1

Realist Assignment

Zarhia Vilma

INR 4008-BW60 Global Perspectives

Dr. Robert Bledsoe

11th July 2022

How does the author portray the international system in this century?

The international system is a structure at the global level. It regulates non-state and state

actors, non-governmental organizations, multinational corporations, and international

organizations (Stolberg, 2008). Nations make national and foreign security policies alongside

this external framework of the international system, but prospects for cooperation and difference

arise inside this structure. The global society has attempted for many years to uphold order and

avoid differences using global institutions such as the international legal regimes and United

Nations.

As actors on the global level, non-state and state players either try to work alongside

other system’s elements or work alone, such associations are probably with other non-state or

state players on a mutual basis. This means nations can choose to bond with existing coalitions to

defend themselves against ordinary danger (Stolberg, 2008). By combining resources and

harmonizing activities, the alliance members deem they can develop their general place in the

system and their safety relative to nations with no members. Other advantages to coalition

members may comprise the capability of offsetting the protection cost; unless the partner in the

alliance is a liability, membership lets the nations increase their military ability with their

partners.

To what extent is it different from the 20th century and earlier centuries?

The 20th century was dominated by war and conflict that continually shifted the balance

of power around the globe. This pivotal time period saw the emergence of "total wars" like

World War I and World War II, in which militaries used any means necessary to win these wars

were so massive they encompassed nearly the entire world. Motives for these wars ranged from
 3

expansion disputes to government upsets, even the intentional murder of a whole people. But

they all shared one thing: an extraordinary number of deaths. The United States found itself in

the world wars and afterward engaged in the cold war in a century that defined and established

itself as a world superpower. The 20th century was a time of change, especially regarding

industrial growth. New forms of technology were being invented and improved. Huge

improvements were made in the areas of war and technology. American and European scientists

developed the atomic bomb. The revolutionary new invention of computers has proved to be

useful. Science and technology industries flourished so much during the second half of the 20th

century that some people worried about the effects technology production had on earth’s

resources. The changes brought security risks especially increased terrorism attacks that are

decentralized and difficult to analyze and deter.

Were the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations' perspectives that terrorism is the

central theme in the first part of this century validated in Stolberg's analysis?

Yes, Bush, Obama, and the Trump administration’s perspective that terrorism is the

central theme in the first part of the century was validated in the Stolberg analysis. September 11,

2001, completely changed the perception of security and methods of combating the terrorist

threat. In response to those attacks, former President Bush and his administration declared the

Global War against Terrorism which later was accompanied by different events, including the

US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The analysis found that terrorism in the 21st century is very different than terrorism in the

20th century. In the past, acts of terrorism, which can be defined as attacks on civilian targets

rather than military targets, were often committed as part of a campaign of independence or to

achieve a nationalist goal. They were often geographically limited and did not cause large-scale
 4

civilian casualties. Today, terrorism is a global threat motivated by a very different ideology and

is much more deadly. It truly is a scourge, one that haunts leaders and policymakers around the

world. In this essay, I will examine three aspects of terrorism by looking at different groups with

different aims. In these examinations or comparisons, many salient differences between old

terrorism and new terrorism will become evident.

Because it is based mainly on non-state aggression, terrorism as a strategic tactic has

been typically associated with a criminal act. Language from the United Nations classifies these

tactics as “criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public.”

International law has widely recognized terrorism as a crime punishable by law. The legal

system was effective in prosecuting those responsible for bombing the World Trade Center in

1993, and the legal system was effective in prosecuting those responsible for bombing the Alfred

P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. With a customary usage in place to prosecute acts

of terrorism, the use of state conscripted military forces may be an incident of using 20th-century

tactics to fight a 21st-century challenge. The dynamic nature of terrorism remains a central theme

in the fight in the first part of this century.

Would you say that Stolberg's analysis represents the realist, liberal, or identity

perspective? Justify your choice.

The realist perspective says this is what it is and how we should handle it. Analyzing

Stolberg’s viewpoints, I believe the author to be speaking from a realist point of view.

Eventually, no single solution can fix the security challenges experienced in the United States.

The first assumption of realism is that the nation-state is the principal actor in international

relations. Other bodies exist, such as individuals and organizations, but their power is limited.

Second, the state is a unitary actor. National interests, especially in times of war, lead the state to
 5

speak and act with one voice. Third, decision-makers are rational actors because rational

decision-making leads to the pursuit of the national interest. Here, taking actions that would

make your state weak or vulnerable would not be rational. Realism suggests that all leaders, no

matter their political persuasion, recognize this as they attempt to manage their state’s affairs to

survive in a competitive environment. Finally, states live in a context of anarchy in the absence

of anyone being in charge internationally. Within our states, we typically have police forces,

militaries, courts, etc. In an emergency, there is an expectation that these institutions will ‘do

something in response. Internationally, there is no clear expectation of anyone or anything ‘doing

something as there is no established hierarchy. Therefore, states can ultimately only rely on

themselves. The analysis of terrorism and other security risks that define relationships represents

a realist perspective being employed by Stolberg.

References

Stolberg, A. G. (2008). "Alan G. Stolberg's "The International System in the 21st Century.". In

U.S. Army war college guide to national security issues: National security policy and

strategy.