Realism and Liberalism Essay

cosmosRealism and Liberalism be the two most prevalent ideologies in practicing and analyzing International relations in the last two centuries. They are playing important roles in the conveys. They will directly affect the decision making of the governments and bring effects to the stop relations among countries. Realist mainly put a focus on state, power and national warranter system. It was especially quite dominant in the first phase of the low temperature War. On the other hand, Liberalism pays attention to peoples freedom and rights. It rose up after the World War II as well the end of cool War. From my point of skyline, to a large extent Realism and Liberalism are different from to each one other. They are quite opposite in surmisal. The differences between Realism and Liberalism outmatch the similarities. In this essay, I would elaborate these two ideologies in different aspects to talk about.Similarities between Realism and LiberalismAnarchy natureFirstly, for t he similarities, both Realists and Liberals believe in mutiny nature of international system that it is leaderless in the world system. Themajor theories of international relations embrace the view that the international system is anarchic (Adem 2002 19). Both read that there is no sovereignty, rules or systems in the international system. However, these two ideologies got genuinely different perceptions towards what they believe the states should do under this anarchic situation. The differences will be provide below.Differences between Realism and LiberalismThe views towards military man natureFor the differences, the first is that the Realists and the Liberals hold different beliefs towards merciful nature. Realists mainly are pessimistic and conservative. It is essential not to have assurance in human nature. Such faith is a recent heresy and a very disastrous one (Butterfield 149 47). Realists believe in evil human nature. People are born with hatred and envy,had origi nal sin, war occurred constantly. They speak out that natural passion of human kind will bring out struggles among countries, participation is inevitable (Niebuhr 1932 xv). This can be manifest in the armament race in World War I. Every country tried to maximize their amounts of weapons and lose ones temper their armed forces at that time.Especially Britain and Ger umpteen, their relationship was worsened as there was a dreadnought building competition between them. Conflict is then occurred, pave the way to the World War I. Apart from this, during 1860s, the United States forced Japan to open its market at the threat of attack, which was beneficial for America only (Sr And Teresa 201316). Hence, they also perceive human are self-interested, interest is the most important thing of the state. Political action of the government is judged based on national interest (Morgenthau 1978 4-15). Realists think that national interest is the most important thing of the state.On the contrary, Liberals mainly are optimistic and progressive. They interpret goodness exists in human nature. People are born to be kind, caring and helpful, willing to build trust with others. Apart from this, Liberals stress interdependence, believing cooperation can be enhanced in countries in army to reduce conflicts. Many intergovernmental organizations and institutions are formed in the late 19th century. They are made up of member states.For instance, European Union and World address Organization, they enhance political and economic cooperation among countries. Institutions enhance the economic cooperation and reducing the transactions cost among states (Keohane 1998 82-94). Apart from this, the formation of United Nation was also a typic intergovernmental organization of Liberalism, providing a more understanding of human rights and reinforcing the protection of it. Therefore, witnessing the comparison above, the differences are clearly shown that the Realists and Liberals hold opposi te views towards human nature.The different perspectives on stateThe second difference is the way Realists and Liberals perceive state in opposite angles. State is the most important actor in Realism. They hold a view that sovereignty of the state indicates the independence of thepolitical community. Realists Non-state actors such as international organizations are of use only for matters that do not concern immediate security interests (Harrison 2006 21). Realists will simply ignore the other actors if the interest of the state is intervened. The most obvious of a nations desire is developing military and technology. The atomic arm race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War is a significant example. Atomic bomb was invented at that time which brought a huge threat towards world peace. Realists also advocate realpolitik, securing their own countrys interest before care about others welfare (Rourke 2007 21). This shows realists are entirely state-center ed and tend to pursue self-interest.On the other hand, Liberals is not statism as Realists do. Liberals maintain good governance between people and state. Liberalism stresses the importance of individuality and liberation of human (Sr & Teresa 2013 18). Liberals favor values like political and civil liberties, toleration and referee. Hence, Liberals emphasize more on non-state actors, for instance, multinational corporations like the International Media and non-governmental organizations like the Red drag in and the Green Peace. As the Liberals advocate international cooperation, they pay attention to other countries rights and interest. The International Monetary Fund promotes free trade and enhances the welfare among states. It is also accountable in reducing poverty by subsidizing to members who have difficulties in economy. In short, from the illustration above, it is manifest that Realism is state-centered while Liberalism focuses both state and other non-state factors.The slipway to view peaceThirdly, the ways to go across peace between Realism and Liberalism varies. Realists think the best way to seek peace is to have balance of power. During the arctic war, the two super powers, the United States and the Soviet Union were in bipolar system which was more peaceful. It was because of the domination of the two super powers, causing restrictions for the minor powers to ferment strong, conflicts were then reduced. The realists view power is a very crucial element. The best way to maintain peace is to bepowerful (Rourke 2007 22). Becoming powerful, the national security can be enhanced, and therefore this will reduce the chance from attack. China nowadays is becoming powerful in every aspect after the advance and Opening-up Policy in 1978. She tries to strengthen herself with both hard and soft power in order to avoid the invasion of other countries. She even became one of the members in the World Trade Organization in 2001. Besides, Realists believe every state is responsible to their own survival. However, some critics even argue that realists will rarely lay peace.They would like to define peace as the absence of organized violence (Mapel 1996 57). From the Liberals point of view, there are more ways to view peace. Liberals are self-sacrifice which they emphasis on cooperation. In order to maintain world peace, many international organizations are constructed to work on it. For instance, the United Nations would like to put a halt on the violation of human rights of the states. Apart from this, The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the military alliance, held a Science for Peace and Security programme in 2006 which aimed to promote peace and support civil science cooperation and innovation. International organizations brought contributions in maintaining world peace.Also, the Amnesty International, one of the non-governmental organizations, aimed to prevent abuse of human rights and fight for justice for those who have b een violated. Liberalism also brings the idea of democratic peace. Liberals abandon wars against liberal democracies, but sometimes do not stop the war within illiberal states (Owen 1994 93). They see illiberal states in some way dangerous and unenlightened thus they got no tolerance in them (Owen 1994 96). In my opinion, there are quite many successful examples for Liberals in promoting peace, but still, their views toward peace are quite subjective, which brings limitations and loopholes to maintain peace in the future. In general, by the above comparisons with concrete examples, it is clearly shown that there is a huge difference between the ways Realists and Liberals view peace.ConclusionIn conclusion, to large extent I think that Realism and Liberalism different from each other. The only similarity is that both of them believe that the anarchy nature is leaderless in the world system. The differences betweenthem are articulates with examples in various aspects. For the view tow ards human nature, Realists believe in evil human nature while Liberals believe in good ones. For the interpretation on state, Realists is state-centered, but Liberalists also focus on other non-state actors.For the ways they perceive peace, Realists advocate to have balance of power while Liberals enhances cooperation between nation states. It cannot be denied that Realism and Liberalism are two very distinct ideologies. From my point of view, these two concepts together with neorealism and neoliberalism will still play very important roles in the future of the International Relations. In order to practiced the world peace in a sustainable way, I think the ideologies should coexist and strike a balance instead of only allowing one theory dominating the global world.BibliographyAdem, S. (2002) Anarchy, Order and Power in World Politics, Ashgate, HampshireArt, R. and R. Jervis (2012) (eds.) International Politics Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues (Eleventh edition) (London P earson)Baylis, J. and S. Smith and P. Owens (2013) (eds.) The Globalization of World Politics An Introduction to International Relations (Sixth edition) (Oxford Oxford University Press).Donnelly, J. (2000) Realism and International Relations, London The Press Syndicate of the University Of CambridgeDounan, M. (2011) Realist and Constructivist Approaches to Anarchy, Online, accessible http//www.e-ir.info/2011/08/29/realist-and-constructivist-approaches-to-anarchy/ 29 Aug 2011Harrison, T. (2006) Realism, sovereignty and international relations An examination of power political science in the age of globalization, Online, Available http//scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3549&context=etdJackson, R. & Sorensen, G. (2013) Introduction to International Relations Theories and Approaches, United Kingdom Oxford University PressJehangir, H. (2012) Realism, Liberalism and the Possibilities of Peace Online, Available http//www.e-ir.info/2012/02/19/realism-liberalism-and-the-p ossibilities-of-peace/ 19 Feb 2012Jumarang, B.K. (2011) Realism and Liberalism in International Relations Online, Available http//www.e-ir.info/2011/07/02/realism-and-liberalism-in-modern-international-relations/ 02 Jul 2011Keohane, R.O. (1998) International Institutions Can Interdependence Work?, Foreign Policy, issue. 110, Spring, pp.82-94.Morgenthau, H.J. (1978) Politics Among Nations The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition, Revised, (New York Alfred A. Knopf), Online, Available https//www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htmOwen, J.M. (1994) How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace, International Security, vol. 19, Fall, pp. 87-125.Rourke, J.T. (2007) International Politics on the World Stage, Online, Available http//jeffreyfields.net/427/Site/Blog/3C90C230-B47B-4894-8E8E-F4C5078BDD88_files/Rourke-Realism,%20Liberalism,%20Constructivism.pdfSr, I.N.M. & Teresa, E.U. (2013) Liberalism and Realism A Matrix For Political providence. International Journal of Business and Mana gement Review, vol. 1, no.4, December, pp.15-25.