Session 5: (realism: not a harsh way to see international politics)

In today’s world, when international system has moved towards liberal ideas like free-trade, benefits of dependence, globalization, people see realism as a harsh and aggressive way to see international politics.

Critics of realism that peace is possible in international arena through different approaches like building an over-arching or supranational body to check and balance and avoid conflicts. However, we still see that the assumption build by classical realism about the balance of power to avoid war has not proved wrong, especially after the advent of nuclear weapons. I don’t agree with what the reading says that balance of power does not exist in reality. Today we only see hard conflicts and wars between two states out of which one is very weak or not a nuclear power for example, conflict of Israel and Palestine. Why don’t Pakistan and India or USA and Japan? And this is the main reason why states are now moving towards economics gains and advantages to gain power rather than using hard power. China is focusing on more to build itself a very stable economy rather than indulging itself in regional or world politics.

As reading suggests that Human nature to gain power is the main reason of conflicts. This interest to gain power is central to the moral of politician. Statesmen morals are always different from a politician and nothing is bad in it otherwise who is going to ensure the security for the citizens?