In order to effectively explain a successful South Korea that is characterized by significant security concerns, I think that it would be better to focus on liberal institutionalism instead of realism in highlighting South Korea’s international relations. Liberal institutionalism places emphasis on the importance of international agencies in global governance while realism focuses on the powers of the states. In this case, South Korea is not regarded as an influential state politically, however, fairing on quite well in the international market. With regards to this fact, realism might not be able to explain South Korea’s economic success considering the security concerns in the country. On the other hand, liberal institutionalism can explain the existence of the two because it recognizes the merits of international institutions and the regional organizations in South Korea. Liberal institutionalism would assert that both regional and international agencies enhance South Korea’s economical growth despite the security concerns that it faces. It would argue that these institutions offer the necessary conditions required for the economic prosperity of the nation even if they are not involved in matters related to security (Shambaugh and Yahuda 68). They also offer the required cooperation between South Korea and other states for economic growth, thus, do not necessitate the application of power for the economic prosperity as witnessed in other countries.
With regards to the situation that has been experienced in China, interested nations like the United Arab Emirates can protect themselves from the potential threats of instability in China by taking the following measures. First, United Arab Emirates should diversify its trade relations with other states as opposed to wholly relying on China. This would help in reducing the impact that the collapse of China would have on the UAE. By diversifying trade relations with other nations, the UAE would be able to acquire various trading partners, such that the failure of a country like China would not have an effect on it (Lampton Para 5). Besides, the UAE should also join many international institutions that would help in protecting its interests. Such institutions would be focused on trade or matters of security. This would further protect the United Arab Emirates from the threats of the collapse of China.
In the process of evaluating the challenges of multinational institutions in providing effective global governance, Patrick has criticized the developed states for their domination of multinational agencies. This is obviously the dominance of the United Nations Security Council by developed countries. Despite this influence, I think global governance is still an important objective in international relations since it is impossible to live without it. My assertion is that states require each other in the international market. Owing to this, a good system of governance should be in place for safeguarding the self-interested strategy among states. Minorities around the world also need the international agencies in order to protect them from exploitation by leaders in the name of global governance, as it has been witnessed in many undeveloped nations. As a result of this, global governance is a realistic objective despite the challenges that it faces. With regards to this, global governance should have properly formulated guidelines on all political issues and emphasize on compliance to them (Shamaugh and Yahuda 68). The staes should also be mutually reliant on one another since the lack of it may hinder cooperation within the stipulated guidelines.
Waltz is recognized as a theorist as opposed to a field specialist by the fact that he is not specialized on the geopolitics of the Middle East in his studies like his colleague Kahl. Even with this, I am still confident that his theoretical approach to global politics is challenged since it lacks regional knowledge. I argue in this manner because the international politics are not wholly dependent on the knowledge about one region as implied by Kahl even if they rely on them to a certain degree. This is regardless of the fact that Middle East might be a different case, however, I am not in anticipation that this should occur. In response to the criticisms of Kahl, Waltz pointed out other regions like Islamabad and Korea that did not react according to the assumptions of Kahl that their reaction would be in respect to the predictions of what would occur in the Middle East. Waltz proved that regional politics were not different from his theory (Kahl and Waltz Para 15). Besides, he also showed an understanding of the geopolitics of the Middle East by portraying its current state and the way in which it would be in the years to come. With regards to this, I do not think that the theory of Waltz is suffering because it falls short of regional knowledge. In fact, he has pointed out historical data in support of his assertions as opposed to the making reference to regional data. Therefore, I believe that sufficient theory can be applied to politics across traditional, regional and cultural boundaries. I think that this is because the theory of Waltz has been able to prove that despite the few criticisms from theorists from other schools of thought.
By pointing out that Iranian leaders are rational actors and yet contending that the country is dangerous and would even become more dangerous with the unleashing of nuclear weapons, Kahl still acknowledges the element of realism in international relations. Besides, he also acknowledges that Iranian leaders are not suicidal since they are rational actors that are unable to transfer nuclear weapons to terrorists for deliberate use. On the other hand, he also recognizes the fact that they have been supporting acts of terrorism in the effort to protect their national interests. Consequently, if these allegations are true, there is a possibility that Iran will become more dangerous if it unleashes nuclear weapons. However, Kahl denies that Iran is a status quo state. He asserts that Iranian support of terrorism has been an offensive tool for the intimidation of other states for the expansion of its indirect influence on the Middle East. This implies that, despite the argument that Iranian leaders are rational, they can still apply nuclear weapons as an offensive tool in expanding Islamic ideologies in the Middle East. Thus, Iran is dangerous and can even more dangerous if it introduces nuclear weapons (Kahl and Waltz Para 3). Iran’s relevance as a revolutionary state is that it would alter the politics of the Middle East since it has the ability of impacting the political landscape through threats of using nuclear weapons. This would be different from being a status quo nation.
Waltz was a popular realist in international relations for quite a long time. He applied realism in the analysis from various approaches. In this article, he used realism from a perspective whereby he argued that the international community should allow Iran to go ahead with its plans of developing nuclear weapons. He asserted that the country could only be able to survive and overcome international politics through the development of nuclear weapons, failure to which it would not be able to do certain things that other states have done (Waltz Para 10). To a certain degree, I agree with his argument. This is because I consider the possibility of Kahl’s assertion on the geopolitical arena of the Middle East. In this case, the argument by Waltz would be devastating if Iran would not live to unleash its prediction. On the other hand, his argument would be good if the country goes ahead to conform to his prediction. Hence, I am to some extent in agreement with and dispute of Waltz’s assertion.
Kahl, Colin, and Waltz Kenneth. Iran and the bomb: would a nuclear Iran make the middle east more secure? Viewed on March 22, 2014 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137781/colin-h-kahl-and-kenneth-n-waltz/iran-and-the-bomb
Lampton, David. How China is ruled: why it is getting harder for Beijing to govern. Viewed on March 22, 2014 from http://www.viet-studies.info/kinhte/FA_HowChinAIsRuled.htm
Shambaugh, David, and Yahuda Michael. International Relations of Asia. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008. Print.
Waltz, Kenneth. Why Iran should get the bomb: nuclear balancing would mean stability. Viewed on March 22, 2014 from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137731/kenneth-n-waltz/why-iran-should-get-the-bomb