Contents

Contents......................................................................................................................................1
Introduction................................................................................................................................2
International relations theories...................................................................................................2
Realism...................................................................................................................................3
Liberalism..............................................................................................................................4
The United Nations....................................................................................................................5
The United States of America....................................................................................................6
The Bush years-Liberal or Realist?........................................................................................7
USA-UN relations......................................................................................................................8
Iraq...........................................................................................................................................10
Conclusion................................................................................................................................11

Introduction
There is no doubt that the United States of America was instrumental in the formation of the
United Nations in the aftermath of the Second World War. It can be argued that this move was
aimed at preventing another major war. The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in a
unipolar world with the United States of America (USA) as hegemony. Following the 2001
attack on America, President Bush responded by invading Iraq unilaterally. Different
International Relations (IR) theories have tried to explain why a country which had fostered
multilateralism in creating the United Nations would attack a country viewed as not of a
threat by some scholars. Was it that the USA had forsaken liberalism in favour of realism?
Had Bush embarked on offensive liberal policies to consolidate its hegemony status?

Karoui (2012) concluded that the attack was mainly due to materialistic interests while Spiers
in his essay said that the war was a result of offensive liberalistic inclination of the Bush
administration. He went on to quote Risse (2004:227) One group see the world as a
'dog-eat-dog' world. But there is also another group of neoconservative hawks who are
prepared to use American power... to construct a world order based on liberal democracies,
universal human rights, and American-style capitalism. There is still contention over the
International Relations theory which best explains the foreign policy decisions of the Bush
administration.

International relations theories

The search for the causes of war resulted in International Relations (IR) theories. Waltz
(1959) analysed the causes of war by introducing three levels-man, state and the international

system. These attempts to understand why States go to war have culminated in various
theories. This paper will focus on realism and liberalism as IR theories. It will discuss how
these two theories applied to the relationship between the United States of America (USA)
and the United Nations. The application of the theories will be limited to the relationship
between the two entities as regards Iraq between 2000 and 2008. The paper will offer a
discourse on realism then liberalism and show their contrasting nature. It will go on to
introduce the United Nations and its relations with the USA in the light of the Iraq invasion
between 2000 and 2008.

These two IR theories sharply differ on most essential subjects, including the structural nature
of the international system, the obligation to conform with transnational law, the transparency
of states motives, the role of force and morality in international relations, and the likelihood
of cooperation between states. From the onset, it is best to note that there is a dearth of clarity
in the knowledge of the real intentions and their underlying causes of states when they
embark on any foreign or domestic policy. This opaqueness then lends the actions of states to
various interpretations as regards the IR theory that best describes them.

Realism
This is a theoretical perspective on IR which emphasizes motives related to national security,
power and material resources. Realists emphasise the absence of a central authority therefore
States are only bound in society by their own volition or threat of force. It is the belief of
realism that State power can be military, economic or diplomatic.

In this light, States are rational actors who seek survival in an uncertain environment in which
States with more power are decisive. This results in the supposition that international law and
international institutions do not constrain or shape State behaviour. Even in the presence of
international laws and institutions, States will base their actions on their underlying material
interests and power. If States will always do what suits their interests then one can suppose
that if in a particular situation, liberalism seems more likely to yield positive results then a
country may go that route.

Liberalism
This concept, in contrast to realism, considers differences between democracies and nondemocracies as the fundamental cause of war. It believes that the national characteristics of
individual States determine their international relations. Anne-Marie Slaughter (Wolfrum,
2011) writes that Andrew Moravcsik developed a general liberal theory of IR basing on the
assumption that individual States represent dominant subsets of their domestic societies who
are the real ultimate actors in world politics.

Liberalists suggest that States collaborate instead of compete or engage in armed conflict.
They propose that democracy and global trade reduce the benefits of interstate conflicts
therefore encourages long-term cooperation over short-term realist war gains. Liberalism
contends that states are willing to be bound by obligations set upon them as a result of
international treaties and agreements such that international organisations become rule-based
communities capable of regulating the behaviour of states.

The United Nations

The United Nations (UN) was founded on similar concepts as expounded by Woodrow
Wilson, a former president of the United States of America (USA). The UN is not a single
unit, but a group of institutes. Some are completely independent like the International Labour
Organization (ILO) and World Health Organization (WHO). Some are dependent on it or
related to it, such as United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the United Nations
Childrens Fund (UNICEF). The core of UN and international politics is made up of three
entities: the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Secretariat. The Security
Council is the club of aristocrats and the only organ of the UN that has authoritative power.

It comprises of five permanent members: USA, China, Russia, United Kingdom and France
who exercise tremendous power over international politics both formally and informally
(Hussain, 2011). It can be argued that the UN is what it is as a result of the USAs power and
material resources. The aims of the UN are listed as facilitation of cooperation in
international law and security, economic development and social progress. Furthermore, the
UN pursues the upholding of human rights and achievement of world peace.

There were four instances before 1990 when the UN Security Council authorised the use of
force by any of its members (Browne, 2003). These include the repulsion of armed attack at
the start of the Korean War; use of all appropriate measures in 1961 to prevent civil war in
the Congo, including the use of force; and the Council Resolution 221 (1966), adopted in
April 9, 1966, calling on the United Kingdom to prevent by the use of force if necessary the
arrival at Beira of vessels...believed to be carrying oil destined for Rhodesia.... These
instances show that the Security Council had the capacity to vote in favour of force when it
5

saw it necessary. The Security Council gave Iraq time to comply with its resolutions while
America presented its case for the need of force. The American presentations failed to
convince the Council.

The United States of America

Arguments have been made on whether the USA has had realist or liberal tendencies under
George Bush between 2000 and 2008. This paper will argue that the USA has always been
making decisions basing on what would be good for it during this time- be it supporting
liberal notions or projecting realist propensities. In general, the USA has only followed
international expectations when these are not at variance with the USAs national interests.
The United States held a great economic, political, and military influence on the entire world
therefore was an indispensable part of the UN.

Mahbubani in Reinner (2006) described the political system of the United States as that of a
constitutional republic and representative democracy where majority rule is tempered by
minority rights protected by law. He said the head of government could not take foreign
policy decisions without at least two third support of the Senate. Despite this, the president is
allowed to enter into treaties with foreign nations through executive agreements which do not
require the senates approval.

Hinnebusch (2006) cites Emmanuel Tod (2003) who argues that the corruption of USA
democracy by moneyed special interests enervated domestic checks on war. This would point
to the fact that the political system of the country may determine the foreign policy employed
by a country. In this case, it can be contented that the state is but a representation of powerful
groups within the country.

The Bush years: Liberal or Realist?

During the period 2000 to 2008, certain characteristics of the USA could be interpreted as
realist, most notably its rejection of transnationalism in the lead up to the war in Iraq and
subsequent pre-emptive military conflict. This realist notion is supported by its use of torture
and its overall ambition for US supremacy through the fortifying of resource-rich regions in
the world. In the same vein, as said by John Ikenberry, the United States has been the greatest
champion of multilateralism in the 20thcentury, but it has also been reluctant to tie itself too
closely to these multilateral institutes and rules (Mearsheimer, 2001).

As Soh (2004) noted, the USA had intent to function as the world police. This is contrary to
transnationalism where a global body independent of any single State is an arbiter of world
affairs. This ambivalence towards international bodies makes it challenging to conclude with
certainty whether USA followed liberal or realist practices.

USA-UN relations
In 2000, former Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms said
in a speech to the UN Security Council that no international institution has the capacity to
judge the foreign policy and national security decisions of the United States (Mowle,
2003). The United States was very particular in selecting new international commitments
with the United Nations 2000 to 2008. In the worst scenarios, it reneged from past
commitments with the UN.

In 2002, President Bush suspended the signature of the USA with the UN Secretary General.
The Bush administration also promulgated the Mexico City policy, also known as the
global gag rule, which rendered local organizations that engaged in privately funded abortionrelated activities consistent with their own countrys laws ineligible for U.S. support for
contraceptive services. The USA withdrew assistance to the United Nations Population Fund
(UNFPA) of about 34 million American dollars on the grounds that UNFPAs support of
voluntary contraceptive services in China is somehow tantamount to support of coercive
abortion (Barot, 2008).

Hegemons like the United States advocate for international organizations like the United
Nations to spread their ideals and values without appearing too aggressive. The realist focus
on relative power explains why the United States has acted unilaterally at times. Some
realists completely disregard the importance of international institutions, and talk about the
power of the state alone. However, it is the classical realist argument of balance of power that
can explain the US support for the UN. By being part of a multilateral system such as the UN,
the US could prevent counterbalancing by projecting a benign intent towards the world.
8

Realists argue that USA policy makers have demonstrated support for international
institutions such as the UN, to show their satisfaction with the status quo and allay other
countries security fears, thus preventing the emergence of a counterbalancing coalition.
Unilateralism and multilateralism are both tools to achieving foreign policy objectives and a
hegemon can chose either depending on which one will suit its benefits best at the moment.
The United States of America has the power, resources and capability to pursue its goals
although it sometimes agrees to a multilateral system as well. The US government ignored
international politics and attacked Iraq in 2003 without the approval of UN Security Council.

This invasion was done purely on American terms though on the pretext of weapons of mass
destruction. Member states of the United Nations Security Council had not reached a majority
consensus on how to deal with the situation. On 18 February 2003, when the UNSC allowed
member states to speak on the impending war, all of 64 speakers over three days opposed war
(Hiro 2005, 150). The US failed to pressure the UN into setting aside international law or the
presumption against the first use of force.

On the other hand, this did not stop the American war and not a single UN member dared
sponsor a resolution condemning it. This goes to show that United States considers the UN no
more than a platform for the member states to arbitrate, not a body with any authority,
especially over itself. So it can be concluded, the UN in many occasions is nothing but
mediators between head of governments therefore the international environment is one of
anarchy.

The ultimate power lies with the State and its decisions are always made to protect own
sovereignty and national interest. As a result, states must essentially rely on their own
resources and strategies to survive. For large states self-interest does not always lie with
transnationalism. Often an autarchic foreign policy decision makes more sense in terms of
domestic agendas. This, however, is not to say that USA has acted without due regard for the
international community all the time. The USA has been critical in the conception of the UN,
which, irrespective of its flaws, is a good platform of international politics. If the US opposed
force, there was no force; and until 2003 whenever the US wanted force, it secured it.

Iraq
The Guardian of 16 September 2004 reported that Kofi Annan, the then UN SecretaryGeneral had described the Iraq invasion as illegal. Halliday (2012) wrote that The UN
watched while Iraq was attacked in violation of human rights. He stayed short of saying that
the UN was complicit in the attack since they did nothing to protect Iraq. He points out,
though, that the USA was irked by the UNs decision not to support the invasion.

The Bush administration would not necessarily undertake this mission on their own, but they
certainly wanted to do it on their own terms. Britain grabbed this opportunity to supply the
USA with any help it might require in the lead up to the invasion of Afghanistan. The fact
that USA attempted to garner UN support for its mission shows that it respected multinationalism only when it worked according to the USAs plans. When the Security Council
members of the UN did not pass a resolution in favour of Iraq attack, the USA went ahead.

10

There are arguments that America considered its material interest or those of the ruling elites
in America to reach the decision to make the invasion (Hinnebusch, 2007a). Jonathan Nitzan
and Shimshon Bichler (2004) argue that the Iraq war served the needs of dominant capital
which supports the notion put forward by (Hinnebusch, 2007a) of America acting to satisfy
the aims of those represented by the ruling clique. These interests include oil, Israel (a
strategic ally to USA) and military sales.

Conclusion
Hinnebusch (2007b) advanced that mainstream theories of IR were inadequate to fully
comprehend why the USA had invaded Iraq. While realists agree that there is anarchy in the
world and that powerful nations seek hegemony, this has failed to explain the actions of the
USA in dealing with Iraq. Stephen Walt, a realist, believed that Iraq posed no security threat
to the USA while Mearsheimer, another realist, believed that global hegemony is unattainable
therefore the attack by the USA on Iraq was irrational (Mearsheimer and Walt 2003).

This goes against the realist assumption that nations are rational actors. Hinnebusch (2007)
further posits that the Iraq invasion was less about Iraq than about the global role of the USA.
This, of course, is all quite a change from traditional US foreign policy that was based on the
containment of threats and that viewed hegemony as being rooted in consent derived from
multilateral consultation, hence necessarily limited by international law and institutions and
requiring a priority for diplomacy over military force.

11

This paper has shown that neither realism nor liberalism fully captures the Iraq invasion by
the Bush administration. The distinction of whether the attack was based on realist or liberal
theories remains subject to observer. It is interesting that leading realists opposed the war.
The essay has shown that USA used its power to disregard the UNs lack of resolution to
advance its interests. To interpret this as being superpower acting in a world mired with
anarchy for to pre-empt attacks on it or as hegemony seeking to spread democracy remains a
contentious issue.

The UN suffered from its lack of power since it has no territory or citizens of its own. Soh
(2004) surmised that the UN has to reform its charters which have become obsolete and do
not relate to the present event. This was evidenced by the disagreements of the UN Security
Council pertaining to Article 42 for the use of force. The relationship between the USA and
UN has been dependent on what the USA wanted.

References

Barot, S. (2008) Back to Basics: The Rationale for Increased Funds for International Family
Planning Guttmacher Policy Review Summer 2008, Volume 11, Number 3
12

Halliday, D. 2012 The United Nations and its Conduct during the Invasion and
Occupation

of

Iraq,

Testimony

to

the

World

Tribunal

on

Iraq,

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-united-nations-and-its-conduct-during-theinvasion-and-occupation-of-iraq/31014 Accessed 02 September 2014

Hinnebusch, R. (2006) The Iraq War and International Relations: Implications for Small
States, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Volume 19, Number 3, September.
Hinnebusch, R. (2007a) The American Invasion Of Iraq: Causes and Consequences, read
on http://sam.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Raymond-Hinnebusch.pdf
Accessed on 02 September 2014
Hinnebusch, R. (2007a) The US Invasion of Iraq: Explanations and Implications Critique:
Critical Middle Eastern Studies Vol. 16, No. 3, 209228, Fall 2007
Hiro, D (2005) Secrets and Lies: the True Story of the Iraq War (London: Politicos)
http://www.e-ir.info/2011/03/19/the-reality-of-us-un-relations/#_ftn4 retrieved 20 Aug.,
14
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/16/iraq.iraq Accessed 02 September 2014
Ignatieff, M (1999) Virtual War (New York: Vintage)
Karoui Hichem (2012) The Bush II years In The Middle East: (2000-2008) Morals and
Interest A Case Study in the Sociology of International Relations Arab Center for
Research and Policy Studies
Mahbubani, Kishore. (2006) The United States and the United Nations in David
Malone and Yeun Foong Khong (eds) Unilateralism and US Foreign Policy.
Boulder CO: Lynn Reinner
13

Marjorie Ann Browne (2003) The United Nations Security Council Its Role in the Iraq
Crisis: A Brief Overview as read on http://fas.org/man/crs/RS21323.pdf
Mearsheimer, JJ and Walt, S (2003) An Unnecessary War, Foreign Policy,
January/February, 5060
Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). The tragedy of Great Power politics, New York: Norton
Mowle, Thomas S. Worldviews in Foreign Policy: Realism, Liberalism, and External
Conflict. Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 2003), pp. 561-592
Risse, T. (2004) 'Beyond Iraq: The Crisis of the Transatlantic Security Community', in
Koenig-Archibugi, M. (eds.) American Power in the 21st

Held, D. and

Century, Cambridge and Malden:

Polity Press, 214-40.

Schneider, Francis J. (1960) "Man the State and War, by Kenneth N. Waltz," Indiana Law
Journal:

Vol.

35:

Issue

2,

Article

12.Available

at:

http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol35/iss2/12
Shimshon Bichler & Jonathan Nitzan, Dominant capital and the new wars, Journal of
World-Systems Research, 10(2) (Summer 2004), pp. 255327
Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2011) In Wolfrum, R. (Ed.) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public
International Law, Oxford University Press
Soh, C. (2004) United States Foreign Policy and United Nations, The Case of the War in Iraq.
The Korean Journal of International Relations, Volume 44, Number 5
Spiers John https://www.academia.edu/4214833/Was_the_20002008_Bush_Administration_Realist_or_Liberal_in_its_Approach_to_Foreign_Policy
Accessed on 07 August 2014
14

Waltz, K.N. 1959 Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis. Columbia Press
University

15