INTRODUCTION
The
tradition of political realism (power politics) has a long history that could
be traced back to the great Greek historian Thucydides in the fifth century BC
(Morgenthau, 1946: 42; Gilpin, 1986: 304; Ferguson and Mansbach, 1988: 35,
82). Although dominant attitudes towards
realism have varied, realist arguments and orientations have been central to
the Western theory and practice of international relations.
Realism
is often referred to as power of politics, and its central focus is the acquisition,
maintenance, and exercise of power by states. Power can be “hard” in that it is
identified in terms of tangible military capabilities such as tanks, planes,
troops and missiles; or “soft” implying influence that results from ideas,
wealth, political and economic innovation. Realists analyse international
issues in terms of security, war, and other forms of violent conflicts.
Many theories of international
relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe
only in one or another. The major schools of thought are differentiated
principally by the variables they emphasize such as military power, material
interests, or ideological beliefs. Realism, Liberalism, Marxism and Feminism
are the main approaches to international relations.
International
relations first emerged as an academic discipline after World War I, largely in
reaction against realist balance of power politics. The discipline was then
reshaped immediately after World War II by self-identified realists, E. H. Carr
and Hans Morgenthau. Prominent scholar-practitioners, George Kennan and Henry
Kissinger, called themselves realists. For most of the post-Cold War era, realism
was the dominant paradigm in the study of international relations (Cusack and
Stoll, 1990: 1–2, 19; Rosenau and Durfee, 1995: 9; Schweller, 1997: 927).
REALIST
VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Realism
emphasizes the constraints on politics imposed by human nature and the absence
of international government, making international relations largely a realm of
power and interest. Nature, according to realists, is at its core egoistic, and
thus inalterably inclined towards immorality. Machiavelli said that, in
politics “it must be taken for granted that all men are wicked and that they
will always give vent to the malignity that is in their minds when opportunity
offers” (1970: Book I, ch. 3). Realists also stress
the political necessities that flow from international anarchy, that in the absence of international government,
“the law of the jungle still prevails”
(Schuman 1941: 9). The interaction of
egoism and anarchy leads to “the overriding role of power in international
relations” (Schwarzenberger 1951: 147) and requires
the primacy in all political life of power and security.
THE NATION-STATE
The realists
point out that the nation-state is the central actor in the international
system. Two new dimensions, nationalism and sovereignty have been added to the
modern state, with emphasis that people were no longer simply subjects to be
ruled, but the very source of the government. This led directly to an increase
in public participation in virtually all aspects of political affairs and to
the emergence of a new form of government, democracy.
The
state is a unitary and rational actor. Realists say that while sovereignty and
autonomy may be considered rights in the legal theory, in practice the final
say requires power to deter outside intervention. According to structural
realists, order and stability are maintained through a balance of power whereby
states seek military and other capabilities in order to deter each other from
attacking.
INTERNATIONAL
ORGANISATIONS
Realists
are generally pessimistic about the independent role of international
organisations, arguing that international organisations can neither constrain
state behavior nor prevent war. The League of Nations failure to prevent Second
World War; and the United Nations failure to prevent wars in the recent past
are sighted as good examples to this argument.
Realists
argue that no hierarchy of authority exists in international relations. The
international system is characterized by anarchy, where authority resides with
each individual state. No international
entity exercises jurisdiction over states or reviews their domestic or foreign
policy decisions.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
Clearly, the
nation-state is not the only actor in the contemporary international system as
viewed by realists. Inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), such as the United
Nations, are growing in number and importance. Regional organizations, such as
the European Union and Southern Africa Development Community, are in some cases
assuming functions traditionally performed by the nation-state. Other
functional organizations, especially in the areas of trade and economics, such
as the North American Free Trade Association (NAFTA) and the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) or the World Bank and the International Monetary
Fund (IMF), play significant roles in contemporary international relations.
Realists tend to
focus on international organisations that are intergovernment and public in
nature. States are the most important actors in international relations, hence organisations
to which they belong reviews their inclination in international politics. For
realists, the effectiveness of international organisations is directly related
to the hegemony’s power. When the power of the hegemony declines, so the
support for international organisations it created.
INTERNATIONAL
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS
There are a
number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) playing an important role in a
variety of aspects of international affairs. The International Red Cross and
Greenpeace are good examples of international non-governmental organisations
whose impact is felt by all regions of the global. The Red Cross contributions
range from the implementation of Geneva Conventions to involvement in military
operations as impartial forces to help the wounded and vulnerable groups, as
was seen in Haiti, Somalia, and, Bosnia.
INTERESTS
The behavior of
a nation-state is rooted in the pursuit, protection, and promotion of its
interests. So if one can identify accurately the interests of a state, one
should be able to understand much of its behavior vis-à-vis other states and
actors in the international system. Realism theories show that nation-states
have basic fundamental interests that underlie their behavior. They are most
often referred to as ‘national interests’. However, realists view everything from the
point of power and national security as a top priority. Therefore, protection
of national interests imply having capability to defend the nation at all
costs.
INDIVIDUAL LEADERS
The individual
realist leaders point out that decisions about war and peace, conflict and
cooperation are made by individuals, organizations, and institutions within a
society. Leaders make decisions that determine the pattern of behavior among
states in the international system. Realists say that War occurs because
individuals are inherently aggressive, and therefore war (not peace) is the
natural state of affairs among groups of individuals interacting in the
international system as nation-states. To the contrary, the liberals assume
that individuals are inherently peace loving and perfectible, and that peace is
therefore the natural state of affairs, and the abnormal departure from it is
war and conflict.
STRUCTURAL REALISM (NEOREALISM)
The primary
characteristic of the international system is anarchy: the absence of a central
authority to make and enforce rules, settle disputes, and generally regulate
and manage the conflict that is inevitable in a system of individual sovereign
nation-states. All states possess some level of military power, and ultimately
each state has the option of threatening or actually using that power. To some
extent, then, each state must be concerned with the power capabilities of other
states. To the realist, this creates a system in which all states to varying degrees
will be distrustful of other states.
SECURITY DILEMMA
The more one
state increases its power capabilities, the more insecure other states will
feel. This leads directly to the security dilemma: the actions undertaken by
a state to increase its security (such as expanding its military capabilities)
will lead to counteractions taken by other states, leading eventually to the
paradoxical outcome that all states will in fact feel (or actually be) less secure.
The classic example of this dilemma is an arms race. This is unlike the liberal
balance of
power theories that the only effective way to prevent war is to prepare for
war, and that one must be willing to threaten and to use force in order to
reduce the likelihood that such force will in fact be used.
SURVIVAL
Realists claim that survival is the principal
goal of every State. Foreign invasion and occupation are thus the most pressing
threats that any State faces. Even if domestic interests, strategic culture, or
commitment to a set of national ideals would dictate more benevolent or
co-operative international goals, the anarchy of the international system
requires that States constantly ensure that they have sufficient power to
defend themselves and advance their material interests necessary for survival.
GREAT POWER POLITICS
Realists hold States to be rational
actors. This means that, given the goal of survival, States will act as best
they can in order to maximize their likelihood of continuing to exist. Realists
assume that all States possess some military capacity, and no State knows what
its neighbors intend precisely. The world, in other words, is dangerous and
uncertain. In such a world it is the Great Powers; the States with most
economic clout and, especially, military might, that are decisive. In this view,
international relations are essentially a story of Great Power politics.
States will seek to maximize their
power relative to others (Mearsheimer 2001). If rival countries possess enough
power to threaten a State, it can never be safe. Hegemony
is thus the best strategy for a country to pursue, if it can. However, defensive
Realists, in contrast, believe that domination is an unwise strategy for State
survival (Waltz 1979). They note that seeking hegemony may bring a State into
dangerous conflicts with its peers
CRITICAL VIEWS
Liberalism makes for a more complex
and less cohesive body of theory than Realism. The basic insight of the theory
is that the national characteristics of individual States matter for their
international relations. This view contrasts sharply with Realist, in which all
States have essentially the same goals and behaviours (at least
internationally); self-interested actors pursuing wealth or survival.
Marxists and feminists are critiques
of international relations’ explanations of State behavior by Realists. Marxists
perceive the emphasis on State-to-State relations as obscuring the more
fundamental dynamics of global class relations. Feminists have sought to
explain aspects of State behaviour and its effects by emphasizing gender as a
variable of interest. This focus has led to notions of security that move
beyond State security (of paramount importance to Realists) to notions of human
security. In such a perspective the effects of war, for example, reach far
beyond the battlefield to family life and other aspects of social relations.
CONCLUSION
Realism is one of the oldest
theoretical approaches to international relations and is widely held as a world
view. The central focus is the acquisition, maintenance and exercise of power
by states.
Realists are generally pessimistic
about the independent role of international organisations. They claim that such
organisations are created to serve the interests of those that create them, in
particular the powerful nations.
While many theories of international
relations are fiercely contested, it is usually inappropriate to see them as
rivals over some universal truth about world politics. Critical analysis may
prove that none is definitively ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. However, the realists hold the view that in
international politics, the rule of the jungle (where the fittest survive)
applies when it comes to international relations.
DSCSC, Lusaka, Zambia. 2012
Research Material for the UNZA Diploma in Defence and Security Studies (For Private Use)
REFERENCES
A Wendt ‘Constructing International
Politics’ (1995) 20(1) International Security 71–81.
BA Ackerly M Stern and J True (eds) Feminist
Methodologies for International Relations (CUP Cambridge 2006).
DA Baldwin (ed) Neorealism and
Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate (Columbia University Press New York
1993).
H Bull The Anarchical Society: A
Study of Order in World Politics (Macmillan London 1977)
HV Milner Interests, Institutions,
and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations (Princeton
University Press Princeton 1997).
JD Fearon ‘Rationalist Explanations for War’
(1995) 49 IntlOrg 379–414.
JJ Mearsheimer ‘The False Promise of
International Institutions’ (1994) 19(3) International Security 5–49.
MN Barnett and M Finnemore Rules
for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics (Cornell
University Press Ithaca 2004).
MW Doyle Ways of War and Peace:
Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (Norton New York 1997).
RO Keohane After Hegemony:
Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton
University Press Princeton 1984).
R Powell In the Shadow of Power:
States and Strategies in International Politics (Princeton University Press
Princeton 1999).
No comments:
Post a Comment