618 Chapter 17 | Foreign PolicyAre We Only Out for Ourselves? The third major distinction in foreign policy
making is between realism and liberalism.^3 Realists believe that countries pursue
their own interests, seeking to increase their economic and military power and their
international influence. In approaching a policy decision, a realist would choose
the policy that maximizes American military and economic power relative to other
states. Liberals (note: this label means something different than the liberal ideology in
domestic politics), in contrast, believe that states’ concerns extend beyond increasing
their power and should include upholding principles such as freedom or democracy.
For example, liberals generally believe in helping nondemocratic nations transform
themselves into democracies with strong court systems (also called nation building).
Constructivism offers an alternative to both positions, arguing that state actions are
shaped by how leaders interpret events for their citizens and by the overarching ideals
that these leaders believe in. For example, a constructivist might argue that America’s
policies toward North Korea are driven by the underlying belief that North Korea is a
rogue state, one that is unwilling to comply with international agreements—and that
unless America changes its beliefs, it will be unable to negotiate a denuclearization
agreement with North Korea, regardless of what North Korea’s leaders want or are
willing to agree to.realism
The idea that a country’s foreign policy
decisions are motivated by self-interest
and the goal of gaining more power.
liberalism
The idea that foreign policy decisions
reflect normative goals such as
justice, equality, and human rights.nation building
The use of a country’s resources,
including the military, to help
nondemocratic nations transform
themselves into democracies.
constructivism
The idea that foreign policy is shaped
by how a state’s leaders define the
national interest, ideology, and other
factors.When the United States acts
multilaterally in foreign policy, it
often works through organizations
such as the UN. Here, Donald Trump
addresses a session of the UN General
Assembly, where he made promises to
prioritize American interests in foreign
affairs.To illustrate the differences between these explanations, consider the cases made
by each side regarding intervention in Syria. Realist scholar John Mearsheimer has
argued that there was no need to intervene.^4 In his view, America has no compelling
interest in the outcome of the civil war in Syria. Moreover, intervention would be
costly, would put American lives at risk, and could produce a wider conflict involving
America’s allies in the Middle East. This position is close to that of President Trump,
who has argued that America’s interest in the Syrian conflict should be limited to
destroying the ISIL terrorist organization that is an active participant in the conflict. In
contrast, the idea that America is morally obligated to help Syrian rebels fight against
their brutal government—a position held by some Democrats and some Republicans in
Congress—is a clear example of liberalism.
These terms are used often in foreign policy debates because they offer convenient
ways to summarize the motivations behind policy decisions. That is how we use them
in this chapter, but in reality, none of these terms provides a fully accurate definition
of what motivates nations or individuals. As the quote from President Barack ObamaFull_18_APT_64431_ch17_614-654.indd 618 16/11/18 11:21 AM