How Useful is the Realist Conception of Power in Contemporary International Relations?

by hamzakhan312hotmailcom (student)

How useful is the realist conception of ‘power’ in explaining contemporary international relations?

Realists explain contemporary international relations on the basis of power connections between states or units. Power is a broad subject and realist conception of power constricts our understanding of contemporary international relations because within realism there are different interpretations and conceptions of power that are unlike each other. However, this does not mean that realism has become redundant; rather it is to explain that realism with many complexities, does to some extent offer accurate tools to understand the events in the sphere of international relations which is backed by empirical evidence. This paper sets out in the following manner. First, it explores classical realism by discussing Morgenthau, followed by Neo-realist ideas of Waltz and, while explaining, it is critically assessed with Liberal and Neo-liberal arguments which would highlight some of the main issues of the realist conception of power. It is argued that realist conception of power is narrow and ambiguous especially when it comes to the measurement and utilization of power and, it is presented that the best way to find truth is by having continuous dialogue between these theories.

In order to create the best possible model of understanding realist conception of power we need to step back and evaluate what all realists share or have in common. Power is central to explaining international relations for any theory of realism (Schmidt, 2005: 523). For realists, states are continuously involved in power struggles in order to improve their security or to at least insure their survival in the international system which is characterized by competition and conflict (Morgenthau, 1954:4). But not all realists agree to what pushes states to be in competition with each other. Thus, some might refer to sinful nature of humans while other might explain by considering the structure of international system.

Morgenthau is one of the classical realists who explained international politics in terms of never ending struggle for power (Morgenthau, 1954: 25). The states are the principle actors and play dominant role in the international system. In Morgenthau’s view, the desire of states to dominate other and maximize power can be attributed to human nature (Morgenthau, 1946: 192)

Classical realists argue that humans are imperfect, selfish and self-interested which translates states behavior in the international system. States compete with each other in order to secure their interest which is power. Because the state is represented by rational individuals, the goal of every state is to maximize their own power (Morgenthau, 1954: 35). All classical realists, whether it is Machiavelli or Morgenthau, argued that the quest to dominate others and the desire to maximize power can be attributed to human nature. According to Morgenthau, ‘man is a political animal by nature’ ‘who is born to seek power’ (Morgenthau, 1946: 168). Schmidt rightly points out that Morgenthau likened the three basic patterns of the struggle for power among states- to keep power (status quo), to increase power and to demonstrate power (prestige) (Schmidt, 2005: 535). In other words, each states action to promote its interest defined as power directly influences the actions of other states and hence, leading to war (Ibid: 536).

But, some important points raised by liberals undermine classical realist’s conception of human nature which serves as the foundation for classical realists. It is important to question whether all individuals

This is a preview of the whole essay

will behave in the same way as described by Morgenthau. Wasserman argues that Morgenthau’s concept of human nature is unscientific, and that science consists of theories or hypothesis whose truth has to establish by critical experiment (Wasserman, 1959: 67). In other words, Morgenthau’s theory is based on unverifiable essentialist laws (Ibid: 68). Moreover, defining national interest in terms of power is ambiguous. There are different institutions that work within a state, thus determining states interest only in terms of power is too simplistic (Schmidt, 2005: 530). Moreover, interest as defined in terms of power by Morgenthau, could be subject to change and interest does not become clear or certain simply because one deals with collectiveness rather than individuals (Aron, 1960: 86)

In contrast, realism like all other theories, does offer accurate tools for understanding some of the past events, for instance, Iran started its nuclear programme to guard against Iraq’s repeated use of chemical weapons (Chubin, 2010: 82). This move by Iran could be considered in conformity with Machiavellian principles arguing that state should “ward off any threat posed by its neighbors’ (Jackson & Sorensen, 1999:73)

Secondly, realist would champion that it was due to bipolarity that Cold War was much more peaceful (Mearsheimer, 1990:36). Realists stress that balance of power which during the cold War was satisfied by Russia and USA might deter war for a particular period of time (Lebow, 2010: 62). Further, the arms race between Soviet Union and USA during the Cold War proves Morgenthau’s assumption that states do act in terms of power to counter balance the threat from outside (Morgenthau, 1954:25).

However, Morgenthau’s explanation and measurement of power is very complex and vague. On one side, he promotes the balance of power which, in his view might deter war, but also had contradictory implications at the international level (Lebow, 2010:63). Morgenthau argues that the balance of power might also intensify tensions and make war more likely because of impossibility of assessing with any certainty the motives of other states. Lebow rightly notes that Morgenthau was referring to some form of unrealistic supranational authority that would prevent states from war (Lebow, 2010: 69).

Additionally, Morgenthau’s assumptions are ambiguous about identifying power because he not only marks moral and wisdom of the statesman as necessary power of a nation, but also measures power in terms of resources (Schmidt, 2005:531). Community, in his view, is as important as military, and in the absence of personal ties and common culture that binds state and its rulers, military capability and alliances will be no guarantee of security (Lebow, 2010:65).

But according to Morgenthau, humans are born to seek power to dominate others. If that’s true, then why expect any supranational authority or moral and wisdom of statesman to recognize the need to coexist in a world of opposing interests and conflict (Ibid: 68)

However, Morgenthau did recognize that some measures were necessary in order for states to protect themselves from certain threats. In order for states to fit Morgenthau’s definition of power, it must have identifiable and measurable resources. These include powerful prepared military, natural resources, industrial capacity, geography and population (Morgenthau, 1954: 129)

But, the question arises whether every state in the international system is or will be able to convert actual power into realized power. Schmidt rightly notes that states possessing nuclear weapons, which Morgenthau would mark as an important element of national approach, would not be able to use it to influence in an issue area such as trade (Schmidt, 2005:530). Moreover, Morgenthau talks about moral strength of the statesman which counts as power and, in his view, ‘adherence to ethical norms is in the interest of those who wield power ‘(Lebow 2010: 64). But as Lebow points out Morgenthau two decades earlier, criticized people for their belief that ethics was an appropriate guide for foreign policy (Lebow, 2010:65). The question here arises if there is no morality, then why emphasize on moral strength of statesman?

As argued above, there are different interpretations of power within realism and structural realism is one of them which explain that human nature cannot suffice as the primary cause of war (Schmidt, 2005:536). Unlike Morgenthau, Waltz emphasizes that states are in continuous struggle because they inhabit an anarchical environment where there is no supreme authority to assure states the safety and security of their borders, thus struggle and self-help is necessarily the principle of action (Waltz, 1989:43). Thus, the best way for a state to guarantee its own security is ultimately to accumulate more power which leads to competition between states (Waltz, 1989:41). In other words, it’s the structure of the system that leads states to struggle for power due to the fact that there is no higher power to ensure peace among states.

Waltz theory is useful in a sense as it can provide an understanding of the actions of nations in current affairs. For example, Waltz theory can help us understand why small states like Syria and Iran move into alliance with bigger states like Russia to counter balance the threat posed by US (Dunne & Schmidt, 2008: 103). As Waltz suggests, states concern in crucial situations is not for power but for security and,

in his view, power is not an end in itself rather a possible useful means, thus, aggressive and expansionist behavior results in counterbalancing and coalitions (Waltz, 1979: 131). This suggestion is proven by events that occurred in the international world. Waltz, however, does not provide any definition of power, rather puts forwards the national power approach to equate power with material resources (Schmidt, 2005: 539). These resources as Waltz suggests, are in the form of military, technology and economic capabilities of states (Waltz, 1979: 131). But the questions here arises that how we measure these capabilities? Moreover, Waltz does provide the rank order of states, but as Schmidt points out that there are no criteria by which we could measure them ( Schmidt, 2005: 538)

Indeed, Waltz theory has many weak points and it has attracted serious criticism from Neo-liberals. From Neo-Liberals point of view, there is a state of anarchy, but that state of anarchy would lead states to some sort of agreement rather than war (Baldwin, 1993:3). The question is posed by some of the thinkers that would it be rational for states to go to with each other? In other words, the consequence of anarchy would lead states to create effective international regimes that would enhance co-operation and promote peace (Ibid: 8). The best example used by Neo-liberals is the integration of European states that is still continuing in the positive direction (Baldwin, 1993,:5).

Realism is not alone with complexities. Liberals stress the importance of cooperation and the possibility that human nature might change, but they do not explain why with such an increased cooperation, wars still happen? Here, it is important to consider Martin Wight who rightly argued that in order to find the truth about international relations; we will have to look for a continuous dialogue and debate between different theories (Burchill & Linklater, 2005:15). As Burchill points out, the right attitude when approaching international theory is to look for continuous dialogue because there is simply no correct theory of international relations that would solve all problems (Ibid: 16). In other words, neither

Liberalism nor realism would solely be able to explain all events of the contemporary international relations. Realist conception of power is not perfect, but it would be useful if considered with other theories such as Liberalism.

In conclusion, realism as noted above has many problems because there is no single theory of realism rather different versions that try to explain the continuous struggle of states. Moreover, the location of power and the use of power have its own complexities. Waltz and Morgenthau’s theory marks ambiguity as both focus on two different ideas with in Realist theory. If we consider Morgenthau, then there is no possibility of changing the world as humans are born to dominate each other. On the other side, if we consider Waltz, then there is a problem in the structure of international system which from Liberals point of view could be solved by a strong autonomous body. Realist power conception is too narrow; however, realist concepts such as drive for power, state primacy and balance of power can be used effectively to analyze the actions of states in the contemporary world. Therefore, realism as a theory makes a major contribution to international relations, but its power conception is ambiguous and has to be studied in collaboration with other theories.

Bibliography

Baldwin, D. A. (ed.) NEOREALISM AND NEOLIBERALISM: The Contemporary Debate

(New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), chapters 1 & 12

Burchill, S., and A. Linklater et al Introduction, in Theories of International Relations (New York: Columbia University Press 2005), chapter 1

Chubin, S. ‘The Politics of Iran’s Nuclear Program’ in Wright, R. (ed.), The Iran Primer: Power, Politics, and U.S. Policy, (Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2010)

Dunne, T. and Schmidt, B. C. ‘Realism’ in Baylis, J., Smith, S. and Owens, P. (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations, 4th edition, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)

Jackson, R. and Sorensen, G. Introduction to International Relations: Theories and Approaches, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)

Lebow, R. N., Classical Realism, in Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S.” (eds.), International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity (New York, Oxford University Press, 2010) chapter no. 3

Mearsheimer, J. J. “Why We Will Soon Miss the Cold War”, The Atlantic Monthly, Volume 266 (2), 1990, p. 35-50

Morgenthau, H. J., Politics among Nations: The struggle for power and peace, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954)

Morgenthau, H. J., Scientific Man versus Power Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946)

Schmidt, C. B., “Competing Realist Conceptions of Power,” Millennium- Journal of International Studies 33 (2005), 523-550

Waltz, K., Theory of International Politics (USA, Waveland Press, 1979)

Waltz, K. ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’, in The Origin

and Prevention of Major Wars, eds. Robert I. Rotberg and Theodore K. Rabb

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) chapter 3

How Useful is the Realist Conception of Power in Contemporary International Relations?

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

How useful is the concept of the balance of power for understanding interna...

International Relations Theory. The following analysis will outline the inf...

What, if any, have been the principal achievements of Poststructuralist app...

What are the core assumptions of realism and why has it been so influential...