Exemplary of the kinds of arguments made by realist, liberal and Essay

Exemplary of the kinds of arguments made by realist, liberal and critical theorists of International Politics - Essay Example The liberal theorists believe that there should be equality for all, while critical theorists critically analyze the mechanisms determining international politics. The liberal theorists believe that the facilities and entertainment offered in the Olympic Games should be available and accessible to all the sections of the interested community. They believe that the fact that the organizing committee has reserved some features exclusively for the athletes and sponsors’ representatives only is unjust and should be available to local community as well. (Boykoff & Tomlinson, 2012) The liberals have argued the fact that since the inception of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the 1890’s (known as some other association at that time) was formed as a body consisting of elites only which included lords and princes, and these were the people who would vote and decide the fate of the Olympics. This process then started to include more stakeholders in this decision makin g body but still only a select few that is the big businessmen who would control the commercial aspect of the games. Even today, the voting process is not completely impartial and the votes have been allegedly to be biased with the help of bribery and other benefits to nations who involve in such corruption. Other than this, the security measures taken to protect the Olympic Games involves huge costs which will have huge economic costs as well as psychological ones. The army soldiers deployed in London in areas near the Olympic venue even exceeds the number of British soldiers deployed in Afghanistan. This highlights the fact that the locals have not been treated as equals because the majority of these soldiers are deployed for the security of athletes and organizers’ representatives and not the locals. The realist theorists can present an argument to this according to their beliefs. The realists argue that the security of the nation and in this case, the security of London i s much more important for the good of the nation than sending out more troops to Afghanistan. Sending more troops to Afghanistan will benefit the world overall by fighting the terrorists and keeping them at their home rather than letting them enter into their countries for terrorist attacks. On the other hand, the soldiers deployed in London for the security of the Olympic games is much more important to the nation as it has higher stakes attached to the credibility of England and London to host such a major and prestigious event. Since the reputation, injection of finances and tourists, and credibility of the nation and British government was attached to these games, it is only fitting that the security measures are taken for the good of the country itself. Since the realist theory believes that self-interest has to be the first priority, in this case the security of the nation is more important as self-interest has to take priority. (Dowling, 2012) The realists also argue that in case of an aerial strike with the help of a ground-to-air missile, there may be some damage caused to the residents living in the locality where the incident occurs. However, the damage caused by this will be collateral damage and one that cannot be avoided or rather should not be given the fact that this collateral damage will be much less compared