Ir Theory and Its Complexities

...

Practical people recognize the limits of theory. But why are they still used today? Betts argues that if the causes and effects of foreign policy issues are hopelessly random, then there is “no hope for informed policy.” He explains that complete uncertainty is not an option for statesmen. Policymakers need some assumption of how the world works, which is why they are slaves to contemporary theories. To make informed decisions, they need intellectual theories as a base so that they are more likely to move the world in the right direction. In today’s politics, the best way to shape American foreign policy is to integrate the elements of dominant theories into one vision. To illustrate, I will discuss President Obama’s foreign policy towards Syria and argue how his strategy is more successful because it does not limit to one international relations theory.

Liberalism’s intellectual blind spot is that it “fails to understand that democratic regimes survive only if they safeguard military power and security; some liberals forget that transitions to democracy are sometimes violent” (Snyder). Critics have labeled Obama’s lack of military invention as a weakness. His patient, and at times even humble, pursuit of diplomacy has contrasted greatly from a spectacular deployment of force that people fear harms America’s credibility (Bennet). Liberals claim that he has abandoned liberal humanitarianism by failing to build a strong military presence in Syria. Some have even gone as far as defining his policy as “cold-blooded realpolitik” over ideals such as human rights (Douthat). For example, Obama threatened military force against Assad and Syria after the Syrian dictator murdered hundreds of people using chemical weapons. However, the administration backed out when Assad agreed to hand over the weapons to international control (Oliphant). By backing down on his threat, Obama refused to use military means to support international humanitarian norms. Today, Obama has still taken a somewhat realistic approach in Syria. There is still minimal military intervention and serves as financial support and training of the Rebel army.

Although, President Obama’s foreign policy towards the Syrian conflict has used liberal, powerful and pragmatic tools that the U.S. has to promote its interests and security. On April 9, 2016 in Geneva, President Obama and Vladimir Putin discussed peace negotiations between the Syrian government and the opposition. The two states are starting to coordinate together regarding the liberation of the Islamic State stronghold of Raqqa (Wintour). This shows the willingness of the U.S. to make important compromises and build trust before using military force. Also, it legitimizes the importance of working with international organizations and other states to find a peaceful solution to end conflicts such as Syria. Obama has also responded within the concepts of the liberalism theory by urging America to accept thousands of Syrian refugees since the Paris Attacks, arguing that it’s America’s humanitarian responsibility to save fleeing refugees from persecution.

Obama’s foreign policy towards Syria is a good example of how it’s important to blend traditional theories together to create a new approach to contemporary politics. If he were to follow a strict realist approach, then the U.S. would turn its head away from Syria and ignore the suffering of its people. In contrast, if he were to have a more liberal foreign policy, then we would invade Syria, fight its war, and thus risk the lives of our own men when the U.S. isn’t directly threatened. Obama rejects both the realist and liberal labels, falling somewhere between. His handle on Syria has supported core beliefs from traditional theories that result in a strong and balanced approach in foreign policy.

When IR theories are integrated together, they create a new perspective that helps policymakers understand and implement policies in contemporary international politics.

This essay explains the purpose of theory and how it clarifies, confuses, and omits. Committing to one single perspective can be damaging, which is why theories are constructed to be a check on the other’s weakest argument. The blending of theories is illustrated through President Obama’s foreign policy on Syria and how he does not limit himself to one theory. The complexity of his diplomacy has been mistakenly labeled as weak, due to the oversimplified perceptions of theory and how it applies to American foreign policy. In the world today, it is important for Americans to recognize its new complexities and that international relations and its interpretations are evolving to understand it better.

---------------------------------------------------------------