#5 Realism (ym)

     Watching the video clip of Greta Thunberg, was thought-provoking. Her speech was impactful and I was happy that the young generation have power to make voice to the international society. However, I am ashamed to say that I did not know a lot about climate strikes until some of my classmates were not showing up to classes on Friday. After learning and researching a little about realism made me think deeper about climate strikes, as well as the idea of realism itself.

     "Today's allies can be tomorrow's enemies." Realism emphasizes the role of nation-state & make a broad assumption that all nation-states are motivated by their national interests. Realists may claim that politics are constrained as a result from human nature, and the absence of a central authority above the state. From a realist perspective, you cannot trust anyone in the world, and therefore you cannot be interdependent among nations or states. One of the most important views as a realist, is that democracy does not work in the society since people have to live with diversity.

     What I realized is that in realism, there is no one who is responsible internationally, because all of their stories are in the nation-state scales. It is obvious that when all the nations and states do whatever they want to do for their national interest, there will be conflicts. However, when those conflicts happen (might be resulting in a war), there is no one responsible for the situation. Connecting this fact to the actions for climate strikes, I think realists will not see the actions as effective. From their perspective, using resources is important to develop their nations and earn greater economical benefits. Even if they end up running out from all the resources, they might claim that it is not their fault. However, at the same time, I want to believe that even the realists have changed ther mind a little bilt from the climate strikes 2019. I was surprised by all the people when I saw the pictures from social media.

     When I was researching about realism, I found out the relationship between realism and the Islamic State (IS) interesting. Obviously, it is true that the actions of Islamic State is such a global issue although they are not a nation nor a state. The overall goal of the IS is to build "Caliph" which is a new country, and block the intervention by the western countries from the geographical, cultural, and political aspects. As mentioned before, IS (still) has a relative power as one of the nations, because they were able to occupy territories from Iraq and the Syrian Republic. The way they maintained this, is by bombings. The bombings by the IS not only exposed menace to the western countries, but a wider area of countries. I think we can conclude, that although the tactics are up to date, the other nation-states are relying on the old strategies which keep a balance with realism. In order for the realists to manage the unstable situation, they view "balance of power" and "prevention" as their priorities. In the case of IS, they are clear with these priorities. In terms of balance of power, countries which attacked the IS (i.e. United States, Russia, France...) only rely on alliances with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran when they are convenient and favorable. For the IS, preventing their enemies by menace (such as bombing for human trafficking) is their fastest way to get their territories back from countries. I think I can conclude, that from a realist perspective, the actions of IS are rational. Because they are strengthening their own power by using the fear of terrorisms, as well as offset the influence of western nations in Iraq and the Syrian Republic. Firstly, the revenge attacks from the western countries will strengthen the emotion of middle-east citizens to support the IS. Secondly, it is creating voluntary actions in order to achieve the group (IS)'s aim, not even being afraid of death.

     I need people's opinions! Thank you!