Globalization and IR: Changing the Way We Interact - Essay Sample

Introduction

Theories of international relations (IR) tend to explain the interaction among various global aspects, which include economy, social aspects, and political aspects (Elliott 2012). International relations and globalization have been conjoined as a necessary drive to global issues. Globalization affects the sociocultural, economic, and political framework of individual countries in the world. The term globalization was initially used in international relations in the 1980s but used primarily by economics. Over time, the functioning of global activities has intertwined the efforts of various countries worldwide. In this light, it is vital to highlight the issue of globalization based on the contextual analysis of the different aspects and their effects on the global population. Based on the theories of IR, realism, and idealism can be used to account for the different globalization rates and the various impacts realized across the world.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

According to Molloy (2019), realism is a school of thought which emphasize on the conflicts and competitive aspect of IR. Realism points out at the influence of a state on global matters. In this case, the state is responsible for its growth and development. The interactions carried out by the international indicate their powers and level of production. The state serves as a unitary actor in foreign affairs, deeming individual and organizational efforts as state contributions to global issues. Decision-making under realism is aimed at attaining national interests. Realism calls for the leaders to make decisions that equip the country with competitive advantages over others with the power of the country dependent on rational decision making. Globalization is widely reliant on various factors with the interdependence among countries on the high rise. The influence of technology and the internet gaps the geographical differences which hinder the sharing of ideas and communication. Based on realism, each country aims at improving its attributes, power, and dominancy. However, globalization has enhanced the interaction between countries, which enables the strengthening of economic, political, and sociocultural activities. Realism advocates for ideas that improve the position of the country on a global spectrum.

According to Ashworth (2002), realism presents anarchy in the form of living. In this case, a lack of support and specific know-how leaves no room for international help. Some of the global countries have managed to maintain their activities with globalization bringing various ideas at their doorstep and, therefore, no room for international interactions. Realism calls for independent representation and accomplishment of duties by the state. In this light, it can be represented in the context of anarchy since there is no one in charge (Wang 2004: 186). The various aspects of the state are controlled and managed by the state, with international organizations not involved in the affairs or decision making in subsequent countries (Weber 2013). According to the realist argument, each state can entirely rely on its political structure and military power to maintain its strength and competitiveness with other countries. However, the integration of economic power has influenced further interactions with economic activities attracting various stakeholders. Realism can be cited in South China, India, and Russia also demonstrates realism in its foreign policies.

Idealism in international relations advocates for internal policies on international forums. For instance, the agricultural country adopts policies that promote agriculture in the country. Subsequently, the state will encourage policies in tackling and improving agriculture across the world. Globalization has influenced global activities and equally impacts on the significance of idealism. Former US President Woodrow Wilson advocated for idealism by the promotion of Americanism. President Woodrow hinted at an ideal and exceptional presentation of Americans. Globalization presents cultural, political, and economic divergence with each state promoting its structures (Mittelman 2002: 12). In the case of Americans, the American dream was meant to create a uniform presentation of American society across the world and influence its adoption.

Globalization decreases the explanatory power of some theoretical approaches with realism limited to local affairs with limited integration on the global aspect. On the other hand, globalization increases the explanatory power of some theories, especially those advocating for free interaction and the global village. Idealism seems to borrow much from globalization, and culture is maintained across the world through idealism.

The Soleimani Killing

The killing of the Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani of January 2020 lowered relations among countries across the globe. With the engagement of smaller provocations against the United States all through 2019, Iran surprisingly felt the weight of the attack, and therefore have the option of retaliating back to her work plan (Johns 2020). The retaliation will help her have a broader range of know-how on the United States' targets all over the Middle East. Notably, Soleiman was the Revolutionary Force Commander for the Islamic front in Iran (IRGC), making him one of the most renowned religious and political leaders in the country and the Middle East. At the time of his airstrike, he left Syria to Iraq for official duty and was leaving the Baghdad International Airport in a two-vehicle convoy. Upon departure, the uninhabited aerial vehicle with an MQ-9 Reaper fired the two cars with numerous counts of bomb blasts, killing up to 10 people (Zegart 2020). Amongst the victims killed in the rampage was the Shia parliamentary leader and one of the most influential Iraqi leaders Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Additionally, immediately after the attack, US President Donald Trump claimed to be responsible for the attack that brutally killed the Iranian Commander.

From a realism point of view, the decision of President Trump's administration to assassinate the Iranian Commander is a significant turning point to the relation of the two countries (Blundell 2020). Importantly, the event is not a prelude to war between the two countries. However, the swift reaction of the Iranian government from Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of the land towards the top commanders of the revolutionary guards, is a sign of vow to serious revenge.

On the contrary, as much as considerable pressure to retaliate is alive, if there is no reason to prevent despair and save reputation in the regime's ranks, the system of the Iran government is suicidal. The impact of the ambush frightened every powerful instrument in Tehran, and no one can dare test the limits of Trump's thoughts, capabilities, and unpredictability. The United States president has been lamenting over the intervention in the Middle East by the American government.

However, Trump shocked the Iranian people by killing the only leading symbol of Iranian unity and regional agenda (Wunderlich 2020). For this reason, Khamenei and his regime must go back to the drawing board and reexamine all the earlier thoughts on President Trump and all his American calculations on a possible war. Khamenei's government has three primary options to explore on the plot against Trump's administration, and this gives him an opportunity of lashing out at anything the American government is doing to the Middle East and beyond. This step of action can start from the officials from President Trump's administration to firing bombs and missiles at the United States' defense forces bases in the Middles East region. Consequently, the call by the United States federal government to let all Americans leave shoes that America sees this dispute as a possible scenario of war.

On the other hand, the constructivism point of view looks at the events after Tehran considers its counter-move after America goes ahead to assassinate her hopeful savior and imminent Commander. In this regard, Iran considers whether she can find how to sustain its ideological course, which she refers to as "the Axis of Resistance." The essential part of this course is that general Soleiman was the embodiment of the 40-year quest of Tehran's export of the Islamic militia to the surrounding countries. Notably, the pursuit to politically conquer the neighbors began in 1977 during the reign of Ayatollah Ruhollah in Iran. At this point, different opportunities came up in Syria and Yemen for Iranians to take over control, and after 2011, the then commander General Soleiman called them "the Forward Defense."

The approach continued fiercely during Soleiman's reign, but the push backs raised the tough question in the land of Tehran. At this time, there was overwhelming opposition against the regime's militia foreign policy. However, the recent protest of the anti-Iran control of Iraq underlines the limitations of the project that Soleiman termed as "the Axis of Resistance" (Shahi and Abdoh-Tabrizi 2020). Importantly, the fact that the Trump administration did not assassinate Soleiman in the Iranian land, but assassination Baghdad makes him less of an Iranian hero. However, the conspicuous comes out as a militant Islamist who focuses on are ideologies ahead of any other interest, including his country. Moreover, the point from which Soleiman dies is the same as the standard and profound sentiment among the Iranian people. It elaborates on whether they are within their soil or outside.

As a result, it is for the supreme Iranian leader Khamenei and his regime in the revolutionary Guard to decide whether they have enough confidence to escalate the war significantly. In other words, the Khemei's government should be in a position to determine whether they want to explore vengeance options, or they are okay with the death of their profound major general (Rivetti 2020). Moreover, Trump's administration is one government that needs bright and strategic plans, and sound decisions need to be in place on whether it is worth pull it off, given the local and international pressure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the realism approach helps much more in understanding the cause and circumstances under which such assassinations take place. Trump's administration was looking forward to realigning its relations with the Iran government, and General Soleiman was becoming a stapling block to these changes. Moreover, the realism approach suggests that killing the general was not a sign of a looming war. Still, the swift counteraction of the Iranian leader was a peculiar sign of vow for vengeance over the general's death. On the contrary, constructivism speaks about the circumstances under which the general died. However, it does not give insights on political reasons towards his end, as mentioned above.

References

Ashworth, L. M. (2002). Did the realist-idealist great debate really happen? A revisionist history of international relations. International Relations, 16(1), 33-51.

Blundell, B.G., 2020. Empowering Technology: Drones. In Ethics in Computing, Science, and Engineering (pp. 489-578). Springer, Cham.

Elliott, D. L. (2012). International Relations. The WileyBlackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization.

Johns, A.L., 2020. Declining the "Invitation to Struggle": Congressional Complicity in the Rise of the Imperial Presidency. Pacific Historical Review, 89(1), pp.97-130.

Mittelman, J. H. (2002). Globalization: an ascendant paradigm?. International Studies Perspectives, 3(1), 1-14.

Molloy, S. (2019). Realism and reflexivity: Morgenthau, academic freedom and dissent. European Journal of Interna...