Midterm Paper

Realism and Liberalism in Syria

Realism is a school of political thought that sees states as independent actors in an

anarchic world system. With no overarching authority, each seeks to secure and improve its

well-being by amassing power through war or offsetting the power of potential threats

(Mingst et al., 2019). Its strength lies in its separation of law and ethics to produce a more

detailed picture of the international environment. Its principal weakness is in its pessimistic

view of humans and disregard for international institutions, which may sometimes be

influential.

Liberalism, on the other hand, considers international nongovernmental institutions

such as the United Nations to be influential actors. It posits that individuals and states are

capable of cooperating for rational purposes, which leads to the development of

interdependent relationships (Mingst et al., 2019). Through increasing amounts of

interdependence, the world should eventually develop a peaceful system where it is against

any actor’s interests to attack others. The principal advantage of liberalism is in its creation of

a system where people’s lives are improved and wars are averted. However, it has the

problem of being largely theoretical and idealistic, with its considerations not necessarily

applying in practice.

The situation in Syria serves as a demonstration of the principles of realism rather

than liberalism. The two sides in the conflict, the government and the rebels, were supported

by nations affiliated with Russia and NATO, respectively. Each group sought to let their

faction win to institute a loyal government that would provide a regional power balance

advantage. As a result, the conflict increased in scale and duration despite international

organizations’ efforts to resolve it peacefully. Ultimately, the people of Syria suffered

excessively, providing a foundation for the emergence and growth of ISIS.

stronger one. Under it, states will ally against such an emerging threat, constraining its

growth. Bandwagoning, on the other hand, involves the state aligning itself with such a threat

and participating in its expansion, taking a smaller share of the gains produced during its

course. This action increases the stronger state’s power while saving it the effort of

conquering the other party. Balancing may prevent the beginning of a war through

discouraging offensive actions, but bandwagoning emboldens the newly formed coalition as

it grows more dominant, potentially increasing the likelihood of conflicts breaking out. With

that said, countries may enter an ongoing confrontation against a potential threat to balance

the scales preemptively, and, therefore, both phenomena contribute to the understanding of

the reasons why nations go to war.

Tickner’s Criticism of Morgenthau’s Principles

Tickner’s objection to Morgenthau’s Six Principles of Realism centers on the fact that

it represents a masculine world where war is a constant threat. Tickner (2018) claims that the

principal traits used by the realist scholar to determine the success of a state, power and

autonomy, are typically also associated with masculinity. She argues that the focus on these

two items is part of the reason why realists tend to ignore or downplay cooperation between

states. As a result, the view of the world as a zero-sum game has come to dominate the

theory, which impedes the solution of global problems that require worldwide improvement.

Through a feminist analysis, Tickner redefines the concept of security and proposes a system

that is theoretically better suited to address these issues through international cooperation.

Tickner believes that the international system’s conflict-prone state relies on the

perception of the masculine state as the protector of the weak, notably women. Per Tickner

(2018), realist scholars typically implicitly define the state as masculine, while the nation is

perceived as female and in need of protection by men. As a result of these qualities, states
prioritize war and conflict under the guise of protection against a real or perceived threat.

However, Tickner (2018) claims that this attitude takes away the agency of the people who

are being protected, mostly women, and creates an “unequal gender hierarchy” (p. 25).

Moreover, it hinders effective cooperation, as states attempt to maximize the benefits for

themselves rather than achieve maximum global growth. To overcome this issue, Tickner

advocates an overhaul of the state to devalue sovereignty and other notions she sees as

masculine, potentially culminating in the state’s disappearance as the private and public

domains merge.

Anarchy, Constructivism, and Nationalism

As a system of governance, anarchy constitutes a lack of government or other systems

of authority. It is viewed by political theorists from a variety of perspectives, ranging from

unsustainable chaos to the perfect system that lacks the weaknesses of current methods.

However, the constructivist Alexander Wendt claims that “anarchy is what states make of it”

(Mingst et al., 2019, p. 119) in relation to the realist notion of global anarchy. This

statement’s meaning is that, in the absence of an overarching directing body, the situation

may develop in countless different ways. Unless the members of the anarchic system agree to

a particular type of organization, the situation will be chaotic and unpredictable.

Constructivism aims to understand the agreement that is reached, if any, by analyzing the

characteristics of the groups and states that constitute the system. Knowledge of how they

will act in a given situation is vital to understanding how and why specific structures came

into being or will do so in the future.

In the constructivist theory, the recent rise of economic nationalism is associated with

popular sentiment regarding the results of globalization. As Mingst et al. (2019) note, it has

taken place at the same time as perceived economic stagnation and increasing numbers of

refugees. As a result, in part due to dedicated messaging on the topic, many people in the
United States began associating the two changes with the negative change in their lives. They

saw jobs as being exported to other nations by international companies, while refugees and

illegal immigrants came into the country and took on many of the positions that were still

available. At the same time, new powers began emerging, posing a challenge to the United

States’ dominant position. The two principal ones, Russia and China, began taking aggressive

and ambitious actions to expand their influence, generating tension with the USA and

countries affiliated with it (Mingst et al., 2019). As a result, economic and political

nationalism, promoting the development of domestic business operations and putting stricter

controls on immigration while asserting the nation’s position against challengers, rose in

popularity. The population of the United States, used to affluence and hegemony in the

worldwide arena, felt threatened by the changing circumstances and resorted to the measures

the nation used before to achieve its current condition.

Mingst, K. A., McKibben, H. E., & Arreguín-Toft, I. M. (2019). Essentials of international

relations (8th ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

Tickner, J. A. (2018). Rethinking the state in international relations. In S. Parashar, J. A.

Tickner, & J. True (Eds.), Revisiting gendered states: Feminist imaginings of the state

in international relations (pp. 19-32). Oxford University Press.