The Attitude of Realism
Both realism and idealism dominate theories of International Relations. Realism dismisses legal concerns in regards to international relations, believes that a powerful state will always outdo weaker competitors and that there is no all-encompassing power that can enforce global rules to punish bad behavior. Idealists see values and their institutions as driving forces (1, Betts). For instance, Woodrow Wilson, an idealist, his ideas led to the creation of the League of Nations. This was an international organization that would protect weaker states from stronger ones. In Richard Betts article Realism Is an Attitude, Not a Doctrine, many modern international affairs are outlined and discussed through both theories of international relations. An earlier issue, the Munich agreement, was discussed which resonates similar issues in both Crimea and Syria. After reading the article, I believe that it is important for a successful state to have both realists and idealists in charge. Both theories balance one another out to ensure a levelheaded disposition.
“Realists are hawks when they see an adversary as a deliberate, implacable, risk-prone aggressor bound to strike if not deterred or defeated by a formidable counter threat…realists are doves when they believe the adversary has limited ambitions that can be accommodated or contained at moderate cost (2, Betts).” Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy permitted the German annexation of Sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia, which was signed in the Munich agreement. It was meant to appease Adolf Hitler and even Winston Churchill found excuses for Adolf Hitler’s demands and rational to agree to compromise. What I found interesting was the realist solution to Hitler’s demands. In the months before Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia an alliance between Western democracies with the Soviet Union should have taken place. It would have been a difficult pill to swallow because Stalin was more murderous...