Discuss one similarity and one contrast between REALISM AND LIBERALISM theories when it comes to how each approaches the sources of peace and conflict in international politics. Once you have done that, read this quotation below from Jussi Hanhimaki's chapter on the history of the UN and answer the following question: what details does Hanhimaki highlight in this quotation that show "realist" considerations being taken into account when constructing the United Nations.Be as specific as you can be in your explanation and include a discussion of what outcomes the drafters of the UN charter wanted to avoid.

Quotation:

The basic issue with which the drafters of the UN Charter dealt was in essence unchanged from the one Wilson and his European counterparts had faced in 1918-19. They wanted to form an organization that would, indeed, be a definite guaranty of peace. There was plenty of skepticism, understandably so given the fate of the League's lofty goals. And, as earlier, the basic dilemmas and conundrums had not changed: How to balance national sovereignty and international idealism? How to reconcile the imbalances between countries over power and influence, over resources and commitments? How, in other words, could one draft a charter that would recognize and effectively deal with the sheer fact that some countries were, in effect, more equal than others? How could one make sure that some countries would not simply walk outas Japan had done in the 1930swhen it did not like the decisions of the UN?

The men who drafted the UN Charter addressed this issue with a simple mechanism: the veto power. In other words, the charter gave superior powers to five of the founding members of the UNChina, France, Great Britain, the United States, and the USSRthat allowed them to prevent any decisions that they viewed inimical to their interests from being made. They became the Permanent Five (P-5) of the UN Security Council, countries that would have both a seat in the most important body of the new organization as long as it existed. This strategy, it was thought, would provide the key countries with an incentive to remain part of the UN. It also provided them with the means of neutralizing the world organization.