ABSTRACT
The aphorism that the more things change the more they remain the same applies to the globalist-realist debate in historical context. One finds echoes of the first idealist-realist debate of the 1920s and 1930s. Globalists hold similar assumptions. They believe that the nation-state is no longer the main actor on the world stage, that force has limited utility, and that international organizations and transnational actors are important agents compelling interdependence in such areas as the treatment of common welfare problems. Contending globalist, realist, and cyclical conceptualizations of the world provide stimulating points of departure to understand events. Idealist premises were embedded in the doctrine of harmony of interests and differed sharply from the realist point of view. Contemporary realists often define world politics simply in terms of the United States-Soviet competition. However, realism clearly applies to other contexts as well. Realism can explain active-passive relations, such as Vietnam's subjugation, of Laos and Cambodia.
