Perspectives of International Relations Theory in International Organizations

The realist perspective of International Relations is critical for forming, for lack of a better word, realistic expectations and the policy needed to meet those goals. While liberalism holds that policy should be crafted with idealistic means and ends in mind, realism maintains the importance of accepting the world for what it really is and acting in a responsible, appropriate manner. A good comparison of these two concepts is seen in the approach to global security offered by the United States and that offered by most European nations, especially the emerging European Union. Much of my early understanding of realism and liberalism, also know as idealism, comes from Robert Kagan's "Of Paradise and Power", a short study of the increasingly apparent contrasts between American and European powers and how these powers interact with the rest of the world. Mainly, Kagan holds that Europe has the luxury of taking the liberal high ground when dealing with security threats, promoting diplomacy and cooperation over force and coercion. America, playing global police since the end of World War II, has provided Europe with the security necessary to view the world through that idealized lens, as they have had the luxury of ignoring security (provided by America) and focusing on economic and social institutions. Basing much of our foreign policy on our status as global hegemon, America's realistic approach to foreign relations, using preemption when necessary, clashes with Europe's integration and push for us to all sit around a campfire and sing "Kumbayaa".

When dealing with international organizations, the realist approach must be eschewed in favor of liberalism by the very goal these groups work towards. International organizations work towards peace. How effective they are in doing so is an entirely different matter. Nonetheless, the march towards peace requires cooperation, compromise, and tolerance. Realist theory maintains that cooperation is nearly impossible as states exist solely to serve themselves. Realism holds that compromise will rarely be reached, as politics is a zero-sum game where if someone wins, someone has to lose. Lastly, the realist state-centric model as the defining characteristic of international relations stands in direct opposition to maintaining any lasting peace, as state interests are put ahead of any common good. That leaves us with liberalism/idealism as the gold-standard of international organizations, and if these organizations are ever to effect real change, promoting peace and doing so on an equitable basis could, in the future, move IR theory past the state and into international organizations as the dominant player on the world stage.

The Marxist approach to International Relations focuses on the converging world as driven by economics, specifically capitalism. Marxists see the world as a struggle between the haves and the have-nots, with the haves manipulating the have-nots so as to ensure everyone stays in their proper place. Class warfare is at the center of the Marxist approach, and the greed inherent in a capitalistic system will maintain the status quo unless the working class is willing to revolt. When applying this to international organizations, it's difficult to accept the Marxist approach as applicable as this view holds revolution as a core tenant, an obvious impediment to peace. Likewise, the work of ending war and securing that peace is an extremely costly endeavor. First, securing peace requires vast amounts of monies for troops, transport, supplies, etc. Then, the process of maintaining that peace involves setting up alternatives so those involved in fighting can focus there energies on improving their lives through non-violent means. This means providing schools, work opportunities, etc, and the infrastructure to support all this. Again, this is costly, and the funding must come from the haves, so a degree of cooperation must be met which in turn discredits Marxism as applicable to international organizations.

Feminism is interesting to me because as a male, I had never thought of the possibility of gender bias in history or in the manner which information is presented. Understanding that bias, gender, racial, etc, is very real in much of the historical record and is still very much alive today, I believe the feminist movement is both necessary and inherently good. That said, I also feel that the modern feminist movement has been hijacked by ultra-liberal crazy nutjobs (sorry for the informality, but I do believe this). Looking back into history at the origins of the movement, the first feminists were pursuing a very worthy and righteous cause. Frances Willard and Betty Friednan, among others, were true crusaders, and their work should be both admired and emulated. Unfortunately, today we see Betty Friednan's NOW used for purely political purposes, having long sacrificed their ethos to serve their own warped agenda. It's an organization for women, right? Why have they shunned a certain female VP pick if not for political reasons? This isn't a group for women; rather it is a group for women with one specific opinion. As such, NOW should not pretend to speak for women everywhere and fight for their rights because their focus is not on women in general, as was the intent when NOW was founded. When this group brings politics so squarely into the mix, they automatically lose credibility as a champion of women's causes through their inevitable alienation of the majority of women. Polls on this support me here. Let's rename the group the National Organization for Liberal Women, and they can promote the agenda of that specific group of women and stop claiming to advance the cause of women everywhere. Unfortunately, NOW is at the center of the feminist debate, and while feminism was originally about choice, today NOW's feminism is about their choice. Whew.

The feminist movement can be seen in international organizations as more women are deservedly moved into positions of authority. One of the worst abuses in the world is the subjugation of women, and when we see them able to achieve, based on merit, mind you, we see further proof that feminism is alive and well. Think about what happens in these oppressive societies where women are kept out of sight and out of mind. They aren't allowed to speak to males, they can't leave the house without being completely covered, etcetera etcetera. Based on numbers, that country then loses over half of their total potential brain power when women are kept in subservient roles. Even if you are literally anti-women, for selfish reasons alone a logical person would say, "My chance at improving my live goes way up when more brains are around to help the cause". Why would these nations throw away all this potential? The importance of advancing women's rights can not be overstated. At the same time, we need to be careful not to reverse-discriminate in the process. If discrimination is wrong for one group of people, it's wrong for every group and should never be allowed to occur.