One World, Overarching Theories
This article is in response to Jack Snyder’s article in Foreign Policy, published in November 2004. Snyder’s thesis is that the three principal theories of international relations, realism, liberalism, and idealism, each explain some aspects and fail to explain other aspects of the international system in our post-9/11 world. We can posit a theory that integrates all three: idealism is a subset of realism. Liberalism is a subset of idealism for the United States and the Western world.
Realism is the idea that the international system is in a constant state of anarchy. States are the primary actors of the international system, are self-interested, and are each competing for power and security. Realism explains why the US has vigorously prosecuted its War on Terror despite the supposed restraints of international institutions. Realism does not explain why smaller powers like the United Kingdom and Japan have failed to ally each other in the face of an all-powerful US.
Liberalism is the idea that the spread of democracy, increasing economic integration, and the growing strength of international organizations will make war less likely and peace more likely. Liberalism explains why the spread of democracy has become a prime objective of US foreign policy but does not explain why the US has failed to work through international organizations to legally achieve its goals, like the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Idealism is the idea that the international system is shaped by the individual cultures and values of state and non-state actors. Idealism explains why the values of different groups, cultures, and countries are reflected in the growth of international terrorism and anti-globalization movements but does not explain why those same groups and countries all over the world commit human rights violations that are supposedly in contravention to the values these groups and countries claim to hold.
Idealism is a subset of realism. This is because while values may inform the ways by which a state attains security, the objective of states is still to obtain security. The US and other states pursue security through their own might. That might simply translate into support for international institutions. In other words, US idealism is liberalism. The US has consistently demonstrated this since the Second World War. Ignoring the policies of the current administration, the US has strengthened international institutions like the World Trade Organization (WTO), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the United Nations (UN), resulting in an expansion of capitalism and democracy. Several administrations have stated that the security of the US increases with the construction of an international democratic and capitalist world order that is dictated by the international rule of law.
Idealism is a subset of realism. Liberalism is a subset of idealism.
According to John Mearsheimer, a professor of international relations at the University of Chicago, Russia pursues its interests through three guiding principles: (1) secure enough land throughout Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia such that it is difficult for any opposing power to attack the central government in Moscow; (2) compete for regional hegemony by undermining US influence in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia; and (3) please the Russian people by presenting to the populace the image of Russian imperialism. As a result of the flatland between Europe and Russia, Russia’s idealism manifests in its obsession with space between itself and its rivals. This is due to the three land invasions that have nearly destroyed Russia over the last two hundred years: the French invasion of the early nineteenth century and the two German invasions of the two world wars. Because of the anarchy inherent in the realist international system, Russia’s idealism is a subset of realism.
According to The Great Wall and the Empty Fortress: China’s Search for Security, China pursues its interests through two guiding principles: (1) formulating the ultimate response to the “century of humiliation,” which took place from 1839 to 1949; and (2) provide high living standards to its populace as part of the social contract between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its citizenry. Therefore, China’s idealism manifests in regaining its identity as the “Middle Kingdom,” able to defend itself and claim hegemony in East Asia. Its identity and pursuit for security are mired in the anarchical international system, again described by realism.
Therefore, liberalism is a subset of idealism and idealism is a subset of realism. All actors, still mainly states, have an interest in security and power. This interest in security and power manifests in the different cultures and histories of each state. To them, their culture and history are the tools by which they obtain security.