Political Science to me is something of a cycle, which is attached to the world’s history and is an ever-changing science of communication at a state and national level. This cyclical process is also attached to my personal adoption of political ideologies, i.e., as times change, as well as my surrounding environment, as an individual, I am forced to adapt to my surroundings, rather than a rock smashing through stubbornly regardless of the damage it may cause to all parties. I am not talking of conformism, rather the adoption to my political and social surroundings that would best serve in the interests and security of the community at large.
To provide the reader of a greater ...view middle of the document...
These tend to be the idealists known to us as the Social Democrats of Europe, the Liberals in Canada, and the Democrats in the United States.
Realism at this time and point of history seems to be the actual way that things are going amongst states. Alliances (rather than friendships) are formed and balances are created. These Alliances are not there for anything more than security and self-benefit, of course the other half of an alliance definitely must fulfill its interests as well or else no alliance would be possible. It is a quite simple ideology actually of favors and a meeting of mutual interests. As Hans J. Morgenthau argues international relations is defined by states pursuing their national interests defined in terms of power.
The more I study politics, history, and international relations the better I see the realistic approach in international relations.
I have been delving more and more into the activities of what is known as the “Deep State” and their role which is played in each and every nations policy building, and the way in which countries interact. The more I read books for example about the NSA, CIA, KGB, MOSSAD, MIT, MI5, MI6 etc, I am becoming in a true sense a realist. In reading about these agencies I can truly say that I understand the goals of these agencies are to provide security for their nations and states as well as to gain unimpeded access to the worlds natural resources, in particular oil.
It is this very strategic game which is being played out right now as I write this paper. The Afghanistan issue, the Iraq issue, and most of the regional conflicts from Central Asia to the Middle East are played out by the world’s powers indirectly and sometimes directly, with guerrilla groups being backed by “Deep State” agencies of the more powerful countries. China, USA, Britain, Russia, these are some of the top players in the covert strategic mission of gaining control of the worlds natural resources.
This strategic game may be covered with pretexts, issues such as human rights, and ‘democracy vs. dictatorships’. However, the end game remains pretty simple: to gain control or to secure alliances with the resource nations in the world.
Sir Halford Mackinder and Alfred Thayer Mahan demonstrate a great example of this strategic world map. Their map displays what they call the “Heartland” of the world. This area is heavily rich in natural resources and we can look at this map to see that this area is heavily conflicted as well. This is the chess game that the worlds powers play in order to maintain their edge and power.
Many left wing and idealist movements tend to ignore the realities that States will always, and have always, since the beginning not only of the Nation State, but as well the Empires of History’s past, look out for the best interests of their own nation. Many people criticize the United States for example for it’s global hegemony. To those people I ask where would we be now if the USSR had not...