|
Advantages
- Realists- World is inherently anarchic and states act in their own interests, which means that states will inevitably come into conflict with each other.
- Neo-realists argue that as the international system is anarchic, states are forced to rely on self help in order to achieve safety and security. This can only be ensured through the acquisition of military power, which is likely to lead to war.
- All realists agree on the idea that a balance of power can prevent war and conflict, as was evident in the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction meant that neither superpower in a bipolar world was willing to attack the other, which led to a lack of direct conflict. (This of course doesn't take into account the countless proxy wars that were fought between the USSR and the USA such as in Vietnam, Korea and Yemen (1972)).
- Another good example of the balance of power might be the decline in conflict between India and Pakistan since both states have acquired and developed nuclear weapons.
- Realists also agree that states are likely to avoid war if they calculate that their chances of victory are slim.
- States who wish to preserve peace must therefore prepare for war in the hope of deterring potential aggressors and preventing any other state or coalition from becoming predominant.
- Could be argued that conflict between Islam and the west is inevitable. - Western and particularly American foreign policy is in itself anti-muslim. EG- Human rights violations at Abu Graibh, Guantanimo Bay etc often against muslims, which can lead some to believe that conflict between the West and Islam is inevitable.
|
Disadvantages
- Liberals also accept that state egoism in a world of anarchy makes war likely. However they believe that international anarchy can and should be replaced by international law. This would be achieved through the construction of international and intergovernmental bodies such as the UN.
- Liberals also argue that conflict comes as a result of states desire to achieve economic self sufficiency, as was the case with Nazi Germany for example.
- Peace however can be achieved and preserved through international free trade as well as other forms of economic interdependence. This makes war so economically costly that it becomes unthinkable.
- The inevitability of conflict is dependent on the constitutional character of the state in question. Military dictatorships and authoritarian states are often more expansionist and militaristic in order to achieve both domestic and foreign goals. Democratic states on the other hand are often more peaceful and diplomatic, at least with other democratic states. This is known as the "Democratic Peace Thesis" and is a widely consensual liberal idea.
- Conflict between Islam and the West is not necessarily inevitable as both cultures are massively interdependent. A good example of this might be OPEC. OPEC is an intergovernmental organisation of 14 states which produce and supply oil to states across the globe. 9 out of 14 of the states are Islamic countries and it is therefore evident that conflict is not inevitable due to the liberal idea of economic interdependence.
|
Comments
No comments have yet been made