International Affairs for Thought! Where do you stand?

So you think you know how the world works? Just to be sure.... did you know....

THE THREE BIG IDEAS:

In International Affairs there are three major schools of thought; Realism, Liberalism (NOT American Liberalism but Internal Affairs Liberalism) and Constructivism. These schools are prisms by which political theorist view interaction between nations on the world stage.

Realism focuses on the relationships between states through the prism of power. The ability of a state to grow and prosper can be understood through its ability to muster enough power (whether it be wealth, prestige, culture, military, diplomatic influence) to enact and cause desired outcomes that grow that power, and decrease that power of competing states. This is the oldest of the political theories (Machiavelli is one of the founders see left), which views international relations as a struggle for national survival. A nation can only survive if it has the POWER to ensure it!



Liberalism focuses on the cooperative aspects of interstate relations rather than the competition between them. States because of International institutions and/or the common facet of a democratic government can breach interstate divisions and cooperate to prosper. International trade and NATO illustrate this mutual democratic cooperation and the UN and International Organizations show this internationalist cooperative facet of liberalism. According to Liberalism, interstate relations are not a zero sum game but rather a positive sum game. Cooperation is mutually beneficial and prosperity is achieved from peaceful and harmonious interaction, rather than competition. Let Me, Help You, Help Me, Help You!

While Realism and Liberalism were the main driving forces behind internal political theory in the 20^th century, a new political theory of Constructivism emerged in the late 20^th century. Constructivism emphasizes the power of ideas and their effects on the international stage. In the 21^st and 20^th century non-state groups have emerged as influential and powerful forces on the world stage. Whether it be terrorist organizations, global NGO’s, multinational corporations, or simply internet communities; non-state actors have increasingly become prominent facets in international politics. What empowers these groups are communities of individuals with shared ideas or objectives coming together. While these groups are not new, their influence has become increasingly recognized in modern political thought. IT IS KINDA COMPLICATED NOW!

—

Do you think International affairs are about the power game between competing states and cooperation is simply a means to shared power? (YOU JERK?)

Do you believe the world can cooperate together in liberal theory trading and solving problems in a mutually beneficial way (whether it be the “nation building” and free trade strategy of George Bush or the Barack Obama commitment to internationalism)?  (YOU DUMMY?/WUSS?)

Or do you think history is driven by ideas not states striving for power under realist perspective and partnerships under shared liberal theory? (WHY ARE YOU MAKING THIS MORE COMPLICATED? ITS ACTUALLY VERY SIMPLE!)

As for myself, my answer as many of yours probably does, barrows from 2-3 of the theories. Each theory has merit but clear disadvantages. How you can be a hardcore realist explain the benefits of international trade, or the post cold war world? How can you support the liberal theories and explain the failure that the UN has become, the increasing tension between democratic states like Pakistan and India and the negative consequences of free trade? How can you be a pure constructivist and say the main factor is increasingly becoming non-state actors when terrorism is funded/supported by state actors, NGO’s are funded by liberal international states, and multinational corporations regulated by the nation states they are based in? States still appear to determine the game! Or do they?

—

I would give you  my two cents on how the world works below… but I have to keep you coming back for more do I not? (*insert evil laugh here*). I will post how I mold the three tomorrow! Just for a hint… reread the first post.

For now… ask yourself, how do you view the world and where does your ideology fit into these three? Comments are welcome if you think I am misrepresenting anything!

Further Reading: http://www.alanalexandroff.com/Snyder.html An excellent article that was in “Foreign Policy” a prestigious political journal. Someone was nice enough to transcribe the text from the article to their personal site.