http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola-virus-outbreak/american-doctor-exposed-ebola-sierra-leone-admitted-nih-n213206
Recently an American doctor was exposed to the Ebola Virus while treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone. The doctor will be treated at The the National Institute of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. The doctor will be held in a private room for patients with infectious diseases and is not thought to be a significant risk to the staff treating him. The article attached also features a short video where President Obama addressed the U.N regarding the Ebola Virus outbreak. He urged all countries to take action and get involved in aid of this disaster. Reading this article and hearing Obama's speech made me think about which theories should be utilized in coping with this situation. Does a single philosophy better address Arica's Ebola outbreak or would a combination of different philosophies be this best action in dealing with this problem. I thought Realism and Liberalism best applied to the Ebola outbreak in Africa.
Realists believe thats states are self-interested and independent. They believe that states should act independently and that other states pose a risk in their control of power. Realism has a major weakness in that they don't account for context. They believe that the only factor of power relates to the strength of the military. Realism fails to address cooperative situations in International Relations. A complete Realist government would likely be unwilling to provide any support to Africa in their difficult time. They would argue that states can not rely upon each other in dealing with infectious diseases because it puts a tremendous burden and risk upon a states own national well-being. In helping Africa, they would be putting their own state in risk of contracting Ebola and it would cause a financial burden that takes away from the support of a states own national programs. By aiding Africa in their disaster a Realists state would be taking on a risk to their own power. Control of power is the central concept of realism and a true Realist would be unwilling to take on any action that might threaten their own states control of power.
Liberalism believes that states must be interdependent and work together in order to succeed. Liberalism fails to consider power and how states cannot always avoid conflict through negotiations. A Liberalist would believe that their state must aid Africa as much as possible. They would think states are strong but together are even stronger. A true Liberalist would support Africa as much as possible in the relief of Ebola even if it meant sacrificing their own financial budget.
I believe the best course of action in Africa's Ebola outbreak is to find a middle ground between Realism and Liberalism by incorporating concepts from both philosophies. A state has its own priorities and must protect their own people first and foremost. Draining endless amounts of money into the relief of Africa's disaster when there are many national programs that need support is foolish and weakens a state. National government spending should contribute to the relief in Africa but not so much that it limits support of our own national programs. Having said that, there are ways to support other states without putting a financial burden on one's own nation. By actively seeking donations and volunteers in aiding for the Ebola disaster a state can contribute to the relief of Africa without causing economic burden to their own government. States should realize that we are all humans and therefore are responsible for the well-being of each other.
I think you are right in that there should be a balance between realism and liberalism but I feel as if constructivism is that balance between both paradigms. Constructivism would help explain well why the United States should help with Ebola. However, with the American doctor being infected, it has become American interest to protect against Ebola. But I do find it true that no one paradigm really fits international relations.
ReplyDeleteI think America should do everything in their might to rid the world of this terrible virus. If that means going to the source, Africa, to make sure no one in the U.S. is harmed, then I think that should be the course of action. The U.S. should put its own people first and take appropriate action.
ReplyDeleteA lot of paradigms could be applied to this situation. If a true realist responded, only selfish and self-preserving actions would take place. The combination approach of both, however, is interesting because it is a suitable blend to preserve oneself and others. America should take the lead with other countries or by itself if necessary. Immediate and appropriate action is undoubtedly crucial before this virus gets out of hand.
ReplyDelete