The articles of Thomas Friedman, Jayan Nayar, and Stephen Watt exemplify the arguments attributed to International Relations. They argue from a liberal, critical and realist perception. The three authors understand International Relation differently; however, there are distinct similarities in their views on this theme. In comparison, the writings by the three authors point out that, the academicians, the reformers, and the learners agree on a liberalized approach to international relations. This enhances equality and justice for all as opposed to the realist way of using force, violence, military war, and death to the minority weak of the world, as a way of improving international relations.
We will write a custom Essay on International Relations Theories: Friedman, Nayar and Watt Views specifically for you
301 certified writers online
They agree that international relations will be enhanced by globalization through the domestic and international interests of various countries. The strategies to be undertaken include reconstructing the international state system, class structures, social and cultural conditions and eliminating trade barriers, currency controls and the way of doing business. This will in turn improve the economic welfare of the states involved.
Thomas Friedman argues that international relations can be best achieved through globalization (Friedman 8). The attacks that are imposed to various countries will not bring to an end the process of globalization. It will bring a new way to which countries take globalization and at the same time inform the anti-globalization that globalization is here to stay. He points out that terrorism is a threat to globalization and it originates from countries that are least developed. Such countries do not open to the wider world, and are countries that are not globalized or that least participates in international trade.
Despite the threat to globalization, Friedman proposes that countries need to continue with globalization through opening up their economies to international trade in goods and services. As such, globalization will minimize the level and adversity of poverty amongst individuals and raise their standards of living. In some countries, globalization is faster while in other countries it is gradual through elimination of trade barriers, currency controls and tariffs and subsidies. He argues that countries of the world should not be suspicious about the international trade and that they should participate in a way that reduces their risks such as participating a little slower in order to manage growth and stability.
Jayan Nayar, on the other hand, argues that we live in two different worlds, one in which is managed through legal processes and the other of minority groupings. The academicians and reformers lead the legal processes. They promise equality and justice for all, while the minority groupings inflict violence, humiliation, and death upon the majority weak. Ideally, these two differing states of the world should take side in order to transform the world into a better place of legal text.
In addition, he acknowledges the fact that the world is a place of conflict and we have a responsibility to take sides. Politics and law shapes the international relations through the role and ideology of the country in the global setting. He takes a different perspective of law as an instrument used by the idealists to govern under its disguise. Jayan advocates for the decolonization of the law’s injustices and in its place, he wants the use of power.
On globalization, Jayan Nayar argues that a state should change its form and participate in the global system through reassessing its way of politics and its legal structure. This is because it takes a more liberalized approach to international relations. The state is neither an instrument of oppression nor an instrument of emancipation. In view of international relations, the state should be oriented towards globalization (Nayar 40). He also draws attention to the fact that the political, cultural and legal values that guide the international system of independent and sovereign states work together for mutual benefit and universal human welfare which in turn improves on the quality of international relations. In addition, Jayan argues that towards the process of globalization a country should work with the other relevant international bodies such as the international monetary funds, the world trade organization, and the international chamber of commerce.
Walt’s arguments are based on the reasons as to why the contemporary realists have been wary of using force in the recent past. Walt follows the realist approach towards the international relations on military power. He argues that it will bring about a good power balance among the states involved. For instance, if Iraq absorbed Kuwait, the GDP of Iraq could have risen by 40% which could have translated to additional wealth and additional military power to Iraq. The stronger Iraq could have posed a major threat to international balance in the Gulf. The decision by America to expel Iraq from Kuwait and degrade its military power was a good strategic decision since Iraq could not dominate the oil rich gulf country.
According to Walt, contemporary realists are sceptical about military operations on structural grounds. He says that on a cost benefit analysis wars do not add any value in international relations. The realists care more about material power, and there is no much material power out there to be won through military actions. As such, the only place where military action can be used is in places that are of no strategic or economic importance (Walt 21). He states that military power is a crude weapon for governing foreign countries since it is costly and of no economic benefit. The main advocates of military involvement to international relations have been the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists, who are driven by various agendas.
In addition, Walt argues that the use of military activities in foreign countries will have an impact on the home country. This is so where the countries involved is geographically distant, for example the attack on the United States on 9/11 by terrorists which had serious consequences on the home country.
The most persuasive arguments are the ones presented by Friedman. His arguments are headed towards a more globalised world which enhances international relations. This is through free trade by eliminating all the trade barriers among countries such as tariffs, quotas, currency restrictions, and subsidies. He states that for international relations to be enhanced countries should be allowed to join in the globalization process at their own speed so that they can be in a position to handle all the risks and opportunities that come along with globalization.
Indeed, the road to globalization and hence international relations should not be pegged on debates touching on ideology but on material facts since globalization adds on to peoples wealth and improving on their standards of living (Goldstein 54). He urges countries to open up their economies to international trade to take advantage of economies of large-scale production and ready market for their products.
In conclusion, globalization and hence international relations has its ups and downs. Countries need to come with the right instruments. The correct legal, cultural and social structures to make it, but involving military action will hinder international relations. Countries should globalize steadily as they become politically stable and can provide opportunities to its citizens. As such, this provision of opportunities will enhance young people to join the world system of international trade.
Friedman, Thomas. “Globalization: Alive and Well,” The New York Times. 2002. Web.
Get your first paper with 15% OFF
Goldstein, Joshua & Pevehouse, Jon. International Relations: 2010-2011 Update. Harlow: Longman Publishing Group, 2010. Web.
Nayar, Jayan. “Peoples’ Law: Decolonizing Legal Imagination,” (‘Introduction’ and ‘Trends of World Order(ing): Seeing Through the Noise”). Web.
Walt, Stephen. “Hawks, Doves and Realists,” Foreign Policy Blog. 2010. Web.