The work of Morgenthau, a realist, is very important when referring to power and the role of states in the international system. The below quote from him shows how Us is demonstrating and acquiring more power through its actions.
‘Politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining, demonstrating it determine the technique of political action’ (Morgenthau 1965:195).
The main ideology is that war is a part of life and that the world is not populated by people who are adverse to warfare. War is a part of the international system and must understand why it occurs and why it is not unlikely. The theory of political realism believes that the society in general, politics and the military is, in Morgenthau’s viewpoint “governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature”.
A 1/3 of the world’s population is at war. As the US and its allies pondered the wisdom of going to warin Iraq, more that 1/3 of the world's population was already involved in conflict. In 2002, 30 countries around the world were fighting in 37 armed conflicts - a combined population of 2.29 billion people. In the democratic rep. of Congo (Africa’s world war) claimed more than 3 million lives between 1998 and 2002.
This reinforces the quote above. It shows that Hobbes, also a realist was correct when he said that
“Humans are predatory, greedy and seek self-interest”.
The first main principle of realism is that of human nature. The theory of political realism believes that the society in general, politics and the military is, in Morgenthau’s viewpoint “governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature”. Due to the fact that human nature hasn’t changed in its most basic form since its formation, also puts further emphasis on the viability of realism, due to its position as being a theory which time does not effect. Whereas in classical times it were tribes who would push to take over other lands that were for their self-survival, which is the most basic of human nature characteristics.
In contemporary times, there is just as much self-survival and security seeking with the Americans taking it one step further by introducing pre-emptive strikes to protect their homeland against a threat which was not there such as demonstrated in the recent conflict in the Gulf surrounding Saddam’s alleged link with Al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. Morgenthau expands this theory by introducing the fact that realist theory is about “ascertaining facts and giving them meaning through reason”.
Thucydides (c. 430-400 BC), The Peloponnesian War: “International Politics is driven by an endless struggle for power which has its roots in human nature. Justice, law, and society have either no place or and circumscribed”. Thucydides, in the 5 BC, is often portrayed as the founder of the school. His analysis of the Peloponnesian War was an exposition of Realist concepts. For Thucydides, "the real reason… [For the war]… was the growth of Athenian power and the fear this caused in Sparta."
In contemporary times, there is just as much self-survival with the Americans taking it one step further by introducing pre-emptive strikes to protect their homeland against a threat which has not even matured, such as demonstrated in the recent conflict in the Gulf surrounding Saddam’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. Morgenthau expands this theory by introducing the fact that realist theory is about “ascertaining facts and giving them meaning through reason”. One of realism’s greatest attributes is that it can test theories and hypothesises against the actual facts of the day. It does not make up theories, which only work in certain scenarios.
One of the key elements of realism is that it sees power as the essence of interest. Power can be defined in many ways, it will be seen as anything which can increase ones influence over another, whether ‘one’ refers to a state, party, individual, group or something else, or as Morgenthau puts it; “power may comprise anything that establishes and maintains the control of man over man”. Realism sees this concept as an objective category, which does not allow for differences in opinion about what is power. For instance, wealth and military strength is something which power can be associated with, and is universally accepted as being at certain strength. However, other motivations can have a different emphasis depending on who is looking at it, for example, religion. As a further clarification, a tank is a tank in anyone’s language, whereas religious thought can be categorised differently by different groups. Therefore a realist only looks at those elements that can be quantifiable. This is an important advantage of realism as it keeps the argument very much in reality, as the name suggests.
Due to the fact that realism can look at the larger picture and make a judgement based on all the facts, it makes it a better tool for analysing the current world events. Morgenthau claims that “the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful political action”. Realism takes a step back from the immediate situation and weighs the consequences of possible action in order to decide if the course of a war was the right and most suitable course of action in which to take. Realism’s ability to analyse the events in a separate manner allows the philosophy to become more viable in the international arena.
A final element of realism is how applicable the theory can be in politics. The philosophy tries to understand international politics as it really happens and doesn’t try to imagine what the world is like. It lives the reality of life, it doesn’t try to imagine what the states are doing; it looks at how they are acting and analyses this information; it needs proof that the accusation is true. This makes the philosophy very useful in international relations, where it is often the case that the contemporary situations are very complicated and it is easy to make assumptions. In the current scene, information is often held out of public view for decades after an event making a real time assessment of activities hard to complete. Therefore it is necessary to make reasoned estimates, but realism makes these guesses with more care than liberalism, due to the realist emphasis on reality.
In conclusion, it is fair to state that political realism is a viable philosophy of military affairs. It looks at the larger picture of international affairs and uses past experience and logical thought to make conclusions as to the state of the world. It does not make rash estimates of the situations, nor does it put emphasis on the optimistic side of the argument. It is a pessimistic viewpoint but this normally becomes the most useful view to take of a scenario as it allows the foreign policies to be developed into the more treacherous plans, which ultimately reduces the risk of unexpected action taking the state by surprise. It is the safest theory in which to live by.
There are naturally a number of issues that arise that question the completeness of the realist theory. These are becoming more important in contemporary times, especially in respect to the power of non-state actors. This makes political realism less viable as a philosophy but ultimately still places realism as the most useable theory.
Of the threads that make up the Realist school, the most important ideas include:
International relations are amenable of objective study. Events can be described in terms of laws, in much the way that a theory in the sciences might be described. These laws remain true at all places and times. The state is the most important actor. At times the state may be represented by the city-state, empire, kingdom or tribe. Implicit in this is that supra-national structures, sub-national ones and individuals are of lesser importance. Thus the United Nations, Shell, the Papacy, political parties, etc, are all relatively unimportant. The first corollary is that the international system is one of anarchy, with no common sovereign. A second corollary is that the state is a unitary actor. The state acts in a consistent way, without any sign of divided aims. Further, state behaviour is rational - or can be best approximated by rational decision-making. States act as though they logically assess the costs and benefits of each course open to them. States act to maximise either their security or power. The distinction here often proves moot as the optimum method to guarantee security is frequently equated to maximising power. States often rely on force or the threat of force to achieve their ends. The most important factor in determining what happens in international relations is the distribution of power. Ethical considerations are usually discounted. Universal moral values are difficult to define, and unachievable without both survival and power.
From that time there were sporadic writings promoting Realism. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes and the military theorist Carl von Clausewitz were among the best known. Yet, by and large, international relations were a field that was practiced rather than theorised on. Increasingly, raison d’état, Realpolitik, balance of power and other Realist terms entered the lexicon of diplomacy - and rulers framed their actions in terms of national interests.
The power of the US is growing but its leadership is under serious danger. Its growing demonstration of power has meant that it can justify any action by saying it was needed for the security of its citizens and state. It is likely that the realist agenda will get stronger and current events will continue to reflect the realist agenda. The current war against terrorism is far from over for the Bush administration and Iraq is currently in a mess that will not be solved in a short time. Therefore it is growingly important that we focus on the realist agenda as it best assists us to understand contemporary international relations.
Bibliography
Aron, Raymond (1966) Peace and War: A Theory of International Relations London: Weidenfelt and Nicolson
Baylis J & Smith S (1997) The Globalization of World Politics, Oxford:University Press.
Brown, Chris (2001) Understanding International Relations: Second
Edition London: Palgrave
Bull H (1997) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics, London, Macmillan.
Buzan B (1991) Peoples, States and Fear, Hemel Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Calvocoressi P (2001) World Politics: 1945-2000, London & New York, Longman.
Cox R (1996) Approaches to World Order, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Dougherty JE& Pfaltzgraff RL (1997) Contending Theories of International Relations, 4th
edition, New York, Harper & Row.
Goldstein JS (2001) International Relation, 4th edition, New York & London, Longman.
Halliday F (2000) The World at 2000, Houndmills, Palgrave.
Kegley CW (1999) World Politics: Trend and Transformation, 7th edition, & Wittkopf ER New York & Bedford, St. Martin’s.
Keohane RO & Nye RJS (2000) Understanding International Conflict, 3rd edition, New York & Harlow, Longman.
Morgenthau, Hans (1993), Politics among Nations (New York: McGraw Hill)
Neuman SJ (1998) International Relations & the Third World, Houndmills, MacMillan.
Nicholson M (1998) International Relations: A Concise Introduction, Houndmills, Macmillan.
Steans J &Pettiford L (2001) International Relations: Perspectives and Themes, Longman.
Strange S (1994) States and Markets, 2nd edition, London, Pinter.
Viotti P & Kaupi M (2001) International Relation and World Politics, 2nd edition, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
Vogler J (2000) The Global Commons: Environmental & Technological Governance, Wiley.
Aron, Raymond (1966), Peace And War: A Theory of International Relations (London: Weidenfelt and Nicolson)
Baylis and Smith eds. (2001) The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. Second Edition (Oxford: University Press)
Brown, Chris (2001), Understanding International Relations: Second Edition (London: Palgrave)
Morgenthau, Hans (1993), Politics among Nations (New York: McGraw Hill)
Vandersluis, S. (2000)The State and Identity Construction in International Relations. London, pp. 7-30.Contents:
Walzer, Michael (1977), Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations (London: Penguin)
“…a single dominant military and economic state that uses its unrivalled power to create and enforce rules aimed at preserving the existing world order and its own position in that oreder” in Kegley, C and Wittkopf, E. World Politics (2004:407)
Burchill, S et al, Theories of International Relations, (2001: 86)
Kegley, C and Wittkopf, E. World Politics (2004: 4, 11)
Kegley, C and Wittkopf, E. World Politics (2004: 37)
Kegley, C and Wittkopf, E. World Politics (2004: 308, 106)
Kegley, C and Wittkopf, E. World Politics (2004: 179)
Kegley, C and Wittkopf, E. World Politics (2004: 142)
Baylis, J and Smith, S. The Globalisation of World Politics (2001:141)
Kegley, C and Wittkopf, E. World Politics (2004:531) World Politics
Baylis, J and Smith, S. (2001:143)
Baylis, J and Smith, S. (2001:79)
Preface to ‘Project Ploughshares Armed Conflicts Report 2003’, www.ploughshares.ca./CONTENT/ACR/ACR/ACR00/ACR03-Prefaece.html.
Baylis, J and Smith, S. (2001:153)
Morgenthau (1993), pg. 11
Morgenthau (1993), pg. 10
Morgenthau (1993), pg. 12