Critically evaluate post-war realist explanations of international politics with particular reference to power

Authors Avatar

                                                                                        

Essay: Critically evaluate post-war realist explanations of international politics with particular reference to power.

                                                                                        

The following essay will critically examine post war realist thought with particular reference to power. Realist assumptions can be traced back to the political realism of Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes. Post-war classical realism, long the dominant perspective in International Relations, was dominated by scholars such as E. H. Carr, Hans Morgenthau and John Herz. As Gilpin argues, realism is a “general orientation, a philosophical disposition”, not a monolithic viewpoint. However, it expresses a distinctive set of assumptions about the nature of man and the world system. Along with its historicism, the main characteristic of classical realist thought is the emphasis on power politics among states.  Realism is overtly concerned with war and advocates believe that “they are facing the world as it is.”   It is a problem-solving approach as opposed to a critical theory in that it takes the broad outlines of the present world to express unchanging facts about the human condition, and works within these outlines.  It therefore claims to be “realistic” in the everyday as well as the technical sense.  Although the focus in this essay is on classical realism, it should be noted that neo-realists broadly adhere to the same model of power.  While theorists such as Waltz have challenged the exclusive emphasis on states in classical realism and recognise economic and other actors as power-holding units, they have not challenged the classical model of power.  Therefore, this essay will not discuss neo-realism as a distinct perspective.

Power is absolutely central to its perspective, especially in the form of realpolitik, i.e. power politics. As Morgenthau argues, “[t]he main signpost that helps political realism through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.”  Realists advocate a distinctive model of international power.  For realists, power is something which sovereign states possess or strive to possess; it is conceived as an objective, limited and positive-sum resource.  According to Morgenthau, governments of states perceive the national interest as nothing more than a maximisation of their own power as a state. Morgenthau also asserts that national interest or power changes, although the drive for power is constant. Realism is a state-centric approach based on the assumption that states are the main power-holders in a world system seen as anarchic. States fight to maximise their power capabilities such as territory, creating a dangerous, lawless world.  Power therefore operates in a raw form, as physical violence and threat-capacity. Apart from the realist theory of the balance of power which will be evaluated later, realists assert that states determine their own destiny in this anarchic system. The relationship of states with each other is dependent entirely on their power-relationship with each other. The realist account of power leads to a conservative attitude to the possibility of international change.  Realism insists that critical theory’s preoccupation with global reform and the liberal preoccupation with trade are at best naive and at worst dangerous.  By concentrating on the capacity to use force and by assuming that this capacity is unhindered, realists assume that other organisations cannot exercise forms of power sufficient to alter state actions.  Power, treated as more-or-less synonymous with violence, is seen as the exclusive preserve of states.

 The realist account of inter-state anarchy suggests that all states are potential enemies of any particular state.  Thus, power is necessary in order for a state to survive or to defend itself against the encroachments of rival states. Thus, realism asserts that “the meaning of security is subsumed under the rubric of power”.  States have to rely on their own capabilities (i.e. their ability to exercise power) for their security. War can be avoided by careful diplomacy or a state may be deterred by the size and capabilities (power) of another. The world is metaphorised as a “billiard ball model”. Billiard balls represent states conceived as sovereign independent units.  As the balls (states) move around the table (anarchical world), only the hard exteriors (governments) touch.  Power operates like physical force, as heavier and faster moving balls push smaller ones out of the way.  This illustrates at least two crucial aspects of the realist theory of power: its representation of all power in terms of physical force, and its establishment of an exterior relationship between states.  Realism analyses the behaviour of states entirely in terms of their power and their relationships to each other.  

The billiard ball image of the world system is a simplistic representation and has been criticised for being so from advocates of liberal, critical, feminist and Marxist approaches.  As the image assumes a world of functionally identical states, differences between capitalist, fascist and communist states and between developed and underdeveloped states are not taken into account.  Neither are forms of power exercised by non-state entities such as multinational corporations (MNC’s). Liberal scholars, for instance, criticise the unawareness of economic factors in realist analysis. Classical realism asserts that the international economic system exists, but operates as a separate system within which economic interaction happens only within that system. Hence, the international economic system is a separate entity and can be ignored as far as the relationships between states are concerned. This assumption is problematic, because the process of globalisation has changed the face of the international system. In contrast to the realist billiard ball model, Keohane and Nye have provided a metaphor that the international system is more like a ‘cobweb’ in which the units of analysis are the links between actors such as international institutions and transnational economic forces.  There is some evidence for this claim.  For example, recent decades have seen the rise of new international actors such as MNCs, global institutions and non-governmental organisations ranging from Christian Aid to the Zapatistas. Arguably, these new actors rival states in terms of power, often by exercising forms of power which are not captured by a realist emphasis on physical violence but which nevertheless influence state policy.  For instance, realpolitik dictated that Turkey should have supported the recent war against Iraq to obtain economic and military assistance from America.  The state of Turkey opposed the war, perhaps because of fears of domestic unrest or because of pan-Islamic sentiments of solidarity.

Join now!

Neo-liberal perspectives argue that peace and progress in the international system is brought about by the facilitation of trade and the spread of liberal democracy. This theory of “democratic peace” challenges the idea that states are involved in a war of all against all.  As Doyle argues, democracies don’t fight other democracies.  Whatever the problems with this claim, it is true at least for northern “advanced” democracies, raising the question of how the destructive wars of the period 1871-1945 have been replaced by a sixty-year peace.  There does not seem to be any reason why states driven by self-interest ...

This is a preview of the whole essay