Blog 1 - Yousuf Sander

                              
                                                                                                                                           Yousuf Sander
                                    The Problem with the Realist Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy                                                                                                                     

President Trump’s decision in May to pull the United States out of the Paris Climate agreement is just another signifier of a leader attempting to use realist foreign policy in a world where liberalism is the predominant theory regarding international relations. Centuries of war, infighting and revolution have taught us that Realism is an inefficient way of conducting foreign policy. We now live in a globalized world, where much of the work is done through institutions, and where diplomacy will get you much farther than threats and displays of power. Trump’s decision to buck the Paris Agreement, as well as his threat of raining “fire and fury” down on the people of North Korea, show a disturbing shift in US policy that will lead to a loss of the influence and clout we’ve carried as the world’s predominate power for the last seven decades.
Trump’s words from the Rose Garden on the day the US withdrew from the Paris agreement were telling of his shift towards Realism. “The Paris accord will undermine our economy,” he said. “It puts us at a permanent disadvantage.” Rather than using a trans-national agreement to mitigate a threat that harms all nations, Trump took his US first policy mindset to a whole new level. His concern, that the U.S. will suffer compared to other nations based on the expected carbon reduction levels mandated in the Paris accord, shows an unwillingness to step up and take the responsibilities placed upon the world's greatest power. Rather than the overall health of the international community, President Trump is largely concerned with the relative power of the United States versus other nations. His entire campaign was based on the slogan “Make America Great Again”, signaling a return to the United States of the mid 20th century, when our sphere of influence was at its greatest. He ridiculed his opponents and presidential predecessors with claims that their actions and plans made America less strong relatively than other nations. In addition, he adopted a strong national security agenda, another realist policy stance.                             
Rather than solving problems through diplomacy, President Trump prefers saber-rattling. He boasts constantly of the prowess of the U.S. military, and threatens the use of some of the deadliest weapons in our arsenal. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the recent events in North Korea. North Korea is one of the most starkly realist states in terms of ideology, and Trump’s response to their continued nuclear escalation, can only drive them further down the path of nuclear development. As an isolated nation with few allies, the threat of North Korea’s military power is the one thing keeping it afloat within the international community. The regime often displays its military might in order to gain concessions and aid from other countries. By threatening to bomb North Korea, we’re legitimizing the only grasp on power that remains. Following through with it would surely lead to a disaster in the Korean Peninsula, and destroy relationships with China and other Asian nations that are vital to our economy.

Trump’s continued adherence to realist ideals when constructing his policy can only hurt our standing internationally. While it may be romantic for some to look back on the days of unfettered United States influence, times have changed, and it’s time to return to our position as a cooperative member of the international community.

Comments

  1. UnknownSeptember 24, 2017 at 9:16 AM

    President Trumps actions has been solely related to a realist system. He is focused on the security of the United States which can be shown in what you have mentioned about North Korea and how President Trump has been dealing with the threats. I feel that President Trump’s constant view on power is going to cause a major problem in the years to come especially with dropping out of the Paris Agreement and cutting back on the EPA since he is focused on our economy instead. A more liberal view would be crucial to go about a more cooperative way for international relations. However, it also makes me wonder if what Professor Shirk said at the beginning of the semester will occur to President Trumps four years in office, which was that people in power all amount to do basically the same thing even though they speak of bringing about so much change. However, I do find that realist ideals are not to the benefit of the United States at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jared RostkowskiSeptember 24, 2017 at 1:25 PM

    Very good points about Trump and how he's shifting US foreign policy. I believe, while some realist ideals are necessary in some situation, Trump shouldn't be completely shifting how the US runs foreign policy. You mentioned that North Korea is the most "realist" state when it comes to foreign policy. Trump is seemingly bringing us down to their level, which is completely unnecessary and childish. I feel Trump has yet to do anything but hurt the US when it comes to foreign policy, and the US being one of the only countries not in the Paris Climate Agreement, really shines a bad light on our country, and we still have at least 3 more years of Trump

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tom PilatSeptember 24, 2017 at 3:03 PM

    I agree with your points made about the ineffectiveness on the realist shift. Throughout history, realist views have only made certain sides winners rather than trying to make everyone better off. It is also a scary time with North Korea, but with a dictator like Kim Jong Un, I believe that Trump has to be firm and assertive when dealing with the rising tensions with North Korea. I also like your points about the downsides of pulling the U.S out of the Paris climate agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Victoria PierreSeptember 24, 2017 at 7:51 PM

    I think that Trump's realist views will put America in danger and not make us great. I feel that we need to use our power to move forward in America. If we were to get into the agreement I think that would set a good example to other countries to really address climate change. But this power Trump thinks he has will make us stand out in power, but it will be our weakness.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog 3 Jared Rostkowski Why NAFTA is not "The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever"

Why NAFTA isn't “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever” Jared Rostkowski On September 25th 2016 during the first presidential debate of 2016, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement as “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever.” NAFTA is the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, which eliminated tariffs between the three countries. Trump has continued to voice his displeasure with the trade deal, mostly with Mexico. Anyway, NAFTA is not the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, in fact, it is actually a trade deal that the 3 countries benefit greatly from the trade deal, and we should not pull out of it anytime soon.  So what does Trump dislike about the deal. His main displeasure comes with the fact that many companies from the U.S. are moving manufacturing to Mexico, to take advantage of Mexico’s cheap labor. Trump argued that companies like For...
Read more

Blog Post 4 - Yousuf Sander

Global terror has plagued the international community in increasing frequency and tragedy for the last two decades. The rise of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and others have left thousands dead and given rise to new fear, and an elusive enemy. These groups have used ever more brutal tactics to stage devastating attacks on civilians in both their home countries and abroad. In the early 2000s, the U.S. began a so-called “ War On Terror ” to combat the rise of such groups, only to have the even more dangerous organization of ISIS rise out of the ashes of our own operations in Iraq. These groups are hard to fight and even harder to dismantle, so what are our options in the War on Terror? I believe that the problem stems from the ostracized environment in which immigrant Middle eastern communities exist in the West.   As long as we continue to marginalize Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to be fostering an environment that makes it easy for terrorist gr...
Read more
Yousuf Sander                          Why Syrian Intervention is a Bad Play for the U.S. Foreign intervention has become a staple policy choice if the United States since the early decades of the 20 th century. Time and time again, we have intervened in order to protect our interests, installing dictators in Latin America, toppling them in the middle east, all in order to protect our foreign interests. However, what is the right course of action when a crisis occurs that does not put our interests at stake? How, as the world ’ s foremost superpower, can we sit by and do nothing as the crisis evolves in Syria? Though intervention may seem like the obvious choice, we must weigh the costs, and our decision must be strategically based and thought out. For this reason, I don ’ t believe intervention is the right option due to the reactionary and impulsive nature ...
Read more