An empirical assignment in which students will be called to apply one traditional theory and one critical theory to a specific case related to international security. Application of Realism and Critical Theory Discourse in Specific Cases

Application of Realism and Critical Theory Discourse in Specific Cases in International Security
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Application of Realism and Critical Theory Discourse in Specific Cases in International Security
Introduction
International security is also named global security, and it encompasses measures that are undertaken by nations, states, and international organizations, with a fundamental aim of safeguarding mutual survival and safety. These measures include international sanctions, military action, and diplomatic agreements, for instance, treaties and conventions, in the face of the global arena. Various theories have been advanced to explain the dynamics and perspective of international security and relations. The management of international security and relations is intricate. No one theory has an exact fitting for international security needs. However, a range of relevant theories is chosen and applied based on specific circumstances and needs. The said theories do not exist in isolation: some of them are rooted in and have significant borrowings from other propositions and arguments.Some of the common theories that are applicable in international security and relations include critical theory discourse, realism, Marxism, feminism, constructivism, positivism, and liberalism, among others. It must be noted that there are offshoots and intertwining between and amongst these theories. Thus, these theories are intended to provide in-depth explanations, perspectives, and understating of a diverse aspect of international security, which is within the confines of international relations. This paper will explore two theories, which include the critical theory discourse and traditional realism ideology, in light of the speeches made by former U.S President Barack Obama in May 2009 and during election campaigns, which touched on the issue of Guantanamo Bay prison.
Guantanamo Bay prison as an Issue of International Security
The U.S Guantanamo bay, based in Cuba, was established in 1898 when the U.S took the reign of Cuba from Spain at the end of the war between Spain and America (Pbs.org). Later, the U.S began to acquire a perpetual lease of the land of Guantanamo by from Cuban government in 1903 and maintained this camp even after the two countries has incidences of constrained relationships. As it approached the end of the 20th century, it was used to detain Haitian and Cuban refugees, and it received a great backlash in 1993 when the courts declared the camp as unconstitutional.
 It is a critical detention center that hosts terrorists who have become a major threat to global peace, and many have raised allegations about a breach of fundamental human rights at this center. The Detention Camp at Guantanamo Bay has become a controversial institution regarding its legality under the armpit of international law, coercive interrogations, harsh confinement conditions, and indefinite detention. The camp was established in 2002 by former U.S president George Bush government as one of the ways of containing terror attacks. It was used to detained prisoners from Afghanistan and Iraq. 
The camp has been under intense criticism from the international community for mistreating inmates and holding them without trial. There has been growing interest in closing the camp. The former U.S Secretary of state Colin Powel also added his voice, reinforcing the need to close the base, citing unclear reasons for holding prisoners at the expanse of U.S international interests. There has been a widespread allegation of mistreatment and abuse, including the United Nations report of 2006 that condemn the U.S for acts of torture at the camp that entailed sexual humiliation, mocking or waterboarding, and use of dogs to scare the inmates. Amnesty International also called upon the U.S to give a fair trial to detainees after complaints of the physical and psychological welfare of the detainees came into question and reported complaints of inaccessibility to lawyers by the detainees. Lord Peter Peter Goldsmith and Tony Blair, who was Britain’s Attorney General and Prime minster, respectively supported the calls by human rights groups, including the U.N to close the camp, and George Bush was reported to have expressed interest top close the camp in one of the media news outlets (Pbs.org).
 But the U.S said the detainees at the camp were enemies of combatants, who are not supposed to enjoy normal rules and procedures such as Geneva conventions. The U.S Pentagon argues that the detainees are managed with adequate humane at the camp, but terrorists report claims of torture with the intent of gaining sympathy from the public. 
 After winning elections, Obama ambitiously expressed plans to close the camp, but there was opposition from the Congress, which responded by deterring the detainees from being brought to the U.S from Guantanamo Bay through the passage of legislation. Obama’s renewed ambition on the closure of the camp might have been informed by intense criticism of the camp from various quarters, including other nations and international organizations, as well as growing internal displeasure.
Key Details about Obama’s Speeches on Guantanamo Bay
Barack Obama delivered a speech that touches on national and international security issues in May 2009. This speech was a historic and crucial speech that contemplated drastic changes and reforms in the U.S security apparatus in the face of the globe, and this speech was delivered just after the election. This speech was chosen amongst others because it is quite a comprehensive international relation and security issue, especially on the issue of Guantanamo Bay, which has led to terror attacks against U.S citizens in different parts of the world. This speech was picked amongst many others because it marked the transition from Bush’s administration to Obama's government, which aimed to renew and refresh the international relations issues, with critical issues including war on terror, Guantanamo bay issue.
Some of the remarkable reforms in the speech included that measures to abolish Guantanamo Bay prison, which was known for holding criminal and terrorists detainees and suspects, and it also abolishes tortuous approaches of extracting information from terrorism suspects. These actions were aimed at refreshing the American role in the international arena and also to ensure that American safety and security was secured through appropriate methods. The critical actors who were available at the time of the speech included the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, National Security Advisor, and CIA Director, among others and Congress representatives (whitehouse.gov;). 
Analysis of Barack Obama speech in May 2009 Based on Realism and Critical Theory Discourse 
The key decision-makers in international relations usually deploy a range to theories to navigate through the intricate global arena. There is a range of theories that can include traditional and critical theory discourse, just to mention a few. The traditional theories include liberalism and realism. Liberalism is considered as ‘utopian’ because it describes a situation in which human is inherently good and believes that peace and harmony between nations or states is achievable (Elliott, 2012). Liberalism is based on the good nature of human being, which aims to foster harmony and peace. Realism views people as not good, but selfish and tends to pursue individual interest at the expense of others. Thus, liberals view international relations at an optimistic angle, with the belief that global order can be enhanced, with peace and eradication of war and conflicts. Realists focus on security and survival within the confines of the anarchical system. However, it must be noted that both liberalism and realism consider the state as a dominant element in international relations (Elliott, 2012). Regarding the traditional theory represented by realism and liberalism, Obama’s actions can be put under scrutiny in the context of the speech delivered in May 2009, where he focused on the issue of Guantanamo bay by citing the need to abolish the camp and work with international partners in fighting crime, as well as maintain human rights amongst the detainees. His speech denotes how liberal Obama was, and this is well demonstrated throughout the contents of the speech.
The critical theory discourse is both an academic and emancipatory concept towards boosting of justice, equality, fairness, and each individual's well-being. Critical theory was advanced by Max Horkheimer of the Frankfurt School, as contained in the essay "Traditional and Critical Theory", in which he depicted critical theory as a social theory that involves critiquing and transforming society as a whole, as opposed to traditional theory oriented to mere explaining and understanding (Abromeit, 2011). It applies in the international arena, not wholly but partially. In some instances, it may not really apply depending on the existing context. Any inquiry into critical international relations theory like critical theory discourse has to provide the distinction of at least two central components. First, there is the epistemological and methodological aspect, which denotes information about a theoretical concept, or explains what the theory says. Second is the normative and substantive, what it says about the world. Realism is an approach to examining the practice of international politics, and its central idea is on the role of the nation-state. Realism is based on the assumptions that all nation-states are motivated and driven by national interests, or, at best, national interests that are disguised as moral concerns. Having known the implications of both critical theory and realism, we can evaluate Obama’s speech of 2009 regarding the Guantanamo detention camp.
The presidents explained the reasons behind the need to close down the Guantanamo detention camp. Obama’s underlying factor behind his motivation to close the camp emanated from the 2007 presidential campaign, and the issue of the camp as a topic of internal security concern, was at the center of the campaign agenda. At that time, Hillary Clinton and McCain endorsed the closure of the camp, and Obama spoke with more passion by describing of Guantanamo case as a compromise of U.S values. Obama, in his campaign speech, described the desolate situation at the camp by saying that people were viciously beaten, tortured, deprived of sleep, detained for long times, and forced to feed, among other forms of inhuman acts (whitehouse.gov). In this case of description of the desolate situation and inhuman treatment of detainees at the camp, Obama was appealing for respect to human dignity, and this shows concern for other people’s well-being. His desire, as driven by both personal views and political agenda, can be seen in the lens prism of critical theory as emancipatory. In political theory, the idea of emancipation, as perceived in political theory, represents rationalization of the idea of promoting human rights or the historical overcoming of capitalism. Here there is competing interest, whereby there are forces that reinforced the continual torture and detainment of people at the camp, while other hand, there are advocacy movements anchored on personal liberties, rights, and desire to improve everyone’s well-being. Thus, emancipation is an attempt to break the continuity of history, packaging it as a collective political struggle in a bid to actualize utopianism and to create understanding among the participants. Here, the idea of dissolving the Guantanamo bay was disruptive to historical chains of beliefs, practices, and institutions. 
According to these Germany social and philosophical intellects, a theory is considered critical if it has the intention and capacity to liberate people from slavery and nurture an environment that satisfies the needs of the people and power. The epicenter of the critical theory discourse is the fundamental aim that is geared towards the emancipation of human being. These concepts have also been expanded to included subsets divisions of this theory. These classes of critical theories, which are espoused as social movements, are intended to mitigate domination and expand the space of freedom.
 Regarding Obama’s campaign speech on the Guantanamo Camp, he presents the issue of the camp as historical that needs disruption because it is anchored on violation of U.S values. Obama contextualizes the case using the context of a nation in and in light of political interests at that time; it means that Obama was trying to demonstrate a collective political struggle against violation of human rights and dignity. He passionately explained the horrible situation at the camp by detailing vivid acts of human torture: this was a clear strategy of making people understand the existing situations and why there is a need for change. The ultimate goal was to convince people that he an observer of human rights and values, and this could act as a springboard upon which people could support him in the election.
On Jan 22, 2009, just second day in office, Obama issued an executive order, directing the shutdown of Guantanamo camp within a year. In May 2009, Obama cited major concerns that convinced him to pursue closure of the camp. First, he cited the inefficiencies of the detention center through illustration. He says only three convictions in over seven years in the camp have been actualized, and two-thirds of the detainees were released from Guantanamo before Obama’s administration (whitehouse.gov). According to Obama, this demonstrates the entrenched inefficiencies, and this may imply that people were detained in an inappropriate approach. Second, the existence of the Guantanamo bay undermines the U.S fidelity to law and its values.  Obama opines that the camp established under a misplaced notion that it would be beyond the law, and this perspective is supported by the fact that the Supreme Court rejected it. Third, the camp has served as a threat to U.S security instead of functioning to counter the acts of terrorism. Instead of keeping the U.S safe, the existence of the camp has continued to weakened American national security. Obama says the camp has been used as a rallying cry for our enemies, and this has diminished the willingness of partner countries to join the U.S in fighting terrorism. Fourth, it is relatively expensive and more intricate to maintain the camp rather than to abolish it. However, Obama demonstrated the cognizance of the fact the process of shutting down Guantanamo Bay could be well calculated to avoid cases where the release detainees rejoin the battlefield upon the release (whitehouse.gov;).The gist of Obama’s speech regarding the issue of Guantanamo Bay is centered on the interests of American people, especially in terms of security. The centrality of interest in the safety of Americans is well illustrated in the theory of realism. Realism denotes the world order as a system of competing self-interested state actors under anarchy. The administration before Obama had seen nothing significant wrong with Guantanamo camp in terms of human rights violations, relatively high cost of maintaining the camp, its desolate nature, and its efficiency, and it might not perceive it as a counterproductive attempt. Under Bush’s administration, the Guantanamo bay existed as a rationalized approach of containing terrorists and serve to deter further terror acts, hence, protecting the American citizens. Even if there were inhuman acts, these acts might not have been significant when compared to the damage the terrorist can do to the state and its citizens. Thus, we can collude that Bush’s administration regarding the issue of the camp had a stronger sense of realism infusion than even the Obama’s administration because Obama appeared to try to strike a balance between the respecting the rights of the detainees, adhering to the law and at the same, time, highlight the important role of protecting the U.S citizens.
Was Obama’s interest based on the emancipatory concept as espoused in critical theory? Which involves an attempt to protect human rights, individual liberties, and freedoms, as well as doing away with the alleged inhuman torture at the camp? Or what was it for political expediency or all of these? Obama reinforced that the steps taken were done so in a bid to ensure security. The measures are pursued against the backdrop of the American constitution, the bill of rights, and American history. The security is anchored on the foundation of liberties, justice, fairness, freedom, dignity, and equality around the globe. The cited reasons for closure were informed American constitution, the bill of rights, and American history and the foundation of liberties, justice, fairness, freedom, dignity, and equality around the globe, as components of security. Obama seems to have considered all conflicting international perspectives from the view of the international community, American citizens, and the suspect terrorist or detainees at the Guantanamo Bay. Obama’s contemplated plan demands a delicate act of balancing, and this may explain the application of international relational critical theory to marry and merge all the competing perspectives. Obama’s perspective on the issue of Guantanamo seems to gather for all the concerned parties' interests. Thus, questions can be raised from this observation. Should the suspected terrorists be treated equally with U.S citizens before the eyes of the law and the traditions of the society? Or should we waived some privileges and violated some human rights laws in favor of the larger U.S citizens? Many would think the state should have an overarching responsibility to protect the lives of the citizens with a backup that there was reasonable evidence of a plan to endanger the lives of citizens by the detainees. The strong realism ideologists would put affront the interests of the nation before the interests and rights of the terrorists. As a result, we see Obama as more of a school of critical theory discourse than being a realist.
Obama’s inclination towards critical theory discourse in resolving international security is reinforced by the former Vice President, Dick Cheney, who served under Bush’s administration, in 2005. Dick Cheney refuted the claims of mistreatment of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay and said that the facility should not be shut down (Edition.cnn.com). Dick Cheney argued that the policy guiding the existence and the operation of Guantanamo Bay was rational as most other detainees were ether found planning to launch an attack against American citizens or in battlefield both in the U.S and other regions of the world. Dick Cheney cited an example of prisoner Mohammed al-Qahtani, whom they had sufficient evidence to show that he engage in 2001, terrorist attack. On the issue of inhumane treatment of prisoners at the camp, the vice president downplays the issue by saying the detainer has been treated in "in a human fashion" but do not qualify to treated under Geneva Conventions, because they are were found to be unlawful combats, and such terrorists do not operate under the law of the war by not wearing uniforms, and they target civilians in their attacks. Despite their misdeed and transgressions, the U.S still treats them with dignity and respect.
Dick Cheney’s argument puts into perspective Obama’s proposition. As opposed to Obama, Cheney is more of a realist. Realism ideology has persisted for long in international politics and security. It is among the dominant theories. The central idea of realism is that states are seen as the major actors who coexist in the anarchic social order, with no central authority from each other (Korab-Karpowicz, 2010). As a result, realists view the insecurity amongst the states as the central challenge in international security and relations. In realism, there is a general belief that the state is bestowed with the responsibility of providing security for themselves because there is limited capacity for other actors to do so (Maghroori, 2019). The primary role of the state in the provision of the security can be demonstrated in May 2009 Obama’s speech, where he emphasized the duty of the state in protecting American citizens. In many instances, he repeatedly explained the fundamental task for his government to secure Americans' safety against any form of threat. Thus, in realism, the security of the state is of significant emphasis. In realism, the state is bound to protect its borders and the safety of its dwellers. For example, Obama highlighted the need to beef border security to bar terrorists from entering the U.S soil. However, rulers who subscribe to the school of realism must tread carefully not to limit human rights, oppress others, or limit personal liberties and freedom (Maghroori, 2019). 
Realism perceives human nature as selfish and egoistic, and probably inclined towards immorality. Realism contemplates that both humans and states can act selfishly by pursuing an individualized interest, with little or no regard to others, well-being (Korab-Karpowicz, 2010). In the realism argument, the states will engage in war or cooperate with others when the situation represents their interests. The contemporary realism still depicts a case where there is no change post-cold war, in which power is the main ingredient in international relations. Realists feel that power still resides in international relations based on anarchic constructs (Maghroori, 2019). Both the contemporary realist and neoliberals agree that states can go to war or cooperative based on rationality and their specific interests. Thus, the states are perceived as the core actors of the archaic international system. Obama’s contemplation on the fate of Guantanamo Bay has an overarching inclination towards the critical theory discourse. Through the lens of critical theory discourse, institutions can be illuminated upon to establish how they, with relations, have evolved and how they can be altered (Brincat, Lima & Nunes, 2012). The focus on the institutional change is part of critical theory discourse application, and in this context, Obama was focus on bringing a tremendous transformation to the existence and processes of Guantanamo bay. Critical theory is characterized by a tremendous shift of focus from state to individual, and liberty and freedoms of the individuals entrench it. From this perspective, Obama’s aspirations regarding the prison are anchored on stat and individuals' freedom and liberties. Since he realized that the camp does not uphold prisoners’ dignity and the institutional of the Guantanamo bay did live up to expectations, he recommended its dissolution.
From the perspective of Guantanamo bay as an issue of security concern, Obama perceives a holistic interplay of many factors in as seen from the global viewpoint. This perspective explains Obama’s action of critiquing the establishment of the camp, the camp being counterproductive, inefficiency, costly, and as a body burden that derails international partner collaborations. According to Horkheimer, the critical theory discourse revolves around criticizing the community as a whole: this contrast to traditional theory oriented, which is mainly related to society’s explanation and understanding. The critical theory, as part of international relations, is historically rooted in the Marxist tradition during the mid-to-late cold war, and it became part of a post-positivist era (Abromeit, 2011). When we look at Marxism as part of critical theory discourse, we can realize why Obama passionately talks about eliminating the desolate situations and inhumane acts at the Guantanamo Bay; this is because Marxism is anchored on social reforms in terms of rights, values, and economics. 
The wholesome or holistic element of critical theory discourse, as contemplated by Horkheimer, is espoused in Obama’s speech when he talked about various approaches to protecting Americans. He recognized the need not only to work as a nation but as a network of partners, institutions, and other sates to foster safety for all. The critical theory discourse is an integrative process rather than polarizing or dividing one. As a social inquiry strategy, critical theory discourse combines ideas and frameworks: it does not embrace the separations between philosophy and social sciences but encourage the collaboration between the two disciplines. The integration of collaborative, integrative, and wholesome approach permits the critical theory discourse to be practical and moral rather than being instrumental and mechanical. The critical theory discourse under Horkheimer's philosophical grounding seeks is not only about achieving a specific goal ( s) but also aims to attain a sense of human emancipation in the context of domination and oppression in the matters of security and international relations (Abromeit, 2011). Obama’s effort of trying to dismantle Guantanamo bay, improve society’s principles and values such as respect for individual rights and liberties, institutional participation, and global collaboration represent an integrative process, which is a concept in critical theory discourse. Thus, Obama’s plan on the Guantanamo bay issue as an international security phenomenon was treated as a collaborative issue that required diverse stakeholder engagements. The elaborate efforts included collaborative and comprehensive ways of blocking accessibility of deadliest weapons in the globe; this was to be actualized via securing loose nuclear materials, ensuring border protection, increasing preparedness for any threats or natural disasters, creating new partnerships, revamping American diplomacy and disrupting, abolishing,  and dismantling of al Qaeda and its associates.
Terrorism might have emerged due to contrasting ideologies and perceptions pitting particular regions, especially the Islamic states against western and European imperialism and domination. This observation may have contributed to the establishment of Guantanamo bay. The desolate nature and inhumane acts at the camp could have led to more radicalization among the marginalized and less dominant global groups. This broader use of critical theory discourse has presented its offshoots in the international dynamics where there have been efforts to dismantle the state dominancy and Eurocentric assumptions in the realm of security (Abromeit, 2011). More significant space has been created that allows the marginalized groups to air their voices, and this has been followed by an intense move to question the use of forces and threats by the states. The fundamental proposition that has remained relevant in the context of international security and relations is the critical theory discourse, where the world is not examined objectively but in more in historical situations, and this involves the establishment of a relationship between certain circumstances and specific historical contexts. Thus, under critical theory discourse, any development in international relations, that security is part of it, must be evaluated and understood based on the backdrop of fundamental social movements in the globe. In the light of historical narrations, the concept of emancipations, as espoused by the theorist at Frankfurt Schools, for example, Adorno and Horkheimer, remains an issue of contestation in international security issues (Abromeit, 2011). There is a widespread application of critical theories in international security studies and expositions. In efforts to resolved conflicts and improve security, the states have deployed critical theory  discourse to explain, understand various perspectives, and find workable solutions in security matters, as well as maintain international relations. Barack Obama has attempted to deploy critical theory discourse to underspend and communicate different perspectives in international security. Critical theory discourse is more suitable than realism because it is more comprehensive and inclusive. It must be noted that realism is a subtle subset of critical theory. President Obama, in his speech, recognized the importance of protecting American citizens, and this represents part of realism inclinations. Obama acknowledged the need to be accountable, transparent, respect the rule of law and to allow freedom and liberties to flourish. This argument is under the armpit of critical theory discourse that contemplates the need to improve the well-being of individuals through nurturing of freedoms and liberties, as enshrined in the emancipated essential element of theory.
Conclusion
The concept of international relations and security is a sophisticated web of state, institu...