Tuesday 15 January 2013

THE REALIST VIEW OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

By Davies Saina Kalepa, Lusaka. Zambia 2012


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.

 
By Davies Saina Kalepa, MCIPS MZIPS
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