Realism and Liberalism Essay

Realism and Liberalism are devil major and dominant theories in global politics. They both get under ones skin differentiate ideas when dealing with how states should relate to each other. Realism is a conservative and hopeless theory which states predicts and will act on their national interest unheeding of morals. This belief results from people who are selfish and competitive. Realism is a post that is dominated by cynicism. Realists place each state in the personate of closely observing the actions of their neighbors to resolve problems impressively without regarding moral concerns. Realists exactly requirement to maintain their own security. They always want enough power so they can be strong enough to withstand attacks. They remember that the planetary system is inherently anarchical and can non really be made unruffled except through power. Realists in any case do not abbreviate in democratization. Realists also remember that countries will pursue power regard less of universe democratic. They believe countries will fight for their interests even if they and their opponents are both democracies. Realists aim that only powerful states are true and key actors in internationalist politics.Liberalism is progressive and optimistic. They emphasize that the broad ties among states have both made it awkward to define national interest and decreased the usefulness of military power. Liberals believe that the international system can be manipulated to make peace. Liberals believe in organization like the join Nations. They believe that institutions like that allow various countries to interact in a variety of ways and will tug to less conflict between countries. They also believe in democratizations. They believe that democratic countries will not fight one another. They also believe in non-state actors and their importance. They tend to pay attention to individual leaders and also they give way to non-governmental organizations. Liberals be lieve military power is not the only form of power. Economic and social power matter a long deal too. Exercising economic power has proven more effective than exercising military power.These theories remind me of a documentary that I watched virtually Kofi Annan and the theory that he valued. I believe that there is a rest between force and diplomacy. After watching the documentary, I came to a expiry based on the lectures that Kofi Annan is a liberal. Im saying this because in the documentary, he states that he speaks for the poor, weak and the voiceless. He explains that he does not have power or any military resources. I also realise that, his influence is based on persuasion and morals nevertheless not because hes the Secretary General. Discussing the September 11th disaster (after), he made it very clear that the United Nations interference was not to boldness with one team but to create unity amongst all nations. Thus, this eradicates the realist guide of view. He stat ed that the security of every nation was one of the United Nations goals. I think that no other organization can take this job since its a very difficult task and it inescapably a fair and firm leader who will not be bias, or work because of a personal interest. In the documentary, an example on Sesame Street was used to demonstrate how to instill peace amongst individuals, which explained progress that its not always about talking or persuasion but its the understanding and love that is expressed for one another.From both theories I think it depends on what the person values the most. Its either their expedience or the interest of all. For example, Kofi Annans documentary made me understand.BibliographyKofi Annan Center of the invade PBS