*Reflection

This week in class we talked about whether liberalism or realism is more interesting and which is the better US foreign policy in international relations. I still agree with my original statement that there needs to be a balance between the two. This is because while I support realism’s desire for military and economic power and security, I also believe that in order to even hope to live in a peaceful world we also need to rule with ideals and ethics.

In some ways I think we already have a balance between the two. I also think economic liberalism, as the US practices today, is also very realist. Liberal-sounding policies are practiced in their own national interest. Economic liberalism enhances the power of the rich and industrialized states. If it did not, these nations would not pursue liberal policies. The US, as the world superpower, provides multiple states (mostly European and Asian nations) with security, and access to trade in exchange for their support. These nations accept America’s role as a superpower. In exchange the US binds itself to these countries, which makes the US appear as a safer threat because of its shared interests with them. As a result, these countries agree to the US system of international relations, because it is in their self-interest to do so. I think this is an example of a smart liberalistic policy because it doesn’t rely unrealistically on the goodwill of people, but leaves open the possibility of purely self-interested motives. This economic policy also fosters mutual relationships between nations that promote diplomacy if an international incident were to occur. For example, trade and the idea of a liberalistic economy make war less likely if your adversary is your customer or supplier. Promoting liberal ideals like this one will make the world a safer place. Countries will be less likely to use power politics and will instead be forced to use diplomacy.

In a sense, realism is still needed to protect liberal ideals. I don’t think the US can survive the way it has without securing its borders and preserving its economic and military freedom, but the US can also not survive without progressing to meet the new threats of the 21st century. My biggest problem with the theory of liberalism is that its ideals tend to be defensive. I think a state’s primary goal should be to preserve itself and that requires a nation to be ready to fight. I believe strongly in individual rights, but also appreciate the value of government in our everyday lives. In doing so, I am willing to follow the laws of this country. Also, because I have been given the privilege of citizenship and have chosen by free will to live here, I am willing to give up some rights for the good of everyone. For example, I am willing to support the Patriot Act as long as it protects me from planes flying into buildings. Liberalism gives us the goal of not having to worry about being attacked again, but realism gives us the means to protect ourselves in case it does happen again.

I would like to end by stating that I think whether we want to or not we live in a world where a liberalistic approach is the most logical for our country’s current situation. Perhaps realism was needed to get us to where we are today, and now liberalism is needed to deal with the problems of today. For example, in a post September 11th world, our foreign policy needs to take into account threats like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, instead of just traditional powers of government. Because liberal democracies are increasing, the world is becoming more globalized and nations are becoming more dependent on each other.