Realism and Idealism Theories: US-Cuba relations
Introduction
The interpretation of the realism and idealism theories tend to continues, thus marking the discipline of international relations. Mainly, scholars have raised a big concern on the realism theory in the new relations of the USA and Cuba. Realism claims that international politics is a fight for power and pursuit for survival, hence resulting in a situation of permanent war without any prospect of development or progress. In other words, realism theory in international relations delivers the most potent account for the government of conflict and the rising and falling of great powers (Wivel,2017). The approach illustrates the significant perceptions and themes, including security, interests, sovereignty, survival, alliance balance of power, dominance, the balance of terror, hegemony, among others. Realism concepts can be categorized as classical, neoclassical, and classical realism. Currently, the liberalism, constructivism, and globalism as well have a massive influence on policymakers and scholars under the phenomena of globalization, superiority, and even terrorism. The essay explores how realism and idealism theories are applied to and revealed in the matter of the USA towards Cuba (LeoGrande,2015).
The foreign policy of Realism on USA- Cuba relations
The new USA- Cuba policy highlights the democratic values of the states. However, it allows for negotiations receptive to the requirements of America national interests. It is a policy of ethical realism. The symbolism of a shift to a system that embraces the American values, which once were splendidly expressed by USA Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart (LeoGrande,2015). American foreign policies have historically varied between realism and idealism tactics that surpass the left to right political spectrum of America. The political scientists have executed the school of realism and idealism in understanding the superiority and USA- Cuba relation of conflicts besides co-operate relationships (LeoGrande,2015).
Idealism embraces that the drive of America’s foreign policy is to develop American values through stimulation of freedom and democracy globally. The decisive Idealism goal is to bring about a peaceful and impartial world by ending autocracies. In the idealist view, America should engage in benevolent missions, the building of the state, and military interventions to advance the goal in other countries, including Cuba. Idealists tend to believe that America’s foreign policy of principled realism should be determined according to interests for the USA. Nevertheless, by morally, what is the right thing the state is supposed to do (LeoGrande,2015).
On the other hand, Realism embraces that the foreign policy determines to guard the USA state interest. In realist’s perception, tend to believe that moral values are incompatible with the defense of the American national interest. Benefits come before principles, and American foreign policy should, therefore, set aside ethical considerations, thus focusing on what works in response to the nation’s relations. Since interests are placed before principles, foreign policy realism empowers policymakers in immorally embracing brutal regimes in the name of state interest. It is noticeable that presidents of America, such as Obama, became enabled by the USA foreign policy realism to Cuba in the name of national importance (Kopetski,2016).
Obama’s Foreign Policy Realism on the USA- Cuba relations
President Barack Obama became empowered by the realism of foreign policy tended to normalize the US- Cuba relations in the name of national interest. Barack’s historic reversal of half a century of hatred towards Cuba is evocative of Richard Nixon’s 1972 opening to China and shall be possibly remembered as similarly historical in the development of the foreign policy. In December 2014, President Obama explained the primary rationale for the policy change; the reason is the miserable failure of the system of antagonism chased by the past ten government administrations. The regimes failed to manage to unseat the Castro administration as well as failing to force it to shift in ways acquiescent to Washington. Being empowered by realism, Obama declared that the nation could not continue doing the same things for over six decades, thus expecting different results. Therefore, to renew the co-operate relations, Obama resolved the antagonism and cut loose the chains of the past conflicts of the two states and pivoted towards engagement policies (Kopetski,2016).
However, the failure of the old policy was not in itself a satisfactory account for the dramatic change. If the hostility policy inaugurated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1959 tended to be incompetent as most idealists agreed, it leads to some of the critical questions in the school of thought about how the hostility policy endured for around six decades via ten presidents. Did it exist due to Democrat or even Republican? The reason it shifted so shortly and rapidly. The answer tends to lie in a collection of underlying aspects that kept the hostility policy in place for decades. Though, over that period gradually shifted until the policy reached a slanting point that provided president Barack the political opportunity or even the realism of the authoritative of changing progression (Kopetski,2016). The changes from the power of interests made by Obama included the jeopardy Cuban foreign policy postured to US interests, the political influence of the American lobby in Cuban, the attitude of Latin America towards the American- Cuban standoff. Lastly, the shifts which were underway in Cuba after the supposition of the presidency by Raul Castro in early 2008.
Moreover, given the realism theory, president Obama normalized and created new relations with Cuba been driven by the national interests encompassing economic shifting in Cuba. Obama’s regime moderated some of the sanctions- based policies toward Cuba. It ratified the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000, which allowed America to export agricultural products to Cuba for national interests. The ratification of the sanction policy eased the Cuba sanction for a while, hence impacted the economic growth of the two countries (Lopez-Levy, 2016). In 2009, Legislature made a regulation action in adopting approaches to ease the embargo of travels American to Cuba, which include families and marketing of agricultural export explorations. Obama, being empowered by the power of realism, reduced further the embargoes on religious and educational travel and various transmittals for both States in 2011. In brief, President Obama represented realism foreign policy by normalizing the antagonism relations of the US-Cuba shifted it to co-operate ties for the benefit of the nations, particularly America (Kopetski,2016).
President Trump’s Foreign Policy Realism on the USA- Cuba relations
President Trump has been very crucial to the realist-inspired foreign policy of President Obama, along with idealistic involvements favored by Bush. The foreign policy of President Trump does not follow the idealistic technique of interventions of military or nation-building planned to stimulate freedom and democracy worldwide. President Trump’s foreign policy does not pursue national interests devoid of moral values as in the usual realist custom. However, Trump’s strategy tends to discontinue from idealism and realism into a new foreign policy tradition termed as principled realism (LeoGrande,2015).
The evident military actions, including Tomahawk cruise missiles and eastern Afghanistan attacks, are best illustrative of principled realism in the regime of President Trump. The Tomahawk cruise missiles attack on the Al Shayrat airbase carried out chemical attacks against civilians, on the other hand, the eastern Afghanistan, of the Massive Ordnance Air Blast targeted cave complex and ISIS tunnels. As a result, the attacks made the U.S.A stand as a superpower to defend its superiority through the school of realism termed as principled realism by Trump. Self-sufficiently of U.S. military efficacy, in response to the attacks, America, while in line with respective values, the government does not involve America resources to whatever is not necessary for protecting national interest (Wivel,2017).
In June 2016, Trump, outlining the newly U.S.A -Cuba policy, openly referred to the Cuba foreign policy technique as: “America is adopting ethical realism, grounded in the American principles, common sense and mutual interests. In the aspect of principled realism, President Trump states that the state cannot be silent in the element of socialist tyranny. By indicating a normalization of conflicts between two nations, the U.S.A aimed at exposing the offenders of the Castro administration, thus standing with the people of Cuba in the scuffle for liberty. Given the inflexibility of Cuba, the new foreign policy became an intelligent approach and practical measure without interfering travels in both nations, prohibiting to do business in Cuba, forbidding people of the U.S.A. from doing business in cooperation with the Cuban military. Nevertheless, the realism policy-focused straight on the opponent, the army of Cuba (Wivel,2017).
In practice of principled realism, the U.S.A travelers are not allowed to stay in the guesthouses of the Cuban Armed Forces, however, can stay in personal owned accommodations. The policy encourages Americans to do business with the people of Cuba, and should not engage in any transaction with military despotism. Moreover, the foreign policy sought to limit any cash flow to the military initiatives while increasing cash flows to the individuals. Practically and symbolically, the procedure tends to embrace the oppressed rather than despots (Clarke,2017). The principled realism intends to open up embassy potentials fixed on the connection of American values and interests. The new policy of President Trump tended not to put worries in the mind of tyrannical governments since the regimes offend only the benefits instead of American state interests. The new U.S.A- Cuba policy highlights on American democratic values; nevertheless, it only allows for any negotiations receptive to the necessities of American state benefits. It is a principled realism policy (Clarke,2017).
Conclusions
Both Cuba and America can profit from the new era of diplomatic relations that became ratified on December 17, 2014. The relation acknowledge the art of living with diversities which entails the countries to adjust policy. American policymakers in the regime of Obama had openly authorized the idea of a peaceful transaction in Cuba. However, the concept had two characteristics or idealism. The first aspect is a willingness to move towards normalization of relations without contending on abrupt domestic political and social shifts in Cuba. For the first time about fifty years, the posture represented America’s willingness to accept incremental revolution instead of political disagreement. The second concept is an explicit persistence to define what Cuba’s goal of transition. In the new era of President Trump, the realism policy empowers the administration to have the political capability to avoid any meddling aiming to push Cuba toward U.S.A defined goals. Trump has stood with the principle of realism to end the conflict of power as well as encouraging the new U.S.A- Cuba co-operates relations to have significant.
Reference
Clarke, M., & Ricketts, A. (2017). Donald Trump and American foreign policy: The return of the
Jacksonian tradition. Comparative Strategy, 36(4), 366-379.
Kopetski, M. (2016). The New President and US-Cuba Relations: Reactions and Actions by the
US Congress. Cuba Relations: Normalization and its Challenges, 347.
LeoGrande, W. M. (2015). Normalizing US—Cuba relations: escaping the shackles of the
past. International Affairs, 91(3), 473-488.
Lopez-Levy, A. (2016). Cuba-US: The December 17 Agreement in the Rationale of Asymmetric
Relations. In A New Chapter in US-Cuba Relations (pp. 27-40). Palgrave Macmillan,
Cham.
Unger, D. (2016). The foreign policy legacy of Barack Obama. The International
Spectator, 51(4), 1-16.
Wivel, A. (2017). Realism in foreign policy analysis. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of
Politics.