Liberalism In The 20th Century

Throughout the first half of the twentieth century the world took on a liberal approach in regards to national security, during this time nations were provided with global institutions aiming to eradicate global conflict and promote world peace; unfortunately most of these institutions were faced with nations following their own interests and placing their own motivations ahead of the collective agreement. Subsequently international security should set about towards realism, as it embraces nations tendencies to follow their own motives and takes into account that global institutions are only functional when the state accepts them and adhere to them. Realism allows for conflict to be deflected by a balance of power that can monitor and legitimize …show more content…
From the creation of the institution they avoided all sense of cooperation and unity. By banning the U.S.S.R. and Germany from the league they have already eliminated any balance of power as they have placed a state below the rest and have instituted a hierarchy of sorts. When the statesman Henry Cabot Lodge made his speech speaking out against joining the League of Nations in congress, it demonstrated the United State’s isolationist policy, which can regarded as failed liberalism as the Americans viewed the League of Nations as an organization as something that solely benefited Europe and provided no motivation for the United States to join. The Americans put their self-interest ahead of collective goal of keeping conflict at bay within Europe. Realists comprehend that no state can rely on another to help their own state survive. The United States concede this ideal in their stance to not join in on the League of Nations. The U.S. alternatively decided to better their own country and build up their own military to be able to maintain their position as the most powerful nation at that time. The League of Nations banning Germany and the U.S.S.R. caused the league to forfeit all benefits both military and resource wise that the two countries had to offer. Therefore the League of Nation the endorsement from two of the world’s most powerful countries. Eventually the League of Nations began …show more content…
they were unable to veto the original plan to intervene. But later on the U.S.S.R. re-joined and began to oppose all the plans of intervention the U.S. had put forward in the U.N. As the back and forth between the two Veto empowered countries continued, the more evident it became that the United Nations was not the idealistic institution imagined, but rather the U.N. had become a tool for countries (sitting on the Security Council) to pursue their own interests, in this case the power struggle over the disembodied Koreas. The creation of the United Nations can be held accountable in the further empowerment of the Members of the Security Council. During the Korean War the U.S.S.R. were able to do as they wished without any interference through the United Nations, they were enabled through their Veto power, the same argument can made for the intervention of the United States during the crisis. Seeing as the United States was so resolute to retain South Korea as democratic nation contrarily to the North Korea, which had laid claims to communism largely influenced by the U.S.S.R. Arguably, it was the fear of communism that drove the Americans to demand action on behalf of the United Nations, only to push forward their own political philosophy. But cooperation was not found during the Korean War, as any implication the U.N. had in the war was majorly controlled by the United States, as they supplied the majority of the army and navy. Collective security was a