People who witnessed the mayhem of September 11, 2001 are unlikely to forget the horrifying images. That day every news channel would play nonstop footages of people screaming and running away from buildings, airplanes crashing, buildings collapsing, etcetera etcetera. This catastrophic event not only made a mark in history but also paved the way for certain changes in the US policies as well. It tells us that US became more skeptical about their policies and that a shift in their national interest can change and influence their policies as well.
There’s no shadow of a doubt that each theory is equally important. However I find myself undecided with these theories because sometimes I adhere to a realist perspective and then I find myself leaning towards a liberal perspective. If I will make US as a basis for my argument I would say that Realism can really explain why US behaves that way. While constructivist may keep on scrutinizing issues but in the end produces nothing. Liberalist perspective on the other hand is very much utopian I can’t see how one state would sacrifice their own interest for the sake of other states. One of the things that made me undecided is the fact that Norway is very liberal. Norway has a very high quality universal health service which need not to be paid by their citizens, their jails are like hotels where delinquents are free to go out of their cell to work, their cops don’t walk around with guns and on top of that Norway remains highest in HDI and free from terrorists.
Above all, maybe it’s not about the theory that a state subscribes to, but it is the political will and the credibility of the country’s political leadership that becomes the solution to discovering the way through the relations of the global setting. There should no longer be prostitution of national interests, the people and its leaders should have a good grip of the various transformations in the developing world because they are linked to the national community and it fails to relate to the country’s fundamental interest, political leadership is bound to collapse. We can’t afford another leader with serious lack of trust from its people. Benevolent leaders are urgently needed because I believe that they affect the domestic and foreign sphere of policy making.
There’s no shadow of a doubt that each theory is equally important. However I find myself undecided with these theories because sometimes I adhere to a realist perspective and then I find myself leaning towards a liberal perspective. If I will make US as a basis for my argument I would say that Realism can really explain why US behaves that way. While constructivist may keep on scrutinizing issues but in the end produces nothing. Liberalist perspective on the other hand is very much utopian I can’t see how one state would sacrifice their own interest for the sake of other states. One of the things that made me undecided is the fact that Norway is very liberal. Norway has a very high quality universal health service which need not to be paid by their citizens, their jails are like hotels where delinquents are free to go out of their cell to work, their cops don’t walk around with guns and on top of that Norway remains highest in HDI and free from terrorists.
Above all, maybe it’s not about the theory that a state subscribes to, but it is the political will and the credibility of the country’s political leadership that becomes the solution to discovering the way through the relations of the global setting. There should no longer be prostitution of national interests, the people and its leaders should have a good grip of the various transformations in the developing world because they are linked to the national community and it fails to relate to the country’s fundamental interest, political leadership is bound to collapse. We can’t afford another leader with serious lack of trust from its people. Benevolent leaders are urgently needed because I believe that they affect the domestic and foreign sphere of policy making.
