Liberalism

Liberalism, if we want to talk about liberalism we have two big aspects in this topic,
the economic and politic aspect, so first lets talk about the economic aspect.
Liberalism economic came from intellectual traditions, that if we want to take a look
furthermore, was started from the works of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the
assumptions key of classical liberalism in XIX century said that everyone will gain a
maximum profit if the government let them do it by their own, without any
intervention, and also the state could do a open and free trade with others states.
These things caused because they saw the market as the most efficient tools for
managing the production and trade that the people did that happened almost like
an Invisible Hand that direct and coordinate the economic system. The liberal
think that every human act rationally, in this case, the rationality proved with the
ability of someone in considering the lost and profit of the action they took.
According to Adam Smith the government also has a big role in the economic
system, according to him the market did not need to fulfill all the public needs, also
the government need to make rules and regulations so there will be no infraction
and also keep on the good competition inside the market itself.
However, the classical liberalism stated that, the situation that giving many benefit
to the people in the long periods of time, will happen if the intervention of the
government keep to the minimum level.
Although, the liberal theoretician in the XIX century against the intervention of the
state or government in the economics process, however in the XX century the
liberal had decrease the opposition with the nation intervention. In the reality after
the World War II (In the western economic process) the state showed a big role in
the economics activity in directing the individual and firms and also gave a subsidy
for the people. In the medieval of the XX century, Keynes had an important role in
the International Relation Liberalism and in the daily practice of International
relations.
The Keynesian economic theory, that supported the government policy that did
intervention in order to managing the free market economic system. This theory
became the base of the Bretton Woods system , the goal of the Woods system are
to facilitating the economic growth , the development, and the trade that provide a
stable frameworks for the international economics system.
The politics Liberalism does not contain just one concept, some of the liberalism
people has been applied their ideas about liberalism in the community and politics
obligation.
One of the liberalism thinker was, John Stuart Mill, he thinks that government is a
necessary evil, in another words, government needed to protecting the freedom of

the individual, but can turn to oppression and tyrannical if the authority cannot be
control.
The liberalism saw rationality or the logic essence or the thought as the ability of
the people to understood the moral principal in form of tools-goals or profit-loss.
This stream of thinking eventually related to Kant theory, that the only way so this
situation can be handle is finding the State Peace.
In liberalism generally the focus of analysis are to enhancing global politics and
economics cooperation, so beyond than just the state, the liberalism also have
another big actor such as the MNC, IGO, and NGO. The state is always seeking
rational behavior as much as they are seeking the compromise between other
nations. The behavior or the goals of the state who are implementing liberalism are
economic prosperity and stability, they also seeking for collective security,
international law, and economic interdependent, the thing that pretty much
collaborating.
The strengths of liberalism are it helps to explain cooperation in International
system, it also helps to understand the economics of International Relations, there
are also weaknesses, like they dont explain the conflict happened because of
cooperation and fall back on to national security as their number one concern.
Realism
Realism is the most well-established theoretical perspective in International
Relations. Indeed, it has been argued that realism has dominated International
Relations to such a degree that students, and indeed scholars, have often lost sight
of the fact that it is in fact one perspective amongst many. The result is that realism
is often presented as if it were a commonsense view of the world against which all
other perspectives should be judged. We will return to this notion of realism as
common sense later in the book. At this juncture, it is enough to highlight that
realism is one perspective in IR, not the perspective.
By entering the 20th century, realism appear, especially in England and north
America .An actual or real means that there is, the word showed the objects or
events pointed to something that truly, it means that not just a delusion or what
have in mind. Real is showed what is the truth. Reality is condition or nature of real
objects, which is contrary to that looked. In a general sense, realism means of
compliance to the fact, to what happened, so not to be expected or desired. But in
philosophy, the word of realism used in the sense that more technical.
In narrow term, realism assumed that the object was real, things are there, there
were apart from the fact that things that we know, or in our perception. To the
realists, the nature and one of the things that we can do is to establish good
relations with him. A realist tried to do this, not to interprete according to desire or a
belief that it was not tried in the case. A British realist said that we cannot go from

the fact that there is difference between things and idea. For common sense, idea is
an idea of a thing, an opinion in our mind that showed a thing. In this case, thing is
a reality and idea is how the thing looks like on us. Because of that our mind have
to adapt with the things. The thing will not adapt with our mind. We have to change
our idea until it becomes suitable. This kind of thinking is the realism way. Realism
makes the things more real.

Differences between the Realism and Liberalism:

In Liberalism State is not the only actor, there are NGO, MNC and IGO as the
other actors, while in Realism state is the only actor.
The concern in Realism is the state security, while in Liberalism the concern
is about the state economics and political system.
The focus analysis in realism is the struggle of power among state, whereas
in Liberalism the focus of analysis is enhancing global Economy and Politics.
Realism is based on inherent anarchy in the International System, while
according to liberals, hostility does not come from human nature.
According to realism the state are selfish and seeking for power, but
Liberalism said that state have self-interest but are rational.
Conflict is the dominant theme in realism, and cooperation is the dominant
theme in liberalism.

The similarity between Realism and Liberalism:

State as the main actors

There will always be self-interest, or national interest.
Anarchy are in the system
Focus in on international system , external factors ( beyond the state).

The world Phenomena:

The Syrian Civil War

Violence escalated and the country descended into civil war as rebel brigades were
formed to battle government forces for control of cities, towns and the countryside.
Fighting reached the capital Damascus and second city of Aleppo in 2012.

By June 2013, the UN said 90,000 people had been killed in the conflict.
However, by August 2014 that figure had more than doubled to 191,000.
The conflict is now more than just a battle between those for or against President
Assad. It has acquired sectarian overtones, pitching the country's Sunni majority
against the president's ShiaAlawite sect, and drawn in neighboring countries and
world powers. The rise of the jihadist groups, including Islamic State, has added a
further dimension.

Read more..
Sources : BBC News - Syria The story of the conflict.html
The realism perspective in this Syrian civil war is definitely theres always struggle
of power in the conflict, where the rebels want to take over the state, also we can
see that the United Nation has a such a minimum role in the effort to calming the
war. There are various of great power competing on how will they effect the change
of Syria, and the Russia and China vetoing anything in the United Nation, because
they do not want the UN to intervene in the sovereign affair of a state, also we can
see how the European and American trying to help the rebels but since they dont
have any share of power and political and also military intervention they cannot do
much about it. So the Realist itself see this issue as the critical one.

The liberalism perspective, think that this is an attempt to construct a consensus on

how you can get norms and rules and laws, and also cooperation to solve a
problem. So that would focuses on all the leaders in the worlds, to bring peace to
the region. So the liberalist see this issue diffrently

Reference:
(Pettiford February,2009)
Pettiford, Jill Steans & Llyod. Hubungan Internasional, Perspektif & Tema.
Yogyakarta: PUSTAKA PELAJAR, February,2009.
Video of Steve Smith, on bringing International Theory to Life

Elisabet Karema Najoan

Muhammad Fajri
IRE14-class 3
President University