Are Liberal and Realist Views of International Politics Still Applicable?

What are Liberal and Realist Views?

Liberal views or Liberalism as its commonly known is based around the idea that Humans will help each other and that war is the last resort. They therefore believe in the idea of universal and perceptual peace. Although they do agree that states will pursue activities for their own interest a natural equilibrium will always assert itself and a balance of interests will also appear and therefore create this universal peace. Their are also three key themes relating to Liberalism; Interdependence and Republican Liberalism and finally Liberal Institutionalism. On the other hand their is Realism which claims a more 'realistic view' on global politics and how states treat each other. Therefore they see global politics being about power and self-interest and Realists also state that Liberal view's are deluded and are for a World that does not exist (perfect and happy). Realism just like Liberalism also has key themes however their are four rather than three. They are as follows; State egoism, state craft and national interest, International anarchy and the balance of power.

Ups and Downs of Realism and Liberalism
Since the invention of both theory's they have both been in the minds of many and then in the minds of a few at some point. Liberalism first took shape during the end of World War 1 however original Liberal views can be dated back to the middle ages. Liberal views were very much in the minds of those who created the Treaty of Versailles. However due to this being seen as a failure as the World was plunged into War just 20 years later and not only that but their was the rise of radicalism in Germany and therefore Hitler. This failure then led to the marginalization of Liberalism after 1945. During this period of Liberal failure Realism was in the forefront of everyone's mind as Liberal views faced more and more criticism as they were seen as views that were for another World. During the Cold War Realism continued to be the leading theory however in the 1970's Liberal views gained momentum once more this time mainly in the form of neoliberal institutionalism. When the Cold War finally ended in 1991 this was seen as the Liberal moment in World affairs as states views were competing but they were able to find a solution to this in order to bring peace and harmony to the World just like Liberals see it. Not only that but Liberalism gained even further momentum due to the growing impact of globalization. As Liberalism returned in new forms so did Realism in the 1970's. The two theories then became more and more similar and the distinction between the two has now become blurred, more than ever before.

So were are they today and can they still apply?
First of all Realism is very much still alive and kicking. One of the reasons for this is that, international anarchy (discussed above as being one of the key themes of Realism) remains a basic feature of global politics. Also Realism and its consequences continue to be discussed about when governments decide to make actions the world over. A very recent example of this is with the US and their foreign policy. Mainly when talking about the War on Terror and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This is because the US just ignored all other countries and their opinion on the invasion and just thought about themselves (state egoism). So what about Liberalism? Liberalism is also flourishing in today's World and it can be argued that it is doing even better than Realism. The reasons for this are as follows; The European free trade and movement agreement is based on interdependence Liberalism. A very recent and on going example of this is Germany letting in thousands of migrants for nothing in return. Although ironically they have now taken back control of their borders and have said "no more". This can then be linked back to Realism. However their have been some recent divisions within the Liberal thinkers inner circle as, Republican Liberalists believe that Globalization and the growing power and integration of transnational cooperation's has undermined the quality of domestic democracy. With regard to what I believe; I think that Realism is now more suited to today's World. This is because more than ever we are seeing tensions build up around the World as Nation states try to build up their statue i.e North Korea and its attempts at a Nuclear Weapon's programme. Not only that but I do feel very strongly that states only act in their self interest and their are very few that discuss with others, how a certain action will effect other States. For example you can argue that the recent migrant crisis has in part been caused by the U.K and other nations as they persist on bombing the middle east and Syria in order avoid a potential terrorist attack or even just to make themselves look dominant on the World stage (state egoism). So in answer to the title of this blog. I very much think that Realist and Liberal views are still applicable.

What is the importance of Palestine when debating Sovereignty?

What and were is Palestine?
First off we need to have a basic understanding of what Palestine actually is. Palestine is a region in Western Asia between the Mediterranean sea and the Jordan river. At the this current moment it is made up of Israel and Palestine the state. Palestine is currently one of a few observer states to the UN. This meaning that it does not have the rights of UN nations such as voting. However on September 14th 2015 136 UN members recognized Palestine as a state. Palestine currently has a population of around 4.4 million spread across the two areas of land in which it claims. I say claims as Israel will argue that Palestine does not own any area and Egypt as well will try and claim the Gaza strip. The Gaza strip is one of the areas of land in which Palestine claims along with the so called west bank.

Were has Palestine's State Sovereignty gone?  
As we know from the previous blog state sovereignty was originally laid out in the Peace Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. A state is therefore able to control fully what goes on inside their borders due to internal sovereignty. However within Palestine this internal sovereignty has been eroded in the last 65 years or so up until today were they are only a tiny state. As you can see from the image above it was once a large state in 1946 however in 1947 the UN voted in favor of splitting up Palestine into two states, the other being Israel. Surprisingly both the U.S and the Soviet Union voted in favor. The Soviets especially voted in order to reduce British Influence in the region. Then in 1967 Israel sent troops into the West Bank and the Gaza strip in order to finally get rid of Palestine. However they were really doing this in order to be recognized as a state from the Arab nations around them such as Egypt. During the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza strip 4.6 million Palestine's left and became refugees in states such as Syria and Jordan. Israel occupied these two regions up until 2005 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to take troops out of the two regions and peace talks began. However Israel only gave little bits of the West Bank back and the whole of the Gaza strip as you can see from the fourth image above. Although Palestine owns the Gaza strip and bits of the West bank its internal sovereignty is all but eroded. This is because Israel has a blockade around Gaza which controls who goes in and out. You can also argue that Palestine's external sovereignty has gone also as, when Hamas took over in 2005 they stated that they will not recognize Israel as a state and wants Palestinians to return to their rightful homes (Israel). However as soon as this was stated Israel blockade the Gaza strip. This then shows Palestine are viewed as a weak state and other nations i.e Israel are not afraid to perform actions that may cause a conflict.

Palestine's importance when debating Sovereignty
A state is defined in four ways; 1.Defined territory 2. Permanent Population 3. Effective Government 4. Capacity to enter relations with other states. Palestine has just two of these and it can be argued that they may have three. They certainly have a permanent population and as small as it is a defined territory. However both regions are controlled by two different bodies. Gaza by Hamas (which a lot of states consider a terrorist organization) and then the West Bank by the Palestine Liberation Organization Although it could be argued but both these rune their region relatively well under the circumstances. Then finally do they have the capacity to enter into relations with other counties? Well after 2011 when Palestine were accepted as a non-member observer state to the UN and 132 states now recognizing Palestine as a nation state. It can now be said that Palestine does have some external sovereignty due to states now noticing them. However the major factor in this argument is that Israels external sovereignty is stronger than Palestine's internal sovereignty this then shows that other states do not view Palestine as one with its own sovereignty so they can do what they would like to and it will not effect Palestine as they cant react in the same way other states can. This is only highlighted by the blockade of Gaza by Israel. So when looking at the importance of Palestine when debating sovereignty you could argue that they have hardly any and that it is all taken away by an external state. In this modern era should this really be happening? I think not.

What was the Treaty of Westphalia and why was is so important?

Pre Treaty
In order to know why the Treaty of Westphalia came about and why it is so important you first need to outline what happened before the treaty. The answer to this question is the thirty year war. The thirty year war began in 1618 when Roman emperor Ferdinand II attempted to curtail the religious activities of his subjects. However this sparked a rebellion from the protestants. Ferdinand II Roman Catholic army which was commanded by Albrecht Von Wallenstein  began to try and take command of major protestant regions. However the protestants called for aid from the rest of the protestants in the Roman Catholic Empire. However it did not really help and by 1629 Ferdinand II and his Roman Catholic army had overrun most of Protestant Germany and most of Denmark. Subsequently later on in 1629 Ferdinand then created the Edict of Restitution this therefore reclaiming even more land that hand been owned by the protestants but would now be owned by the Roman Catholic Empire. This now meant that the Holy Roman Empire now stretched across from the edge of France to Poland and from the tip of Denmark down to the very bottom of Italy. However not all of Germany was taken as yet and their was one big turning point that would go onto to save the Protestants. This turning point came from the Swedish army. So in 1930 the Swedish army landed in Germany led by King Gustavus Adolphus and with the help of a subsidy from the French were able to drive the Roman Catholics out of much of Germany by 1931. The protestant revival continued well into 1934 by which time the war had now been taking place for 16 years. However the Spanish stepped in and stopped this semi-revival by the protestants and subsequently pushed them back, as they were a major Allie of Franz II. This then pushed the Protestants out of southern Germany. However this then had consequences elsewhere as France felt threatened, of being encircled by the Catholic movement so they then declared war on Spain in 1935 and then Ferdinand II in 1936. For the next twelve years the war was largely fought on German soil as Armies just maneuvered around in order to try and run each other down. This subsequent wearing down of each other eventually led to the end of the War as armies struggled to relocate and feed their troops.

When  did the treaty begin to be laid out?
Now that we have a greater knowledge of the thirty year war and why this took place. It is now the appropriate time to begin talking about the treaty. The peace conference to end the war began in the December of 1644 and it involved 194 states. These 194 states were represented by 176 representatives but their were also thousands of supporting staff who had to be sheltered and given food and water. The main point that comes from supporting these thousands of supporting staff is that the rest of the country was suffering from mass famine and in some cases this led to Cannibalism. Not only that but the first 6 months of the were spent arguing as to who was to sit were and who should enter room in front of whom. This sounds and is unbelievable as the war was still taking place at this time and populations were starving yet 176 people took 6 months to decided who should sit were. Although this is ridiculous you do also have to bear in mind that this is 1644 so it took over 20 days to send a communication from say Stockholm to Madrid which is a distance of 3,136 km were as now you can catch a flight and be their in just under 4 hours. So this fact that it took so long for the representatives to reach agreements as to who should sit were is partly due to how long it took to travel long distances.

Who benefited from the treaty?
4 years after the original discussions had began the treaty was finally signed from 14:00 on wards on the 24th October 1648. The reason why I have stated the time at which the signing ceremony started is because it took three weeks to organize the ceremony to then start at the set time of 14:00. This then further, supports my point that travel in the 16th century was difficult over long distances and this is why it took 4 years for this treaty to be finally signed by all 194 states. So back to answering the subtitle question who benefited? Well everyone other than the Roman Catholic empire you could say. The treaty gave independence to Switzerland and the Netherlands from Austria and Spain respectively. Sweden gained territory and cash, France also gained the territory of Alsace-Lorraine which is a large strip of land along the border with Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg (5,597 square miles). However one of the major impacts in which the treaty had was that the prospect of a conquest of Europe by the Roman Catholic Empire vanished for ever and Protestantism was in the world to stay.

Why was the treaty so important?
The first reason as to why the Treaty of Westphalia was so important is that it laid down the foundations for the political system of Europe. It did this due to the territorial and geographical arrangements that were laid out within the Treaty for example Switzerland gaining independence. These policy's that were laid out continued to be the basis of the state system up until the French Revolution of 1789. Now that states had their borders now laid out international law came about because of the Treaty. As states began to create their own laws and laws that effected any number of the states were made such as the fact that the problem of war could now be prevented by negotiations. Also the Treaty got rid of the era of religious wars. However it can be argued that it led to some of the bloodiest wars in human history such as World war 1. This reason for this is now that states had set borders they could not longer just take land. This then led to the rivalry between Germany and France over the Rhine land. Germany would go onto occupy much of this land during World War 1. Their is no doubt that the Treaty of Westphalia was a great success and it has outlined states as we know them today. But it has caused some further problems down the line.