Compare and contrast the traditional realist view of national security and the liberal view of human security. Are these two views always in contradiction to each other or could they be complementary? In your opinion, which view of security should be paramount?

What will be an ideal response?

A consensus has emerged that now supports the view that people are important, that
they have worth, and, therefore, that ethics and morals belong in the study of
international relations. That consensus notwithstanding, many observers embrace the
traditional realist assumption that vast global forces render people powerless. Realists
recognize that people participate politically but claim they have no real power because
an invisible set of powerful forces described before as the "system" gives most human
beings only superficial involvement without granting real influence.