International Relations

International Relations

International relations consist of ethical, philosophical and historical aspects or reflections. All of these aspects inter-connect with each other to bring out the intellectual brilliance behind the world we live in and how everything plays out, ranging from the way people, governments and markets interconnect. International relations has influenced how the world socializes and promoting diversity through breaking social barriers and beliefs.

Realism and liberalism are the main approaches in international relations. Realism and liberalism are two-distinct aspects of international relations.

Realism is a theory which suggests a balance of power within a state and structural anarchy governance whereby the states or a nation’s power can be increased or resisting reduction of power to a state or a nation.

Whereas, liberalism is a theory which suggests extending power or influence internationally and democratization of the international laws, it ensures collaboration of mutual aid to meet human needs.

The changing landscape of diplomacy on foreign policy is taking a new dimension. Diplomatic practice, for instance, has evolved over time, from a dialogue view point to military diplomacy which is more of offensive flexing of military muscle unlike dialogue with a view to reach consensus or a middle ground for both aggrieved parties.

The world’s order and justice systems can be summed up to “a dog which can bark but can’t bite.” Most of the powerful nations abuse or violate deliberately human rights in attempts to acquire geopolitical influence for selfish political ends. Such powerful governments exercise their superior military capabilities to solve geopolitical problems in order to impose their foreign policies on a given country instead of resolving the problem amicably without any loss of life or damage to properties. This leads to abuse of human rights laws and violation of international treaties.

According to Keohane and Nye, Globalization implies something that is increasing. There is more of it. Keohane and Nye went a step further to define “globalism” as a condition which can increase or decrease. Whereas,Waltz defines globalization as movement of vast capital in and out of a country according to their political and economic merit. Waltz limits Globalization to capital, Movement of capital from one point to another.

Keohane and Nye definition of Globalization is broad. Globalization can be capital, goods, information and ideas, movement of people, deploying of military personnel’s exchange of cultures, environmental and biological substances such as acid rain, genetic materials, farm produce etc.

Waltz suggests that globalization is not global, as there are countries which are locked out. His school of thought is that globalization is limited mostly to countries on northern latitudes. Waltz perceives globalization as limited geographically whereas Keohane and Nye perceive globalization as a global program with diverse aspects.

Keohane and Nye and Waltz point of convergence or similarity is that at some point they perceive globalization as capital. Capital can mean exchange of money, or investments or human resource in terms of employees or military personnel.

Waltz’ article puts a perspective on globalization is based on money market, finance capital and the economy as a whole while Keohane and Nye idea of globalization is broad, mainly Information Technology, human resource development, movement of people and goods among others.

Both articles are about socioeconomic and political globalizations and how each of these factors interconnects to each other.

The authors’ main points are how our economic, social and political aspects are linked globally. They all share the view on how all social, economic and environment interdependent on each other. The authors’ agree on the same school of thought that all these social, economic, environment and political factors are moved from one place to another i.e. from one continent or country to another.

Keohane and Nye’s perspective on globalization is in different forms such as military, environmental, social-cultural globalism whereas Waltz’s perspective is entirely on finance capital and economy globalization.

The main argument is on the dimensions which globalization is defined, Keohane defines it as something that’s increasing while Waltz defines it as moving vast amount of money electronically according to a country’s political and economic merits.

Keohane and Nye supports their argument by stating that globalism which is the same as globalization suggests that it’s a system of network of interdependence on multicontinental distances.

Military globalism by Keohane and Nye as a way of cold-war diplomacy was practiced by United States and Soviet Union during cold war era. Globalization has been practiced by countries in the northern latitudes with Africa, Middle East except Israel, Russia being left out.

Theoretically, globalization penetration needs countries with good governance, transparency and political will to succeed. Both perspective echoes globalization as a tool for growth through adopting sound leadership, management with superior technology to be integrated into the global village. The authors agree on globalization having a reciprocal effect to the countries or region adopting this kind of international relations to foster economic, social and political growth. However, they disagree on the dimensions and application of globalization, as Keohane and Nye are of globalization is multifaceted; social and cultural, military while Waltz is a single approach to economic growth.

The argument is effective, by leveraging on both perspectives one is able to draw out conclusive facts. The evidence is factual on the case that United States usually manipulates the foreign policy to meets her economic needs. The fact is that globalization is used by the powerful and developed nations to increase their economic and military might at the expense of the less powerful nations. The articles have shown a dramatic shift in international relations by developing countries. On a ositive note, globalization has enhanced a better world.

International relations consist of ethical, philosophical and historical aspects or reflections. All of these aspects inter-connect with each other to bring out the intellectual brilliance behind the world we live in and how everything plays out, ranging from the way people, governments and markets interconnect. International relations has influenced how the world socializes and promoting diversity through breaking social barriers and beliefs.

Realism and liberalism are the main approaches in international relations. Realism and liberalism are two-distinct aspects of international relations.

Realism is a theory which suggests a balance of power within a state and structural anarchy governance whereby the states or a nation’s power can be increased or resisting reduction of power to a state or a nation.

Whereas, liberalism is a theory which suggests extending power or influence internationally and democratization of the international laws, it ensures collaboration of mutual aid to meet human needs.

The changing landscape of diplomacy on foreign policy is taking a new dimension. Diplomatic practice, for instance, has evolved over time, from a dialogue view point to military diplomacy which is more of offensive flexing of military muscle unlike dialogue with a view to reach consensus or a middle ground for both aggrieved parties.

The world’s order and justice systems can be summed up to “a dog which can bark but can’t bite.” Most of the powerful nations abuse or violate deliberately human rights in attempts to acquire geopolitical influence for selfish political ends. Such powerful governments exercise their superior military capabilities to solve geopolitical problems in order to impose their foreign policies on a given country instead of resolving the problem amicably without any loss of life or damage to properties. This leads to abuse of human rights laws and violation of international treaties.

According to Keohane and Nye, Globalization implies something that is increasing. There is more of it. Keohane and Nye went a step further to define “globalism” as a condition which can increase or decrease. Whereas,Waltz defines globalization as movement of vast capital in and out of a country according to their political and economic merit. Waltz limits Globalization to capital, Movement of capital from one point to another.

Keohane and Nye definition of Globalization is broad. Globalization can be capital, goods, information and ideas, movement of people, deploying of military personnel’s exchange of cultures, environmental and biological substances such as acid rain, genetic materials, farm produce etc.

Waltz suggests that globalization is not global, as there are countries which are locked out. His school of thought is that globalization is limited mostly to countries on northern latitudes. Waltz perceives globalization as limited geographically whereas Keohane and Nye perceive globalization as a global program with diverse aspects.

Keohane and Nye and Waltz point of convergence or similarity is that at some point they perceive globalization as capital. Capital can mean exchange of money, or investments or human resource in terms of employees or military personnel.

Waltz’ article puts a perspective on globalization is based on money market, finance capital and the economy as a whole while Keohane and Nye idea of globalization is broad, mainly Information Technology, human resource development, movement of people and goods among others.

Both articles are about socioeconomic and political globalizations and how each of these factors interconnects to each other.

The authors’ main points are how our economic, social and political aspects are linked globally. They all share the view on how all social, economic and environment interdependent on each other. The authors’ agree on the same school of thought that all these social, economic, environment and political factors are moved from one place to another i.e. from one continent or country to another.

Keohane and Nye’s perspective on globalization is in different forms such as military, environmental, social-cultural globalism whereas Waltz’s perspective is entirely on finance capital and economy globalization.

The main argument is on the dimensions which globalization is defined, Keohane defines it as something that’s increasing while Waltz defines it as moving vast amount of money electronically according to a country’s political and economic merits.

Keohane and Nye supports their argument by stating that globalism which is the same as globalization suggests that it’s a system of network of interdependence on multicontinental distances.

Military globalism by Keohane and Nye as a way of cold-war diplomacy was practiced by United States and Soviet Union during cold war era. Globalization has been practiced by countries in the northern latitudes with Africa, Middle East except Israel, Russia being left out.

Theoretically, globalization penetration needs countries with good governance, transparency and political will to succeed. Both perspective echoes globalization as a tool for growth through adopting sound leadership, management with superior technology to be integrated into the global village. The authors agree on globalization having a reciprocal effect to the countries or region adopting this kind of international relations to foster economic, social and political growth. However, they disagree on the dimensions and application of globalization, as Keohane and Nye are of globalization is multifaceted; social and cultural, military while Waltz is a single approach to economic growth.

The argument is effective, by leveraging on both perspectives one is able to draw out conclusive facts. The evidence is factual on the case that United States usually manipulates the foreign policy to meets her economic needs. The fact is that globalization is used by the powerful and developed nations to increase their economic and military might at the expense of the less powerful nations. The articles have shown a dramatic shift in international relations by developing countries. On a positive note, globalization has enhanced a better world