Responses and Limitations of Realism for the post-COVID-19 International Relations.
In International Relations, states are considered the principal actors and players that the international system, structures, and norms encompass. In addition, States, alongside its leadership and administrations, are responsible for their people’s overall welfare, protection, and well-being. Thus, in a global health crisis like COVID-19, a pandemic that severely affects the general facets of the states, especially the lives of the citizens, it is crucial to observe and demand a global collective responsibility to ensure that humanity is safe amidst the disease’ fatal and petrifying guise. Yet, in the international system and structure, certain limitations and constraints hinder the actions and responses of the actors like the States pre, peri, and post-event — with more emphasis on realism, which believes that human nature is naturally self-centered, that power is the main goal and objective, and that global cooperation is impossible to attain and maintain. This paper will discuss two-two aspects: first, the response of the states built upon the assumption that the struggle for power at the international level is largely the result of animus dominandi and that states as the agent pursuing power in international affairs; hence, states will try to gain global influence and hegemony. Second, states will try to be more restrictive and protective, which leads to realizing the limitations that states have within the realist setting that it is always in threat and every state is sovereign.
First, it is worth noting that IR is concerned with the interplay of domestic and foreign politics. In every emergency, including a health emergency, it’s critical to first grasp the current political environment — not to presume that such knowledge is ‘common sense’ or easily connected with ‘previous experiences.’ Governments and non-governmental players regularly react to new events, causing politics to shift locally and internationally. Every epidemic ought to be recognized as one-of-a-kind. And every state has changing objectives, agendas, and circumstances that may influence how it responds to a new emergency, and the offer for international collaboration may be received in various ways year after year.
Then it should be recalled that realism is state-centric, materialist, pessimistic, and empirical (Pashakhanlou, 2009). Consistent with the orthodox view, realism is concerned with the world as it is rather than how it ought to be. In other words, it is an empirical rather than a normative paradigm (Morgenthau, 1956: 4). Moreover, it is pessimistic and emphasizes the recurrent patterns of power politics as manifested by reoccurring conflicts, rivalries, and wars (Jackson and Sorensen, 2007: 60).
It is the event of knowing that states are primarily responsible for protecting its citizens while the COVID-19 pandemic demanded global collective responsibility to protect global humanity. For the post-COVID-19 event, considering the realist setting, the response of the states will be built upon the realist assumption that the struggle for power at the international level is largely the result of animus dominandi and that states as the agent pursuing power in international affairs; hence, states will try to gain global influence and hegemony and will relatively show a limitation showing that in realism and in the international arena, all States, either they have small or great domestic agential power, enjoy ‘sufficient levels of international agential power to shape the inter-state system’; therefore it is difficult to have a unipolar hegemonic influence over others. Protecting global humanity is not limited to providing medical or clinical aides to the people; it also deals with how the state will build its powerful influence over other states. And by doing so, those great and powerful states will gain enough influence to instruct and rule over smaller and weaker States, thus, creating a pseudo-collective response from the states vis-à-vis would lead to a more synergized transition of actions and response after the global health crisis. In addition, to elaborate the limitations, in the current world politics, we may see that America is a superpower, but it is now arguably not a unipolar power since there are already other actors that could challenge its influence in the international setting, thus, exposing the limitation that even though having a hegemonic power over other states is great to protect humanity, it is not absolute and other rival states would also try to do the same, hence would create a chaotic action.
Secondly, states will try to be more restrictive and protective, which leads to realizing the limitations that states have within the realist setting that it is always in threat and every state is sovereign. For the post-COVID-19 response, it is every state’s responsibility to ensure that its people’s overall welfare and well-being are correctly addressed; therefore, in a realist setting, it will try to protect its borders from the possible causes of re-spreading a similar global health crisis. It will create and institutionalize a more dynamic and rapid response to defend its country and, in a greater role, to protect global humanity. But it should be noted that they will only do it (from a realist perspective) since it would give them relative or unilateral gains, whether in power, influence, or economic edge. This reveals another limitation of states that it is continually challenged and constrained by external threats, thus limiting the state from giving its utmost action and help for the global cause.
In a nutshell, it is true that the states are primarily responsible for the protection of its citizens and even on a global scale and should be done collectively. However, there are constraints and limitations. Moreover, responses might be seen differently depending on whose lens is being utilized. Still, it should be considered significant in the conditions that we have.
Reference:
Mearsheimer, J., 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton.
Parizek, M. (2014). Evil Human Nature as a Necessary Assumption of the Neorealist View on International Politics.
Raimzhanova, A., 2015. Power In IR: Hard, Soft, And Smart. Retrieved from http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/academy/content/pdf/participant-papers/2015- 12_annual/Power-In-Ir-By-Raimzhanova,-A.pdf
Pashakhanlou, A., 2009. Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and Neorealism. Retrieved from https://www.e-ir.info/2009/07/23/comparing-and-contrasting-classicalrealism-and-neo-realism
