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.
Trade and comparative advantage are essential for many nations to survive. A country like the U.S. could have the ability to produce A and B, but if another smaller and less developed country can produce B, then their comparative advantage allows them to be prominent in the market and both help the U.S. and themselves in the long-run. Liberal ideas are the driving force for trading success and developed rapidly over the last hundred years in the world. The world is becoming more globalized every day and the realist ideology of power is not the most popular viewpoint in many nations anymore. Trade is power and also is beneficial for all. Yes, it can create problems when trade agreements are unfair or a more powerful nation attempts to take advantage of a developing nation, but it is actually becoming even harder for this to be done as well. Nations are focused on creating good long-lasting relationships with all nations. Today, that is how power is really shown.
ReplyDeleteI feel that both ideologies of Liberalism and Realism are fundamentally flawed. I will focus on the idea that trade is first of all a peaceful process and a mutually beneficial relationship. First of all the implementation of NATO while on paper did not kill anybody it did displace thousands of Mayan farmers in Chipas mexico which did lead to the Zapatista revolution that did lead to death. Or what about the millions of factory workers in the rust belt that lost their jobs and were driven to poverty that is economic violence. Also while trade agreements between countries like France and the United States are mutually beneficial, trade agreements between a country like Sri Lanka and the United states are almost explicitly exploitative with workers in the poorer country being paid pennies on the dollar to the exclusive gain of the first world capital.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I disagree and believe that Realism in International Politics is better. I think that countries have a responsibility to their people and should protect them at all costs. It is perfectly reasonable for a country to produce everything that it needs in order to help their country prosper. If it can be made in one part of the world, why can't it be made or grown in another part. If it's physically impossible for something to grow in the United States, the United States can create their own company that can grow it in a factory or send people to Africa to retrieve it. States in a nation can work together in order to benefit the nation as a whole but, nations can be independent from other nations. If countries are invading each other in order to get resources, it's similar to trade but they're being self-sufficient and as long as both parties are doing it, they have no cause for war. This will allow the most security for a nation because it will cause less conflicts than disputes over trade and trade agreements.
ReplyDelete