ARE LIBERAL AND REALIST VIEWS OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS STILL APPLICABLE?

                                  REALISM AND LIBERALISM - WHAT ARE THEY?

Realism and Liberalism are the two main political theories which help us to understand international politics. Within each are different schools of thought (classical realism, neorealism, offensive realism and defensive realism are some examples of variation within a theory). 

For realists, politics is about power and self interest, and realists often refer to the theory of  'power politics' to explain what happens in the world of global politics. Realists insist that humans are essentially selfish and that egoism is the defining characteristic of human nature - this means that not only humans, but states as a whole are self seeking since states are run by/ on the behalf of human beings . Realists also claim that the international system operates in a state of anarchy in that there is no authority higher than the state - realists believe that a global government can never be established. This means that global politics operates in a state of nature and therefore is unstable. 

Liberals, by comparison, are relatively optimistic. They believe in balanced harmony amongst competing interests  and while they acknowledge that humans and states are inherently self seeking, they claim a natural equilibrium asserts itself. Liberals also argue that non governmental organisations facilitate co operation between states and keep the peace internationally - if this was the case however, then the EU would have succeeded recently in encouraging countries like the UK to take on a fair amount of refugees, most of whom are fleeing war torn Syria.

                                CAN THIS BE APPLIED TO THE MIGRANT CRISIS?
 Unfortunately Liberal theory cannot be applied here as many countries in the EU are refusing to take their fair share of refugees or are refusing to allow any 'migrants' into their country at all. Realist theory is more relevant here, as the self interested nature of states (state egoism) and humans has been revealed. It would not be in the national interest for most states to take on refugees as they would have to provide for them in terms of housing, food and education - this is why countries such as Slovakia, Hungary, Denmark and the Czech Republic have refused to take the proposed numbers of migrants while Germany has taken a large number of refugees - its population is dwindling and migrants are useful for expanding its workforce.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar (the richest country in the world) and other gulf countries have also refused to take a single migrant, although they are not part of the EU. This supports the realist notion that states are self interested and undermines Liberal theorists assertion that NGOs such as the EU promote peace and harmony - global governance does not appear to be working.

Worryingly, Hungary's prime minister Victor Orban cites religion as his main concern regarding refugees - he fears that Muslim refugees will make it even harder to 'keep Europe Christian'.

To conclude, I think that realist theory can still be loosely applied to international politics in that international politics appears to be state centric (and these states are strictly self seeking) and it does not appear that global governance can or will be effective in the near future. Ideally the Liberal view of international politics would show the EU being successful in relocating Syrian refugees to safer countries but currently this is not the case  - the realist theory of power politics has prevailed with most able countries such as the UK, Hungary and Qatar refusing to take on a fair amount of refugees and getting away with doing so, while smaller countries like Jordan and Lebanon have taken on a huge amount of refugees regardless of whether they can afford to do so.