On one hand, we have Political Realism was the predominant idea in Europe during the warring eras. It is based on Thomas Hobbes’s view of the world and that the world is in a constant state of anarchy. Each individual is responsible for his/ her being and only yourself can protect your rights because others would trample it down if you don’t. At the same time, you also need not to obey nor respect the rights of others. When applied to a much broader idea of international relations, each nation has to protect itself and self-help is the domineering belief. The dilemma of attacking before being attacked comes into play. As nations desire for power is never-ending, international relations, then, is in the state of constant war. An exemplary example
…show more content…
As the countries I grew up in are close allies of the US, I’m honestly biased towards how I positively view liberalism. The Philippines and Japan have security pacts with the US with the latter promising to protect the former two when the need arises. However, I’ve never really seen a situation where collective security was imposed. NATO is the most famous example of a collective security treaty, but then again, NATO has rarely enacted its power to protect other members. It’s mostly to enforce the will of the United States. It is also said that the right to political independence is part of liberalism in international relations, but we can see time and time how other countries impose on domestic issues they shouldn’t be interfering as it’s within the right of a sovereign State and doesn’t affect other countries whatsoever. Free commerce is effective but has so many faults like market exclusivity. Using NATO again as an example, it also has the same purpose like the Quadruple Alliance because it prevents Russia and other non-member States from moving beyond its boundaries and while the US has pledged to aid the Philippines and Japan, at the end of the day, self-help would be what they’ll end up doing. When war occurs, countries would make their own country their priority. This is what happened during WWII when the Philippines was under US rule and even with Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s direct pleas for military assistance, the US Congress denied it prioritizing the war that could affect US mainland. With all these in mind, I believe that saying the international relations is more of this than that is wrong on various levels, but it is more accurate to say that international relations is dynamic and circumstance demands what kind of response is necessary as given from the example. Therefore, I conclude that it is both of political realism and
As the countries I grew up in are close allies of the US, I’m honestly biased towards how I positively view liberalism. The Philippines and Japan have security pacts with the US with the latter promising to protect the former two when the need arises. However, I’ve never really seen a situation where collective security was imposed. NATO is the most famous example of a collective security treaty, but then again, NATO has rarely enacted its power to protect other members. It’s mostly to enforce the will of the United States. It is also said that the right to political independence is part of liberalism in international relations, but we can see time and time how other countries impose on domestic issues they shouldn’t be interfering as it’s within the right of a sovereign State and doesn’t affect other countries whatsoever. Free commerce is effective but has so many faults like market exclusivity. Using NATO again as an example, it also has the same purpose like the Quadruple Alliance because it prevents Russia and other non-member States from moving beyond its boundaries and while the US has pledged to aid the Philippines and Japan, at the end of the day, self-help would be what they’ll end up doing. When war occurs, countries would make their own country their priority. This is what happened during WWII when the Philippines was under US rule and even with Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s direct pleas for military assistance, the US Congress denied it prioritizing the war that could affect US mainland. With all these in mind, I believe that saying the international relations is more of this than that is wrong on various levels, but it is more accurate to say that international relations is dynamic and circumstance demands what kind of response is necessary as given from the example. Therefore, I conclude that it is both of political realism and