Realism vs. Liberalism

            In the world of international politics, there are two main viewpoints. The first view is realism. A realist point of view is that the number one thing is security. If the state cannot survive then everything else does not matter. The second view point is liberalism. This viewpoint is that creating trust is most important. Although both theories are sound and well established, the liberalist viewpoint is much better for multiple reasons.

            In international politics, countries are looking out for their own self interests. Each country relies on another for one thing or another. For instance, the United States and China and big trading partners. This was created by a need for jobs in China and a need for products in the United States. Neither country coerced or threatened with military power for this development to happen. It is usually better for a state’s interest to avoid going to war when possible. Trade is a way to peacefully and effectively get the resources or goods that are needed for a state. Realists believe that no state can trust another for a long period of time. If this was true, then the trade agreement between the United States and China would not have lasted this long.

            Another realist point of view is that they believe that each country should try to only depend on itself for everything. This is physically impossible for many reasons. Many natural resources that every state needs are not within their boundaries. Using military force to occupy the region with the resources indefinitely can be very difficult and not always realistic depending on how far away it is, and what other more powerful states are interested. It is much easier and efficient to trade with countries for their resources instead of invading. Trading also makes states less likely to attack each other and more likely to defend each other from rival states. Sometimes it is more efficient to trade with states for goods than it is for a state to make them within itself.

            In total, a liberalist policy in international relations is a better policy all around. Trade agreements can be a much stronger alliance because each state is less likely to declare war and will be more likely to defend each other. A realist’s policy in international relations is that of an isolationist. Isolationism does not work well in the long run. it stagnates thinking and economies.

Feminism in Politics and Business

            Feminism and the problems and patterns that arise with it translate across many different fields in the world today.  The break from the traditional role of the woman continues to be a glaring issue across differing societies and cultures.  Even as there have been great strides to overcome the inequality women face, it is still considered a new and developing topic that has only gained pace in the last one hundred years or so.  Recently in one of my courses, International Management, we discussed the role of women today in the business world.  The challenges women must face in terms of equality and respect are not only an issue in the political world, but also the business world because of the valued masculine attributes both of these areas demand. 

            As Tickner points out in her writing, even when a woman [Jeane Kirkpatrick] rose to a high position in the government as a U.S. ambassador, with “authoritative and forceful public style and strong conservative credentials,” (which also are typical masculine attributes), she was still unable to gain respect from her male colleagues.  In the business world, as in the political world, traditional feminine attributes, such as emotion, relatedness, and nature, are seen as weak.  In the United States women continue to gain ground in acquiring management level positions or high level political positions, but there is still the lack of respect they receive from their male counterparts.  When women do not act accordingly to the stereotype of feminine attributes, instead of being respected, they are seen as pushy, demanding, and over stepping their boundaries. 

            Another very important idea to understand is that the world has advanced from its traditional views toward war and power. In the political realm Tickner proclaims that, in terms of a feminist perspective, “the national interest demands cooperative rather than zero sum solutions to a set of interdependent global problems [like] nuclear war, well-being and environmental degradation.”  The power of a nation no longer relies solely on military power which in itself is traditionally a masculine idea.  The world today is multidimensional and requires skills of all kinds, including those with stereotypical “feminine” and “masculine” features.  The business world is no different and intertwines with how the world is advancing.  The globalization of business has grown so significantly since World War II and is only expanding more rapidly today.  Yet just like power, women have not been able to make significant strides in the global workforce.  The discrepancy between egalitarian societies and those who still treat women as second-class citizens has hindered women all around the world from gaining much ground in the international business market.

            Women’s roles in society have drastically changed over the last century and continue to grow.  However, even with all of these strides, women still face challenges in the political and business realms.  As societies become more advanced and globalization increases, politics and business overlap more than ever before.  Globalization pushes for a blurring of what may be the more powerful “attribute” to conduct politics or business.  This is important for women who are continuously overcoming gender boundaries in these fields and will continue to aid future generations of women who strive for equality to men.               

The Breakfast Club and Constructivism

          The popular teenage coming-of-age film, The Breakfast Club, features five high school students stuck in detention. They all have different social statuses within their high school and feel they must uphold society’s perceptions of them in order to survive the school year. Much like constructivism between nations, high school social groups force students to be something they are not in order to fit in and not cause disruption. Constructivism and high school are similar in regard to the standards the two set for the groups involved and differ in their actors.

In constructivist theory, nations have states, not because they were there naturally when land was formed, but because humans created them to have a form of order and territory. These socially constructed states have identity, security, and structure. Their identity is how they think about themselves in the world in relation to other states. They have security to protect them against attacks or their world status being ruined. Also, the two have a structure that doesn’t have to be a government but allows them to set expectations.

High school has social groups like nations have states. Each high school has similar groups but with different players. In The Breakfast Club, there is a jock, a brainiac, a rebellious criminal, a pretty, popular girl, and a girl who keeps to herself. In order to maintain social order and peace of mind, they must remain within their social group because that is the place society tells them they fit in. Those social groups were not there when the high school was built, they’re there because the students who walk the halls created them. The social groups give the students an identity and a way to compare themselves to other students around them. Their security lies in the fact that if they don’t step outside their group and cause turmoil, no other groups will bother them. Within the groups they have a structure that allows order to be maintained within the social group, like a leader and their closest friends.

But, in both states and high school, nothing is permanent. High school groups can change due to the activities the students get involved in or the people they spend time with. States can change due to their communities, how they’re governed, or the norms and rules they create.

Blog Post One: Devin Clark

The Inherent Imperialism of Liberal Internationalism

            By all measured and stated accounts, the United States of America proclaims itself the defender of democracy around the world. This policy began with the Monroe doctrine during the Jackson Administration continuing through the Cold War with containment policy and culminated with United States intervention in the middle east in the 21^st century. However, this almost mythical foreign policy is nothing more than a thin veneer or paint on a horrible lie. In reality American, foreign policy (Liberal Internationalism) operates in an imperialist manner with ruthless realism.

            

             The best example of actual American foreign in action is what happened to Salvador Allende and the nation of Chile. For nearly fifty years (1932) Chile held regular democratic elections until September 11^th, 1973. To understand event and its significance on how American foreign policy operates we must go back to the election of 1970. Salvador Allende the candidate for ‘Popular Unity’ (a coalition of the left) and won a plurality of votes for president and was subsequently confirmed by congress. Upon hearing that a populist leftist had one office in South America, then president Richard Nixon who had already pulled many strings to try and stop Allende from becoming president, ordered Henry Kissinger to “make their economy scream”. Over the next three years the United States did everything in their power to bring down Allende and his popular programs that nationalized coal mines and other industry. His ambitious Project Cybersyn (an economic machine that would help run the new economy) was threating to Nixon and he said it would be a dangerous alternative for South America. It was clear to Nixon and the United States that Allende had to go.

            So back to September 11^th, 1973. The Chilean military lead by Augusto Pinochet with direct help from the American CIA on direct orders from the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger betrayed the President and began a bloody coup that would lead to ten thousand deaths in the first week and the death of Allende. The following months would lead to the consolidation of Pinochet’s power and the repression of millions of Chileans. By 1974 Augusto Pinochet was now the head of a new military dictatorship that the United States quickly recognized. In the following years the United States would continue to support Pinochet as American economists were sent to liberalize the economy all while thousands of people were killed, imprisoned, and tortured. Every subsequent president no matter the party supported Pinochet. It was not until the amount of human rights abuse grew so much that the international community forced a plebiscite that made Pinochet step down in 1990.

           During the 20^th century there were many Allendes and many more Pinochets, but only one United States. Whether it was Sukarno and Suharto in Indonesia or Mohammad Mosaddegh and the Shah, the United States was always involved. From 1946 to 2000 the United States interfered in 81 foreign elections. This is where the hypocrisy of liberal internationalism really begins to reek.

Nearly every point that defines liberal internationalism can be refuted by real-world actions by its adherents. Respect for institutions such as the United Nations to solve globe problems is thrown away when the institutions have dissents opinions. See the lead-up to the Iraq War when the United Nations inspectors failed to find subsequent evidence of a nuclear program. After failing to convince the international community of Saddam’s alleged crimes, President Bush declared that diplomacy had failed and the famous ‘coalition of the willing’ would stop Saddam.

          Another large tent-pole of IR liberalism is the importance of trade and belief in mutual aid. There are plenty of mutually beneficial agreements between developed countries, a good example is NATO and NAFTA. However, the trade relations between developed and developing nations is downright exploitative. For in IR liberalism the corporation can leave one country and move production to a poor country with little labor standards and produce products for much less. This relation defines IR liberalism and points to its major fault.

         Liberal Internationalism is when boiled down to its bare ingredients is Adam Smith’s philosophy of the invisible hand guiding the free market applied to international politics. So, this means economic interests of corporations become the national interest of nations. And for a corporation, morals are secondary to profits. Capitalism is the major tent-pole of IR liberalism and shapes how the world interacts with itself. Simply put capitalism is competition for scarce resources that naturally leads to domination and inequality. So on the international scale, we see larger and more powerful nations exploit smaller poorer nations in a ‘free’ manner. Naturally, this system creates quite awful deals for lesser nations as they have little say over their countries day to day lives much like a worker. So like a worker they could rebel. And like a corporation Liberal internationalist states much crush dissent. When figures like Allende stand up for their nation they have to be squashed or the entire economic system and therefore international system falls out of control.

          To put it rather bluntly Liberal Internationalism is kind, virtuous, and free until the policies that define it lead to people across the globe suffering. When the suffering fight back or take control liberal IR strikes back with the utmost fury that would make the harshest realist blush. The people of Chile, Iran, and Indonesia know this, it is about time we do to.  

TEST POST