Collective
security organizations have a common interest in preventing war. Its primary
purpose is to alter status quo peacefully. In addition, they ban the use of
military force by one member state against another. The use of economic
sanctions, mediators and organize peacekeeping forces – troops from neutral
third parties help monitor and impose peace agreements. For example, following
the end of the civil war in Liberia which claimed almost 150 000 lives from
1989 to 2003 the UN inserted 15 000 peacekeepers to facilitate disarmament and
demobilization.
Collective
security organizations prevent violence within states as well. Undeniably, the
United Nations has been dealing with civil wars and human rights abuses by
maintaining peace in such places as Rwanda, Bosnia, and, more recently, Darfur.
Collective security organizations are institutions that facilitate cooperation
among their members to different kind of interests. The United Nations (UN) was
created in 1945 as a successor to the League of Nations that was created in1919
and both are examples of collective security organizations.
Realists believe that self – help makes impossible collective security because
of Inis Claude’s principle and that is no foreign countries should be strong
enough to resist collective sanctions. Claude indicates that sanctions applied
directly to great powers that are unlikely to be pressured under a collective
security system, a fact embodied in the Security Council veto. Important is
that major powers must have the economic and military strength to reestablish
peace when threatened by any group of states. But this requires a demonstration
of interests among great powers. Realists undervalue economic sanctions. According
to them few states will by force resist aggressors if the costs are too high. States
fight for their own interest as a result cooperation for them is problematic. Worldwide
institutions are not powerful enough to demand and practice problematic
things. As a result, realists are not shocked
that many of the world’s collective needs, such as the protection of human
rights and the global environment is not fulfilled. Each
state tries to get a bigger percentage for itself; one state’s advance is
another state’s damage; and the risk of war emerges over everything. States
struggle for their own security and power.
Negotiating and pressure are two things that foreign countries usually cooperate.
Dependence means a state controlled, inclined
by foreign countries and international affairs. Interdependence defines mutual dependence. Traditionalists argue
to the longevity in the politics of world. Complex interdependence in
international relations is indicated by Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye who
states and their riches are two important inseparable things. Keohane writes
about how interdependence played an important role and how it did alter the
politics of world. According to Keohane and Nye military and power are not
disregarded in relationship between mutual states. Military interdependence is
always been present, and military power is still significant in world politics.
Traditionalists
point out how military interdependence endures but finds it very difficult to
interpret today’s multidimensional economic and social and environmental
interdependence. Both authors write
about what makes interdependence different from dependence by taking in
consideration power and relation among foreign countries.
They
report that complex interdependence takes three aspects; the use of many
different types of maneuvers among involving states, trans governmental, and
worldwide relations, b) the nonexistence of advices of any problem with
altering important matters and linkages between important problems and the
objective of c) coming up with the idea of a minimized military force and
strong power in relationship among different countries (Kohane and Nye
97.) According to authors the idea of
eliminating the use of military force and improving the economy and other
things in relationship among different countries will for sure bring a
worldwide mutual relation among countries. Both authors’ concepts carried
todays’ concepts that we know as liberalism, neoliberalism and liberal
institutionalism. Traditionalists believe that strong states of strong
militaries and economy are more disposed to rule a lot of societies.
A problem in international politics is the security dilemma by which a state
tries to maximize its security by lessening the security of others. The
security dilemma is understood that a country seeks for power to improve its
status quo as well. Power plays the role of protection. The realist world’ understanding demands that
international community is troubled with arms races and the risk of both
stately and defensive war. Evidence of the security dilemma is well explained
by Thucydides “Peloponnesian Wars” where we learned that it is almost no
political reason to go to war. Athens entered war to conquest for victory and
power. The belief that a rise in military strength leads to a rise in security
is often interconnected to the belief that the only way to security is through
military strength.
The
security dilemma is malicious when obligations, approach, or knowledge takes to
security lies over growth. In brief realists argue that states struggle for
power than of what they gain over collaboration. They see gaining problematic.
It brings exploitation. It
is well explained by Keohane who writes that relations among countries are a
type of Prisoner’s Dilemma. All actors will practice unethical issues when
collaboration is absent. In brief realists see morality another important thing
to maintain power as well. Morality between countries is well
explained in the “Melian Dialogue” telling how Athens attacked the island of
Melos. The Athenian ordered Melians to think about their existence and never for
righteousness. Power brings peace and helps the existence of individuals in the
security dilemma. According to Hobbes realists see power as the need for
existence in an anarchic international system. According to the author negotiation
and agreement help maintain power as well.
Thucydides and Thomas Hobbes signify realist ideas. Realism was given its
modern and scientific appearance by the contemporary scholar Kenneth Waltz. On
the contrary liberalism is a valued tradition, and is embedded in the writings
of philosophers John Locke and some others. Logically, liberalism is the school
of thought and most of them accept many different types of actors as important
in world politics: individuals, firms, nongovernmental organizations, and
states. Realism and liberalism are well recognized principally on interests, interactions
and institutions.
According
to Frieden, Lake, and Schulz who are the author of our textbook “World
Politics” realists indicate that; a) the state is the dominant actor. b) States
seek security and/or power. c) State’s interests are generally in conflict. d)
Realists accept as true that international politics is primarily about
bargaining, in which coercion always remains a possibility. e) International
system is anarchic, and institutions exert little independent effect.
Whereas
liberalism according to Frieden, Lake, and Schultz, indicate that; a) many
types of actors are important and no single interest dominates. b) Wealth is a
common goal for many actors. c) Actors often have common interests, which can
serve as the basis for cooperation.
d) International
politics has an extensive scope for cooperation. e) Conflict is not inevitable
but occurs when actors fails to recognize or act upon common interests. f) International
institutions facilitate cooperation by setting our rules, providing information,
and creating procedures for collective decision-making. g) Democratic political
institutions increase the scope for international politics to reflect the common
interests of individuals.
Anarchy is the absence of government with the ability to make and enforce laws
that bind all actors (Frieden, Lake, Schultz xxviii). Realists accept the
thought that anarchy generates the interests and interactions that it’s seen
internationally. Every foreign country struggles for
security and survival without the use of outside military forces. By collecting power and by making sure
that potential enemies do not become more powerful, states unfortunately, necessarily
bring states’ interests into conflict with one another; when one state improves
its military abilities to improve its own security, it deteriorates the
security of its now judiciously weaker neighbors, a problem knows as the ‘
security dilemma.” For realists, then, international politics is as Hobbes
described the ‘state of nature’; a war of ‘every man, against every man” in
which life is ‘nasty, brutish and short” (Bull 63.) The Hobbesian exercise defines international affairs as a state of conflict in which each state is worn against
every other. International affairs on the Hobbesian understanding, signifies
that the interests of each state reject the benefits of any other. In brief Hobbes states that human
beings are as self-centered. The only rules said in the Hobbesian
tradition to limit the behavior of international affairs are directions of carefulness
or usefulness.
Realists
announce that for the reason of the anarchic nature of the global system, worldwide
institutions are fragile and exercise little autonomous outcome on the politics
of world. Institutions like UN and others simply imitate the interest power of
the dominant countries, which is about their creation and strategy. Realists recognize
that institutions can matter at the side but they still conclude that rules are
unlikely to be followed and that states will always bend to interests and power
in the end. Consequently, liberalism does not see a perfect world, it predicts
a world in which progress is possible. The threat of war can be shortened by promoting
democracy, establishing worldwide
institutions, and encouraging economic interdependence so that every state’s well-being
will be connected to that of others. Economic movement also is likely to create
a too much capital, making it possible to kick states and people out of misery.
Worldwide
challenges give increase to worldwide institutions that make support acceptable
and likely. This optimistic view makes liberalism a more appealing theory than
realism. Theories must be ruled on by whether they describe the world in which
we actually want to be a part, not the world in which we would like to be a
part. At the national level, liberals accept as true that democracy is the greatest
way to guarantee that government’s foreign policies imitate the agreement of
interests between existences. In this understanding, conflict and war are the burden
of selfish politicians, hungry militaries, and greedy interest groups, whose
influence can be controlled only by permitting the people through democratic
institutions. At the relations between countries the possibility of support
gives to a call for institutions.
Self-help is an act in an anarchic understanding. Realists believe that in
self-help a country should rely on no one but itself only for security reason
and that is a country tries to maximize its security by lessening the security
of others. They say that a country must have power and be hegemon as well. Realists
see also for example “status of a country” as an important thing in self- help
system for the reason that its foreign policies won’t be unsuccessful. In
addition, help-self makes relation between countries difficult. Realists
believe that ‘development’ occurs when leaders of countries are conscious about
their relationships is everyone’s interest. As I mentioned above in my writing
negotiation and agreement helpful to maintain power are controversial in
today’s world for the reason that it doesn’t bring peace but more likely one
state’s interest. According to the author morality doesn’t work in a self-help
system especially today where comprehension is important. This means that
countries need and always brings out new ideas and speak up about their today’s
issues.
Power has always been a vague perception for the experts of international
politics. The traditional understanding was that military power ruled other systems
and that states with the greatest military power controlled international businesses.
Power is understood of as the capability of an actor to get others to do
something they else would not do. Also it’s apprehended in terms of control
over outcomes. For the reason that the capability to control others is connected
with the possession of resources political leaders define power as the control
of resources. These resources consist of population territory, natural
resources, economic, size, military forces and political solidity between
others. When we guess that asymmetrical interdependence can be a source of
power means the possible to have emotional impact outcomes. A less dependent
actor in a relation has an important political recourse, for the reason that
changes in the relationship are expensive to that actor than to its allies.
This benefit does not guarantee that the political recourses provided by hopeful
asymmetries in interdependence will lead to similar patterns of control over
outcomes. There is rarely a one to one relationship between power measured by
any type of resources and power measured by effects on outcomes.
Political
negotiation is the usual means of clearing up possible into effects, and a lot
is often lost in the renovation. Realism sees a rather depressing world of
states challenging for power under the shadow of war, and many of the unkind structures
of the politics of world mentioned above drift from this understanding. The
risk of war it’s controlled by watchful diplomacy and temporary agreements
between states that face common threats but neither domestic nor international
institutions can deliver a lasting peace. Moreover, economists tell us that free
trade makes all countries mutually wealthier, but realists understand limitations
on trade and capital flow as functional measures to increase a state’s power.
Liberalism does not call for interest domination over others.
U.S.A Journalist
