. Neo-realism lies on the structural level, emphasizing on anarchy and the balance of power as a dominant factor in order to maintain hierarchy in international affairs. In contrast, Liberalism's beliefs are more permissive, focusing on the establishments of international organizations, democracy, and trade as links to strengthen the chain of peace amongst countries. Liberalism provides a theory that predominantly explains how states can collaborate in order to promote global peace; however, as wars have been analyzed, for example World War II, the causes of them are better explained by Neo-realist beliefs on the balance of power and states acting as unitary actors. Thus, looking out for their own self interest and security.
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
The First World War represents perhaps the greatest shared mistake in international relations history. The most dominant governments of the day, with the most knowledgeable information and advice, entirely failed to avert what became a general catastrophe for everyone involved. “So that in the nature of man, we find three principal cases of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory.” (Hobbes, Essentials pg.
Whenever world politics is mentioned, the state that appears to be at the apex of affairs is the United States of America, although some will argue that it isn’t. It is paramount we know that the international system is shaped by certain defining events that has lead to some significant changes, particularly those connected with different chapters of violence. Certainly, the world wars of the twentieth century and the more recent war on terror must be included as defining moments. The warning of brute force on a potentially large scale also highlights the vigorousness of the cold war period, which dominated world politics within an interval of four decades. The practice of international relations (IR) was introduced out of a need to discuss the causes of war and the different conditions for calm in the wake of the first world war, and it is relevant we know that this has remained a crucial focus ever since. However, violence is not the only factor capable of causing interruption in the international system. Economic elements also have a remarkable impact. The great depression that happened in the 1920s, and the global financial crises of the contemporary period can be used as examples. Another concurrent problem concerns the environment, with the human climate being one among different number of important concerns for the continuing future of humankind and the planet in general.