Power is one of the most fundamental concepts in global politics. It is the means of influencing other groups in global politics to achieve desired goals. However, power is unfixed and is variable in the application as there is a multitude of different powers (ie. soft, hard and smart). Theoretical perspectives on power play a great role in understanding the implications of this fundamental concept as each perspective has a different understanding of power and global politics. In this century, five very important theoretical perspectives are being further developed but I believe that the two most important perspectives of this list are Realism and Liberalism as these two scopes can be used to comprehend the actions of groups in global politics and predict the future of power, sovereignty and international relations.
Realism is a political theory focused on power and security. Realists believe that the combination of power and security leads to prestige, autonomy and self-help. They also believe that perpetual peace does not exist so we have to be independent and always be prepared for future conflicts as conflict is inevitable. Realists frown upon interdependence as they believe in the inherent nature of man to be vying for power and never being trust-worthy. Essentially, we live in an evil world as people act in self-interest and war is always lurking in the background of all international politics. A few key thinkers embodying the idea of man being selfish and constantly vying for more power so mutual reliance was flawed were Thomas Hobbes and Niccolo Machiavelli. Although the premise of Realism is grim, I believe that it holds numerous strengths. It holds great predictive power in global politics as it defines the premise of human nature to be fearful and selfish.
These ideas regarding human nature can be seen throughout history; one example could be the initiation of the War on Terror. The war in Afghanistan was initiated by the USA in response to the devastating 9/11/01 attack on the World Trade Centre. The USA attempted to remove the Taliban from Afghanistan but neither side was willing to compromise so the USA decided to launch an attack into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban forces and headquarters. This shows that the USA did not waste time trying to foster deals with terrorist forces and instead did things in self-interest, they were afraid of the future attacks that could have been launched by Al Qaeda but were not afraid of the repercussions of the invasions as they had one clear mindset of using hard power to secure security. Any realist would have predicted this as the majority of realists believe that Realism uses hard power to ensure power parity and thereby, security. Other events such as the Arms Race (during the Cold War) and the crises in Libya could be easily predicted to occur through realist thinking. Although Realism holds great predictive power, it does have a fair share of flaws. We can use the case study of the War on Terror once again as an example of the weaknesses of this theory. This theory holds war and conflict as a very viable mean of securing power and security but this is not ethical by any means. The war in Afghanistan is one that has been going on for decades. From a realist perspective, loss of life is inevitable and ultimately, winning the war is more important than anything else. However, this is quite a non-humanitarian approach, and goes against human nature, in the sense that it doesn’t make sense to be putting lives at stake necessary. Senseless killing thousands of Americans and Afghan troops simply is unethical. Realists could argue that this war has enabled the USA to achieve their desired goals through hard power (Offensive Realism) but not only were numerous lives lost in this conflict, there was a multitude of opportunity costs for the USA during their involvement as the USA had been spending billions of dollars on this war. This ludicrous amount of money could instead be used for schools and public expenditure. Other case studies for Realism could be found dotted throughout the entirety of the Cold War, the strengths of realism can be seen as both sides ensured security by always working towards securing power advantage (which ensured Mutually Assured Destruction) but weaknesses can also be seen as both sides were fearful and not ready for cooperation so peace was hard to foster between the USA and the USSR. Although Realism has now been rendered a non-pragmatic paradigm (by a research conducted by Princeton University), due to the increased interdependence in our world (Realism now has application hindrance as interdependence is too common in our world), it still holds value as it has great predictive strength. Realism is regarded to be the definitive tradition in the field of power by an overwhelming majority of scholars. Many of the other political theories have stemmed from Realism as they were in response to the ideas set out in this controversial theory. Many people did not believe in the inherent evil of mankind so this justified the creation of much more optimistic and idealistic theoretical perspective, Liberalism.
Liberalism is a theory that directly contrasts with Realism. It is a theoretical perspective based on the belief that the international system creates opportunities so states can pursue internationally beneficial goals. Unlike Realism, which has a great emphasis on hard power, Liberalism prefers exhausting non-violent means to solve issues as it also has a great emphasis on interdependence as this enables our world to move towards mutually beneficial goals. Liberalism emphasises globalisation which inhibits soft power as all economies involved in the international system aim to become flourishing markets and opens exchange between countries which allows every nation-state involved in the international system to improve in the cooperation as per the ideals of Liberalist views. A few key thinkers of this perspective were Woodrow Wilson, John Locke and John Rawl; these were thinkers whom all believed that peace was the way to a better future for all. Good examples of strong liberal based organisations in our world are the European Union (the economic union in Europe) and the United Nations.
The United Nations has proven to be a great reason why interdependence and diplomacy (soft power) works in this day and age as the UN has fostered solutions and facilitated debate that ended in mutual benefits. The UN has been involved in a multitude of crises, even since it was only known as the League of Nations, but I believe that a great case study of the UN’s actions in the world would be the response to the Gulf War of 1991. In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait for oil but in January 1991, a coalition of nations (led by the USA and formed by the UN) launched Operation Desert Storm which expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait. This coalition consisted of 34 different nations and this shows the impact and effectiveness that cooperation has. This really exemplifies the idea of strength in numbers which is not present in Realism as realist thinking is that we are better off on our own. This case study opens up the debate on the strengths and the limitations of Liberalism. The increased interdependence in our world has led to increased international trade and, subsequently, more rapid globalisation. This has helped improve the economies of LEDCs in the world as international trade has enabled them to have access to more global markets and the people in LEDCs can have more exposure to other cultures as well (due to globalisation). Additionally, the increased interdependence has led to more of an International response to transnational crises (eg. Ebola outbreak) as nations with liberal foreign policies come to the aid of nations suffering crises as the beliefs of Liberalism is to allow for such balance to be created between countries and enforce relationships (traditional or economic) as it is the only way to help everyone. However, there is a multitude of weaknesses for this perspective. A weakness of Liberalism is that Western democracies try exporting it to other countries that are unwilling to adopt it. Liberalism only takes ‘western values’ into account (eg. Free speech) and undermines the traditions of non-western nations. An example of the West attempting to export Liberalism can be seen in the War on Terror when the USA was trying to accentuate democracy in Afghanistan. Additionally, world peace cannot always be fostered using international cooperations as some countries see Liberalism as a weakness (eg. North Korea attempted to get concessions for giving up nuclear weapons). Weaknesses of Liberalism is also that either side of an agreement could back out at any time and they may also not be willing to pool sovereignty/cooperate. This idea can be seen in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, although this declaration explores the needs of all humans and most nations abide by this – it is not legally enforced (like most other UN agreements) and therefore, does not ensure all sides comply with the agreement. Although this theory does have heavy weaknesses, it does have good strengths.
To synthesise my arguments, I believe power is a fundamental concept in global politics to a great extent but more specifically power through a Liberal perspective as it believes in the inherent good of the world and attempts to foster more diplomacy and interdependence. Although Liberalism may seem too idealistic (compared to the harsh reality perceived by realists), it does set the precedent for more diplomatic processes and more effective means of cooperation and soft power to achieve peace in the world.
