While I appreciate the views on globalism throughout Keohane and Nye’s article their views can be combined into one mega-theory instead of two contrasting ones. There are aspects of political realism that are applicable to nations around the world such as: nations involved in international politics continuously preparing for, being involved in or recovering from war (71). In regards to ‘complex interdependence’, the idea of issues being both domestic and international can be combined with ‘political realism’ to make what is known as ‘interdependence realism’.
Political realism reflects periods of history where nations are simultaneously being on defense and offense with other nations. Although this theory is more suggestive of the use of direct military force, nations can prepare or recuperate domestically without military forces. Kassim hinted at this in his “Military Security and International Politics” post when he talks about subtle military action as opposed to major attacks that are not as common in today’s world.
The use of ‘political integration’ included in ‘complex interdependence’ is for the well being of a particular nation and can be very temporary; there are issues that can be viewed as both domestic and international because America is not a completely isolated nation. The opposing views of international politics includes a mix of “complex interdependence” which is more of a way of looking at the world as a whole and it’s connectivity while “political realists” focuses in on a particular nation and it’s position in the world. The two ideas are not mutually exclusive and can be combined into a grand view of international politics.
