Realism is the most dominant theory in international relations which reflects a view of individual as primarily fearful and power seeking body. States act as individuals might or each state acts in unitary ways in pursuit of their own national interests defined in terms of powers. Whereas, structural realists blame the structure of international system.
However, realists have impartially claimed that continuities in international relations are more important than the changes. But in the present age of globalization, many find it hard, but by the dynamics of globalization and the importance of realism have not been vanished and decreased. Because it is still not clear that economic interdependence makes the war less likely, whereas state is still the dominant actor in world politics.
Globalization must not be seen as a process that is disconnected from the distribution of powers. Since the current globalization is basically linked to westernization as well Americanization.
Morever, realists always immediately seize on the apparent convergence between post 9/11 experience and the other cycle of violance. The twin towers world trade center was attacked by a non-state actor Al-Qaeda whose aim was to challenge the ideological supremacy of West, not to conquer the American territory.
The leading states in world politics quickly tried to identify the network of Al-Qaeda in some states according to US which harboured terrorists. With the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was linked as a part of so-called war on terror. The US and its Allie defined them as their enemies that had to be targeted and defeated by using conventional military means, rather by identifying terrorists as transnational criminals and using police enforcement methods.
According to Kennath Waltz and Colin Gray, 9/11 was not the beginning of a new era in world politics, as for Waltz Iraq’s war described the tendency of states to misuse their powers. The use of military force and democracy promotion is a sign for disaster as illustrated by realists. Even Kennan and Morganthau earlierly warned of the dangers when states neglected their core national interests. But most of the realists argue that Iraq’s war was not in the American national interest, because the lengthy occupation of Iraq and costly intervention weakened the US capacity to contain China.
Both the realism and globalization present different conceptualization of their process. In fact, the analysis of the realists is a response to the idealist defenders of globalization who believe that new world order is emerging out of previous order. However, the realists view of globalization is the claim that rudimentary translational governance is possible, but dependent on distribution of powers.
The quality of powers US holds is not a surprise that it has been one of the supporters of globalization. Indeed, the core values of capitalism, liberalism and globalization are those adopted by US.
Realists also blame the concept of modernity as liberals believe it would dissolve the boundaries among peoples, from classical realists like Rousseau to structuralist realists such as Waltz argued that interdependence is likely to breed ‘mutual vulnerability’ and state will not be eclipsed by global forces.
There are many reasons which favor the idea that the twenty-first century will be a realistic century, despite the efforts of Federalists, as Europe is divided by different national interests as is United by a common good. But, those associated with human rights are being seen as nothing more than a Western idea supported by economic factors and military forces.
