PS2237 Analytical Essay

Essay Question: Ever since the end of the Cold War there has been a heated debate in
international relations theory concerning what constitutes the core of security studies. Some
have attempted to defend the dominant tradition as informed by realism, while others have
argued that such a tradition is inappropriate for thinking about contemporary politics. In this
essay you are asked to reflect on this debate. In doing so, please outline: a) the new
international security issues of the post-Cold War era (if different at all); and b) the
appropriateness of realism as the theoretical framework of analysis in understanding and
explaining these new security issues. Cite and evaluate theories where appropriate and take a
position in this debate.

The end of the Cold War marked the change in the definition of ‘international

security’. During the cold war, this simply referred to the managing of relations between the

USA and the USSR, but with its end, international security has been seen to much more

unpredictable and complex, due to the addition of many more actors and issues. With the

increasing complexity of security issues that plague the post-Cold war order, realism has

emerged to become the dominant theory because it is seen to be the most appropriate in the

understanding of these issues which have emerged. However, this essay, through exploring

the issues of worsening civil wars, the nuclear threat and terrorism, aims to show how the

realist theory not actually be the most appropriate. By pointing out the limitations of realism

in explaining these new security issues and the importance of other factors and theories, this

essay states that realism itself is not sufficient and should not be the most dominant theory in

the understanding of these issues.

Civil wars are defined as intense conflicts that happens within a country and is fought

by groups whose goals are to take hold of power or change various government policies. 1

Civil wars have become a major concern due to it increasing in intensity and frequency after

1
Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR: International Security 2." Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore,
Singapore, March 14, 2017

1
the Cold War. In fact, civil wars claim a lot of the world’s human casualties every year. 2

Classical realism can be applied in explaining this issue, as flawed human nature can be

blamed. Due to the innate greed and lust for power everyone possesses3, there will always be

a constant struggle for power, hence organized groups perhaps, due to the lust for government

power, choose to engage in civil war to achieve it. In addition, neo-realism also states how

external and internal wars can occur for the same reason – anarchy.4 Internal wars can happen

due to anarchy on the domestic level, where authority that a government is supposed to have

is absent and hence this leads to much disorder. Neo-realism also, in particular, hold a basic

assumption that states will always be the key actors in the world.5 Yet, this assumption can

also be a limitation of realism. By attributing the cause of every conflict to the state, realism

ignores the main actors present in civil wars – that of non-state actors. Examples of such

groups include those involved in the Libyan Civil war and the Bosnian Civil War in 1995.6 In

addition to this, by relying too much on the structure of the world system to explain civil

wars, realism is incapable of addressing its roots– which are often internal instead of external

and systemic. To support this point, ethnic civil wars comprise 71-72% of all civil wars. 7In

the case of the Rwandan civil war, it was the Hutu nationalists and their longstanding ethnic

tension with the Tutsis that pushed them to civil war in 1994. 8 Hence, this shows how the

causes of civil wars cannot be solely attributed to the role of the state, as realism always

claims, as many a times, the causes are more internal and specific to the country’s make-up.

2
Robert J. Art, and Robert Jervis. International politics: enduring concepts and contemporary issues. 13th ed.
(Boston: Pearson, 2016): 409
3
Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR: Realism." Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore, Singapore, Jan. 7,
2017
4
Ibid.
5
Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR: Realism." Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore, Singapore, Jan. 7,
2017
6
Robert J. Art, and Robert Jervis. International politics: enduring concepts and contemporary issues. 13th ed.
(Boston: Pearson, 2016): 429-431
7
Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR: International Security 2." Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore,
Singapore, March 14, 2017.
8
Power, Samantha. "Bystanders to Genocide: Why the United States Let the Rwandan Tragedy Happen." (The
Atlantic Monthly, September 2001): 1. Accessed March 31, 2017. The Atlantic Monthly.

2
Therefore, realism can be seen to be very limited in its assumptions and hence not the most

appropriate theory in explaining this security issue of civil wars.

Another security issue that gained prominence since the end of the Cold War has been

that of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear proliferation has become a principal threat to global

security especially with the increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons,

hence increasing the vulnerability of countries to a nuclear attack and making the world a

more dangerous place. Realism, regarded as the dominant theory in justifying the rise of new

security threats, seems to have an explanation. Realism believes that states are always

rational actors, whose main goal is only to survive.9 In addition to this, they believe that due

to the unknown intentions of states and the presence of anarchy, peace is ultimately

unattainable and that states would always be caught in an endless struggle for power. 10 This

would explain why states would feel insecure in a world where only some have nuclear

weapons. With this fear in mind, it is no wonder that countries, wanting to maximize their

own sense of security, would try their best to possess nuclear weapons so that it can act as a

deterrence to any future attacks11 while ensuring that they have a higher chance of survival in

a world dictated by anarchy. Realism hence justifies why countries like Iraq, despite being a

signatory of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, would choose turn its back on its promise and

instead seriously consider developing its own nuclear weapons12 and why countries like

Israel, North Korea, and India continue to spend much of their defence budget increasing and

9
Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR: Realism." Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore, Singapore, Jan 17,
2017.
10
Ibid.
11
Robert J. Art, and Robert Jervis. International politics: enduring concepts and contemporary issues. 13th ed.
(Boston: Pearson, 2016): 266

12
James M. Lindsay and Ray Takeyh. "After Iran gets the bomb: Containment and its Implications." 89th
Foreign Affairs Journal, no. 33 (March & april 2010): 33 Accessed March 27, 2017. Hein Online.

3
modernizing their nuclear arsenal. 13 However, realism contains its own limitations as well.

Realism fails to explain the current attitude countries have towards nuclear weapons. Though

according to realism, countries possessing nuclear weapons should keep increasing, yet with

26 years after the Cold War, only 9 out of 196 countries possess nuclear weapons.14 This is

due to emerging cooperation between countries, as explained by neoliberal institutionalism,

that has led to the agreement of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons between countries and

even disarmament. Such agreements and frameworks include the Non-Proliferation Treaty

which was created in 1995.15 Henry Sokolsi has stated how successful this has been. He

showed how the more serious the US government was in upholding the Non-Proliferation

treaty and reducing its own nuclear arsenal, the more nuclear armed states such as China

cooperated in committing to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons to bring about peace. 16

In addition, many countries have stopped themselves from acquiring nuclear weapons due to

the emergence of a nuclear taboo. 17The nuclear taboo successfully delegitimized nuclear

weapons as options for attack on other states as it convinced states of the negative stigma

attached with nuclear weapons, especially with them being labelled ‘taboo’, hence

illegitimate, weapons.18Furthermore, the nuclear taboo and the regulative and substantive

anti-usage norms19 that came out of it highlight how important constructivism has also

become, as norms, not states, have brought about practices that has restrained any impulsive

behavior by states. With states fearing the loss of international and public approval if they

13
Robert J. Art, and Robert Jervis. International politics: enduring concepts and contemporary issues. 13th ed.
(Boston: Pearson, 2016): 268
14
Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR: International Security I." Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore,
Singapore, March 7, 2017
15
Robert J. Art, and Robert Jervis. International politics: enduring concepts and contemporary issues. 13th ed.
(Boston: Pearson, 2016): 270
16
Robert J. Art, and Robert Jervis. International politics: enduring concepts and contemporary issues. 13th ed.
(Boston: Pearson, 2016): 264-269
17
Oleksandr Svitych ‘Nuclear weapons.’ Tutorial 3 Notes. (Singapore, Singapore, 2017):1

18
Ibid
19
Ibid.

4
used nuclear weapons, it would explain why states like Japan and Korea, despite being in a

vulnerable position, have not acquired them, choosing rather to take on the identity of being a

civilized, legitimate20 member of the international community. Therefore, though realism may

explain why nuclear proliferation is such a serious threat, yet it contains limitations and is not

the most appropriate theory that can explain the current and prevailing attitude that countries

hold regarding this issue.

After the end of the Cold War, many more sources of insecurity arose, of which one is

terrorism. Terrorism is being defined nowadays as the ‘calculated use of violence’ 21that is

being used by individuals or organized groups that often have a goal in mind. 22 The rise of

terrorism has greatly exposed the limits of realism in trying to account for this new threat.

According to realism, states are the main actors in the international system23 and hence no

other organization or actor can actually assume more importance. However, with the attack of

9/11, states can no longer remain the sole actors in the international system. Non-state actors,

which are terrorist groups, have gained for themselves a new role and importance. Many

realists would still state how the issue of terrorism is ultimately played out in the realm of

states, but one would only need to see this ‘war’ against terrorism is not fought between

states. The US government is not waging war against Afghanistan but rather the Taliban.

Similarly, Al-Qaeda’s increasing involvement in the world is a struggle for power between a

states and a non-state actor.24Therefore, realism as a theory to explain contemporary politics

20
Ibid.
21
Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR: International Security II" Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore,
Singapore, March 14, 2017.

22
Ibid.
23
Robert J. Art, and Robert Jervis. International politics: enduring concepts and contemporary issues. 13th ed.
(Boston: Pearson, 2016): 55

24
Robert J. Art, and Robert Jervis. International politics: enduring concepts and contemporary issues. 13th ed.
(Boston: Pearson, 2016): 226

5
is being challenged, as its basic assumptions are being overturned, especially with non-state

actors having the potential to control or even change the structure of the international system.

Not only so, the rise of terrorism also signals how ideas, values and identities, which are

referred to in constructivism25, have become so important that they now affect states’ security

directly – and this is interesting as non-material factors were not considered important in

realism, who put their emphasis more on material factors.26 Islamist fundamentalist groups

have gained their identities and interests from their religion and their culture27 - and these,

seen to be incompatible with the culture and values held by the West, has caused both sides to

identify each other as enemies. 28 Hence, material factors such as military capabilities of

states are no longer the only ones that matter in international relations. Non-material factors,

as argued by constructivists, are now seen to be able to greatly influence international

security as well. Therefore, the theory of realism, which focuses too much on states and their

relations and capabilities, has little to contribute to the understanding of the rise of terrorism.

In conclusion, the end of the Cold war has presented us with a more unpredictable

world. With new international security issues such as those highlighted in the essay

emerging, realism was thought to be the dominant theory in explaining these issues.

However, as this essay has argued, though realism may, in some cases, help us understand the

rise of these new security issues, yet it is often limited and insufficient in the analysis of these

issues and does not reflect the current trends and attitudes surrounding them. Therefore, with

the end of the Cold War being such a complex issue, realism as a theory will never be

25
Soul Park, Professor. "Constructivism." Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore, Singapore, Jan. 31, 2017.
26
Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR: Realism." Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore, Singapore, Jan 17,
2017.
27
Fareed Zakaria,. "The Politics Of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us?" Newsweek. March 13, 2010. Accessed
March 31, 2017. http://www.newsweek.com/politics-rage-why-do-they-hate-us-154345.
28
Ibid.

6
enough. Rather, it needs to take into account other factors and ideas from other theories

before it can truly help us to better understand the post-Cold war era.

Word count: 1650

Bibliography:

J. Art, Robert and Robert Jervis. International politics:

enduring concepts and contemporary issues. 13th ed. (Boston: Pearson, 2016): 1-596

M. Lindsay, James and Ray Takeyh. "After Iran gets the bomb:
Containment and its Implications." 89th Foreign Affairs Journal, no. 33 (March &
April 2010): 1-33 Accessed March 27, 2017. Hein Online

Power, Samantha. "Bystanders to Genocide:

Why the United States Let the Rwandan Tragedy Happen." (The Atlantic Monthly,
September 2001): 1-31. Accessed March 31, 2017. The Atlantic Monthly.

Soul Park, Professor. "Constructivism."

Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore, Singapore, Jan. 31, 2017.

Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR:

7
 International Security I." Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore, Singapore, March 7,
2017

Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR:

International Security II" Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore, Singapore, March 14,
2017.

Soul Park, Professor. "Introduction to IR: Realism."

Lecture, PS2237 Lecture, Singapore, Singapore, Jan 17, 2017.

Svitych, Oleksandr ‘Nuclear weapons.’

Tutorial 3 Notes. (Singapore, Singapore, 2017):1-3

Zakaria, Fareed. "The Politics Of Rage: Why Do They Hate Us?"

Newsweek. March 13, 2010. Accessed March 31, 2017.
http://www.newsweek.com/politics-rage-why-do-they-hate-us-154345.