Consider any contemporary foreign policy issue (e.g., US policy toward Venezuela). How might a leader practicing realpolitik (serving the country’s national interests), a leader engaged in vote-seeking, and a leader serving key interest groups behave differently?

The united states foreign policy towards Venezuela have created numerous debates across different spheres of politics in the US and Venezuela as well as across the globe. The president of us as taken a hard stance against the reigning president of Venezuela  Nicolas Maduro. The US has also tightened numerous sanctions including removing the leader from office. However, A Leader practicing realpolitik that serves the interests of the country and one who seeks to engage in vote seeking process should have fundamental interests of different people first and behave differently in such situations. The united states foreign policy has been a series of misconceptions that cannot be understood by everyone the most spread misconception is the idea that Venezuela is ruled under a dictatorship. However, despite the leader of the country not supporting democracy, Venezuela does not qualify to be given such stunt actions. Venezuela does not operate on autocracy, and it is a society that is deeply polarized and divided. Various public opinions show the differences that the country has especially when it comes to leadership and how to rule the country. A leader who is practicing realpolitik should behave differently and reconsider the foreign policy such as the US policy towards Venezuela and take peaceful actions to negotiate between the president and the opposition leader. This will benefit not only Venezuela but also the united states that has Venezuela as its proximate neighboring country.

What is the diversionary war hypothesis? Why might leaders try to get a rally-around-the-flag effect? Are there any cases today that might be instances of diversionary conflicts? Why are some skeptical as to whether diversionary wars are all that common?

A diversionary war hypothesis refers to an international relations hypothesis that identifies war that is started by a leader of a particular country to distract the members of its population from there on domestic struggles and strife. When a leader sees that his or her country is under certain strife, he or she is likely to get involved in the affairs involving the other countries or get a war against another country so that the local people get distracted from what is happening at domestic level. There are several reasons why a leader can try and get rally round the flag effect.This is when there is an increased short-run populace for the reigning president especially if there is an international crisis in war. In the united states today, seven cases might lead to diversionary conflicts. These include cases such as the inability to solve the Korean case with a nuclear bomb. The foreign policy against Venezuela is also another one who creates such ideas. The only reason why some skeptical as to whether diversionary wars are all that common is because they cannot know of their foreign policies about their national policies.

Many scholars have sought to explain why so few democracies go to war with other democracies. What are some mechanisms behind democratic peace theory? Are you convinced by democratic peace theory, why or why not?

Democratic peace theory is a theory which maintains that democracies are always accident very involved in an armed conflict with another country that is identified to be democratic. In contrast, the theory underlying some of the motives behind state-sponsored violence against another country. Many scholars seek explanations as to why democracies go to war with other countries that also believe in democracy. The main mechanisms behind the democratic peace theory are that countries failed to live up to the expectations of democracy. As a result, a democratic country can engage with the leadership of another democratic country that is not giving people the right to express themselves. Consequently, country leaders are preventing people from democratically expressing themselves. I am not convinced by the democratic peace theory. This theory contradicts itself as it states and talks about peace violet instigate violence against inferior countries.

How convincing is the capitalist peace – the idea that countries which trade with one another are less likely to go to war?

The capitalist peace, also known as capitalist peace theory is an explanation that is given to the criteria for development economics. In most cases, the developed economies do not want to engage in war with each other, and they rarely get engaged in disputes that are lower level. Capitalist economies believe that instead of getting into a dispute, they can trade with one another. Capitalist peace idea does not seem to be quite convincing because in most cases we have seen different countries with established economies go to war with each other. In both world war, I and II, the countries that went to overall established economical and they were trading with each other. Therefore, capitalist peace does not seem convincing.

How do decision-makers analyze the information before them, according to Yarhi-Melo? What is the difference between a costly signal and cheap talk? What kind of information do leaders pay attention to versus the intelligence community? How might these biases lead either to draw incorrect conclusions. Use evidence and examples to support your argument.

Analysis of information needs the decision maker to have an open mind and try on their components of a successful decision. Analyzing information according to Yarhi-Melo involve looking at the most effective decisions and categorizing them into different groups depending on their underlying factors. The difference between a costly signal and a chip talk depends on the sent message. A message from the sender could be consty or cheap tak. A costly message is any observable action that the sender uses and can result in a direct loss to the sender and also leaving a payoff from any action and affected. Therefore cheap talkis a win that the players do not directly affect the payoff of the game. Leaders pay attention to costly message what are costly signal especially if it is against an intelligent community. These biases can lead to drawing incorrect conclusions especially if the message sender is well aware of the impact of the message. As a result, the sound of the message may lie to make the message have a costly signal. An example is when the president of a country wants to convince the people about the policies that they have made. They have to use costly signal to transfer the message.

What is a two-level game according to Putnam? Why might domestic constraints give leaders an advantage in international negotiations? Conversely, how can leaders use international agreements to influence domestic politics?

A two-level game is a theory that is used to solve international conflicts between two states that are divided by the game theory(Atkins,23). According to Robert Putnam, c conflict between two states that have simultaneous negotiation will also take place as domestic and international level. Domestic constraints may give leaders an advantage in international negotiation because they have to be taken into consideration especially when having a level headed deposition with their foreign state. The leaders can also use international agreements to influence domestic politics because the key negotiator converts an agreement for the state. The outcome is likely going to be accepted by the domestic people, and then key negotiator will get government funding.

What are some common patterns of misperceptions identified by Jervis? How can leaders and individuals reduce the likelihood that biases will disrupt their ability to assess information accurately?

When it comes to perception and misconceptions within the international political arena, Robert Javies show that the perception of the decision maker together with other actors change from realities in patterns that are detectable and different on how they can be understood. Decision-makers process on information and maintaining the belief about international relations depends on the well-held opinions. This also increases the likelihood of biasness, and that will disrupt their ability to assess the information accurately in a society. If the information does not favor them, they are likely to change it.

Can the traits of individual leaders explain their foreign policy behavior? What are some patterns across leaders? How might Saddam Hussein’s personality and background influence his decision to fight Iran and Kuwait?

The trait of an individual leader determines the decisions that they make in life and the perceptions that they have about different policies.

People perceive what they expect to be present and this has to do with their traits and personality. The patterns across leaders include the ability for decision-makers to learn from history.  This applies across all leaders. Through making insights from previous events for, they can make useful shortcuts that are rational. Saddam Hussein’s personality must have influenced his decision to fight Iran and Kuwait. Various other factors also aggravated  Saddam Hussein to make the decisions that he made in the politics of other countries. This resulted in the behaviors and actions together with the decisions to fight Iran and Kuwait.

Is cooperation possible under the security dilemma? Why is Mearsheimer skeptical, and when is Jervis more optimistic?

In an international political dilemma, the operation is possible under a security dilemma as well. This is because the countries are all looking to get favor from the negotiations and the final decisions. The reason why Mearsheimer is skeptical because of the differences in the negotiation and the perceptions of the leaders. In most cases, they have different perceptions. However, Jervis is more optimistic especially if there is a fallout in the countries. This means that the first experience will allow the leaders to find a solution for the conflict.

What is the difference between balancing (soft balancing), bandwagoning, and buck-passing?

The balance of power theory states that national security can be effective if all nations have equal powers. If a nation is stronger than the other in military terms, it is likely to dominate and conquer the other nations or the neighbors. If a weak nation is affected, they are likely to use either balancing (soft balancing), bandwagoning, or buck-passing (Atkins, 13).  A state chooses to balance for two reasons. The first is when they place their survival at risk on the other nation so that that they trust their survival on a stronger nation. Soft balancing states that hegemony is nonexistent because if a state becomes more powerful, it will likely start a war with the weak state. Bandwagoning occurs when a weaker state aligns with a stronger state and concedes the power to a stronger one. Back passing is when a state conceded all the power and trust to a stronger nation as it becomes sidelined if it is attacked.

The contrast between the balance of power and balance of threat theory. If the balance of power theory is correct, where should we see balancing today?

The balance of power calls for states having equal powers so that non can attack the other. The balance of threat states that states should pose the same threat to the other states on equal terms. If the balance of power theory is correct today, we should see the balance of power in all the nations where no nation threatens the other because of their power. However, this is not right as there are states that are more powerful than others.

Works cited

Atkins, G. Pope. Latin America and the Caribbean in the international system. Routledge, 2018.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?