Classical and Structural Realism - Essay Example

ical and Structural Realism: A Comparative Analysis Submitted by: Introduction The world is a theater where events are played. In it, we see nations acting out their roles - the major powers as the lead cast with the remaining states in the backdrop. It is the stage where we can observe the saga of human polity. It is where we can observe the drama, tragedy and even comedy of state interaction. However, unlike the play, the story is for real. The consequences of a nation’s actions transcend that of a fictitious event. The drama started a long time ago and no ending is within sight. There are no script that tells the actor what to do or what to say – or is there? The study of international relations has been considered as a complex phenomenon. This does not necessarily mean that it is beyond understanding. The way states tend to act has been thoroughly studied and one of the prominent approaches is termed as Realism. This serves as one of the versions of the “script” states are supposed to follow. Within this approach, two schools of thought have evolved. The first, Classical Realism, served as the precursor to the second school of thought – Structural Realism. This paper aims to discuss and analyze Classical and Structural Realism. It compares and contrasts these two branches of Realism. With the use of relevant examples and appropriate analysis, it is hoped that the differences and similarities between the two can be thoroughly discussed. In this analysis, the US behavior was used as a model due to the fact that it is the world’s lone superpower and is thus the main actor in the play called international relations. Realism Before discussing Classical and Structural Realism, it is appropriate and proper to first define what Realism is. This approach provides a rational and realistic view of how international affairs are acted. It is based on the way things are done and not on the way things should be done. The way it views the world’s international affairs utilizes that of a scientific method – based on facts and not in abstract ideas, based on the analysis of the causes and consequences of the events. It is logical and not imaginary. Machiavelli captured the essence of Realism with the following statement (Machiavelli, 1515): “But since my intention is to say something that will prove of practical use to the inquirer, I have thought it proper to represent things as they are in real truth, rather than as they are imagined. Many have dreamed up republics and principalities which have never in truth been known to exist; the gulf between how one should live and how one does live is so wide that a man who neglects what is actually done for what should be done learns the way to self-destruction rather than self-preservation. The fact is that a man who wants to act virtuously in every way necessarily comes to grief among so many who are not virtuous. Therefore if a prince wants to maintain his rule he must learn how not to be virtuous, and make use of this or not according to need.” An example of an international event that is viewed as using the “imaginary” and “utopian” approach is that of the Kellogg –Briand Pact which outlawed any more wars (Kellogg and Briand, 1928). This was a consequence of the bitter experience of World War I. The proponents unrealistically assumed that war would never happen again and that the signatories would comply with what they have agreed upon. An example of a realistic view was provided by Waltz when he viewed the spread of nuclear weapons in a positive light. His contention was that the spread of such weapons actually ensures that countries can co-exist peacefully because they know the horrific damage that can be inflicted on them. Rogue leaders, in fact, are tamed with the knowledge that their regimes can be destroyed any time. (Hollander, 2000) Realism had its roots in Thucydides (5th century BC) when he commented on the Peloponnesian War stating that the real reason why Sparta and Athens collided was because of Sparta’s fear of the growing influence and power of Athens. In the 17th century, Cardinal Richelieu also displayed a realistic approach when he led France in the Thirty Years War to ensure that the Habsburgs did not dominate Continental Europe. (Dunn, 1998). From then on writings promoting and elucidating the topic has been published. Of these writings, the two most influential are those of Hans Morgenthau (the father of Classical Realism) and Kenneth Waltz (the father of Structural Realism). Hans Morgenthau and Classical Realism The Politics Among Nations (1948) authored by Hans Morgenthau fully developed the idea and rational study of international politics. It is the book upon which Classical Realism is based. The term Classical is used to denote that it was the original doctrine of realism. Morgenthau formulated the following six principles that ultimately define what his contentions on realism are all about (Morgenthau 1978, 4-15): 1. Political realism believes that politics is rooted in human nature. 2. International politics is basically the quest to increase one’s power. 3. Realism assumes that its key concept of interest takes on the definitions of the current setting rather than definitely defined. 4. Political action is aware of the moral significance of political action. 5. Moral aspirations of a particular nation are not based on the moral laws that govern the universe. 6. However much the theory of political realism may have been misunderstood and misinterpreted, there is no gainsaying its distinctive intellectual and moral attitude to matters political.. What is prominent in the six principles laid down by Morgenthau is that international relations are mainly defined by the interest of countries to gain power over the others. That is, states act to maximize their power. This search for power stems from the innate aggressiveness of men or basically, international affairs are conducted based on the predisposition of the individuals. Kenneth Waltz and Structural Realism Kenneth Waltz approached realism in a new and distinctive way. In his Theory of International Politics (1979), he argued that international politics is not solely determined by human-level factors. Instead, he saw the mechanics of international politics operated such that it is likened to a system. The conditions of the system influenced state behavior with a definite structure. This transfers the focus of analysis from the ‘human nature’ to the structure. Because it renders unnecessary the power politics, human nature and internal dynamics of state politics, structural realism is also called Neorealism. The assumptions of Structural realism draws heavily on Realism’s core beliefs. They are the following: 1. Anarchy (the absence of any common sovereign) is the distinguishing feature of international politics. Without a central authority to guarantee states’ security, a self-help system exists, where states must rely upon their own means to protect their interests. In this anarchic international system, security is the highest goal of states. 2. States are the most important actors in the international system. Non-state actors like corporations and multinational organizations minimally affect the way international affairs are played out. The state is still the major determining factor. 3. States are rational actors. 4. States are unitary actors. According to Robert Keohane, "To say governments act rationally . . . means that they have consistent, ordered preferences, and that they calculate the costs and benefits of all alternative policies in order to maximize their utility in light both of those preferences and of their perceptions of the nature of reality" (Keohane 1977, 11). The 4th assumption tells us that states do not speak to the rest of the world with different views by different spokespersons. Although domestic disputes over a particular policy direction may exist, only one policy will be laid out internationally. (Rosenau and Durfee 2000, 14). Human Nature versus the Structure The Classical approach hinges on the notion that “politics like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature”. (Morgenthau 1978, 4). International affairs are conducted according to the personality of the decision makers and their constituents. In this regard, international conflicts are viewed as the decisions of the state which were based in the predisposition of their human nature. Having said this, Morgenthau follows up his principle by arguing that international behavior can be predicted by considering particular conceptions of human nature. For Morgenthau, actors are guided by a opportunistic quest for power that is the result of an aggressive, animal-like craving to dominate ones fellows. Morgenthaus takes on the view that humans are inherently aggressive and conflict is inevitable. This view implies that actors will seek to take advantage of weaker states whenever they have the chance. Thus, there will always be a need for military preparations or actions because these are the only true assurance against being exploited. Using this line of thinking, international conflicts can be seen as a result of the aggressiveness which is inherent in every human. Germany, for example, started conquering Poland and engaged the world in a costly war because they believed that they are racially superior and that other races must bow to this notion of theirs. Germany’s armed forces were seen as superior than the army of other countries. The war that they instigated can therefore be seen as an expression of aggressiveness inherent in every person. However, Morgenthau did not confine conflicts as the result of aggressiveness alone. There were also moral reasons. There are numerous examples of statesmen presenting their foreign policies to satisfy their "personal wish". Moral values were the central theme that pervaded this personal wish. For example, the United States entered World War I and II because, as their presidents argued, it was the moral responsibility of every person to ensure that freedom shall not be curtailed and that oppression should never be allowed to continue. Thus, one can see justifications of intervention of UN armed forces stating that it was done to ensure that no person is prohibited from exercising his rights to live. From the mass media, one can hear a U.S. soldier justify his actions by stating that their adversaries were the enemy of the free world. But Morgenthau defines this moral purpose not of the individual but of the nation. He also categorized that although such justifications are indeed factors which influence international policies, they are but means to achieve the longing of men to become dominant among their peers. As Morgenthau states, “all nations are tempted-and few have been able to resist the temptation for long-to clothe their own particular aspirations and actions in the moral purposes of the universe “. What is important to realize here is that the Classical approach views international affairs as governed by human nature. Conflicts arise due to the inherent disposition of men to dominate their peers although some are motivated by moral reasons to take actions. Waltzian realism offers another perspective on how to view international affairs. According to Waltz, policies and decisions regarding the international scene were the result of structural responses- thus the term ‘Structural Realism’. The international decision making process operates in a systemic way. This is basically what makes Waltzian realism different from the classical approach. Conflicts arise not because men tend to be aggressive or morality defenders. They are the results of any changes in the structure. With this perspective, the proclamation of war by the United Kingdom and France against Germany arose not from moral obligations to defend Europe nor was it a display of aggressiveness. Rather, it was aimed at inhibiting Germany from dominating European affairs translating to dominance in the overall power structure of Europe. It was a response to a change in structure. The United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan because they tend to harm the US dominance in the global structure and not because of moral obligations to defend the world from weapons of mass destructions or the desire to conquer a country. The Indochina wars serve as a good example of how international affairs are structurally based. The Cold War era brought the two superpowers – the US and the USSR- at odds with each other. The growth of Communism in Asian countries was perceived as tipping the balance of power structure in favor of the USSR. The US initiative to take military action against the communist rebellion in Vietnam and even Korea (not part of Indochina) event though they were internal affairs shows that international affairs are structurally based and not ‘human nature based’. The primary difference between classical realism and structural realism is therefore apparent. While the classical approach makes human nature as the basis of decisions regarding international affairs, structural realism points out that conflict and other international policies are structural responses and systemic in nature. Brooks (1997), however, has an interesting contention regarding these two approaches. According to him, although structural realism differentiates itself from classical realists thru the reasons stated above, structural realism is essentially based also on human nature. Instead of the aggressiveness principle, structuralism “depends fundamentally on the psychological assumption that actors are characteristically highly fearful” (Brooks, 1997). This fear or concerns arises from security concerns and will be discussed later. This contention actually makes sense. Morgenthau emphasizes aggression, whereas the structuralist emphasizes wariness and anxiety. According to Brooks, distinction between the two is not that clear cut. That is “if actors are understood to be aggressive, it makes sense to assume they will also be characteristically highly fearful.” It then becomes apparent that structuralism implicitly operates on an aggressive setting. As already stated, Classical realism implies that states will always grab the opportunity to take advantage of weaker states. This state of affairs gives rise to security concerns or the culture of fear which is typical of human nature as well. Thus, structural realism is basically founded in human nature as well but it emphasizes another aspect. Power and Security From the foregoing discussion, it is quite apparent that differences exist between Classical and Structural realism. Besides from the state and structure difference in approach, they differ in their ultimate interests. The Classical approach to realism is power-oriented while the Structural Realism is security-oriented. Power according to Morgenthau comprises anything that makes a man subordinate to another human. This can come in the form of physical violence to psychological stranglehold. (Morgenthau 1978, 13) The basic motivation according to the Classical approach is the struggle for power as an end itself. In his Politics of Nation, Morgenthau wrote “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim” (Morgenthau 1948, 13). In the 1978 edition of the book, Morgenthau defined the six principles already enumerated earlier. Two of the principles prominently define this orientation. The second principle states that “statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power”. The sixth principle essentially states that policies are formulated with power consideration in mind. That is, however states may behave, their primary goal is to assure that the nation’s power is never undermined. In Morgenthau’s words, “All political phenomena an be reduced to one of the basic types. A political policy seeks to keep power, to increase power or to demonstrate power”. (Morgenthau 1948, 21-22) Furthermore, Morgenthau stipulates that in the arena of domestic and international politics, policies are often presented as having ideological, ethical and legal nature. The truth, however, is that these policies have been essentially designed such that it displays one or more of the political type enumerated. The cloaking can be seen as a strategy to make the policies seemingly justifiable and therefore palatable to those involved (Morgenthau 1948, 61-63). Looking at the events happening around the world, this approach does make sense. The invasion of Iraq by America technically displayed the power-orientations of a state. When 9/11 occurred, the hegemony of the United States of America was threatened. The attack was considered as an affront to the image of the USA as a virtually untouchable country. Confidence levels by other countries regarded to US were ebbing. States who declared support to the bombers and the organizations behind it was increasing. Rogue countries cheered as the two towers collapsed. The US military capability was dealt a humiliating blow. To keep its hegemony, the US displayed its military might by invading Iraq and conquering it within months thereby sending a signal to other countries that the US is not a force to be reckoned with. The United States basically gave the warning, “Don’t get any ideas. If you blow up any of our buildings, we will blow up your country.” This was undeniably the display of power that Morgenthau stated. Another likely reason behind the invasion of Iraq was because of its oil reserves. The USA could surely increase its power by controlling that precious commodity. The US must have also in mind that its oil reserves are being depleted. Such an event would put US at the mercy of OPEC. The point raised by Morgenthau about the cloaking of policies was present indeed. The US invaded Iraq under the guise of protecting the free world by eradicating rogue and hostile regimes that possess Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). The superpower projected itself as the knight in shining armor, a gallant warrior dedicated to the eradication of terrorist and warmongers. This was precisely what the Classical approach stated how states tend to behave. The American intervention in the domestic affairs of Vietnam and Korea provided another example of power driven international policies. Seeing that a communist revolution was imminent, the USA acted to halt the expansion of communist controlled (and therefore USSR subservient) areas. Without the intervention, the distribution of allegiances (translating to the distribution of power in the world) would have been highly favored to the USSR. Under the guise of protecting the people from, according to them, deadly principles of communism, US sent thousands of troops to destroy any communist attempt to overthrow the US-backed regimes. The contentions of Morgenthau were backed up by two prominent realists. Mearsheimer (2001:21) states that international politics is a “ruthless and dangerous business where countries fear each other and always compete with each other for power”. Mearsheimer believed that nations seek to maximize its own power relative to its rivals. Every state’s goal is to become the system’s hegemon”. Mearshemier sums it up in his statement when he said “calculation of power lie at the heart of how states think about the world behind them”. (Mearsheimer 2001, 29-360). Carr supports Morgenthau’s point about ideology or morality being merely a cloak for power politics. Waltz contention also states that power concerns do operate in the international scene. However, what made him different from classical realists is his contention that power concerns are only a means rather than an end in an anarchic international system. According to him, “The goal the system encourages them to seek is security. Increased power may or may not serve that end”. (Waltz 1919, 126) Using this approach, the primary interest of the countries in all the examples mentioned in the case for Classical realism is achieving security. The American invasion of Iraq was driven by the need of the US to prevent any further attacks within its borders. By showing its military might and thus displaying its power, it was hoped that any future assailants will be dissuaded from committing any more atrocious acts against the US. The use of power such as military capabilities can be seen as a means to obtain national security and not for the sake of increasing power alone. The American involvement in the anti-communist campaign was for the sake of safeguarding the Pacific front and the US as a whole. The US has territorial possessions in the Pacific- the state of Hawaii and the Marshall Islands. If Vietnam and Korea was allowed to fall, then the islands mentioned were opened to invasion. The Cold War era saw the race not only of arms but of allegiance to the two dominant superpowers. It was important to prevent the spread of communism because this would mean that more resources would be available to the perceived enemy. Thus, the war was not primarily concerned with ensuring that the US retains or increase its sphere of influence. Rather, it was security concerns that fueled the behavior of the United States.. In my opinion, the approach of structural realism represents a paradigm shift in viewing political affairs. Instead of viewing world affairs thru the lenses of power interest, which is quite cynical, actions by nations are now seen as a move to ensure self preservation. Instead of viewing US as a power driven nation, it can now be seen as only trying to ensure that it achieves a high level of national security. However, for me, Waltz’s approach is actually prone to misinterpretation. Any state may justify its acts by stating that it was for security reasons. One very controversial issue that is related to this reasoning is the concept of ‘Preemptive strike’ where state 1 commits an aggressive act against state 2 to hinder it from harming state 1. It can be justified in the sense that state 2 may be announced as actually gearing for aggressive behavior. However, hidden agendas may exist such that state 1 actually wanted to take control of state 2. To determine whether it is morally correct or not is out of context for realism deals with the way things happen and not how things should be. The example, however, provides one important point – that security can actually be used as a means to an end (which is to say acquire power). This is diametrically opposed to Waltz’s principle. Similarities of Classical and Structural Realism Although the way these approaches view world affairs is essentially different, they have some features common to both. They are as follows: International politics can be studied objectively - The way states behave can be described in terms of laws that are rational. These laws may be established by providing a logical inquiry much like the scientific method in the field of natural sciences. States act rationally by assessing the costs and benefits of any move open to them. The actors are the states - This statement is important since it limits to countries, city-state, empire, kingdom or tribe the way international affairs are carried on. Therefore it disregards the influence of the United Nations, OPEC or any other organizations – although not totally. The point that Waltz and Morgenthau agrees on is that the state is the major determining factor with very minimal contribution from other institutions - It follows from this criterion that the international system is anarchical in nature (i.e. it ha no sovereign). It also assures that the state is a unitary actor without any sign of divided aims. Both approach agree that Realism can also apply to minor powers as it applies to the major ones - Although Waltz argues that international politics cannot be developed using the minor powers as the prominent actors, he states that his theory “also applies to lesser states that interact insofar as their interactions are insulated from the intervention of the great powers of a system” (Waltz 1979, 72-73). Morgenthau also thought in general terms rather than in major power terms. Conclusion The primary difference between Classical and Structural Realism lies in the perspective it uses to explain international affairs. According to the classical approach, decisions are based on human nature while Structuralists contend that the decision making process is operates in a structural system. Another difference between Classical and Structural Realism can also be found in the interest of the state. While Classical Realism points out that the states are concerned with power interest (to keep, increase or display power), structuralism states that power considerations are used to achieve security. However, the structuralism approach is open to ambiguity and is highly contentious while the classical approach is highly cynical in nature. The two approaches basically view international politics as a field that can be rationally analyze. It gives primary importance to the state as the determining factor of world affairs. The approach analyzes events as they happen in the real world and has no room for “utopian” or “imaginary” philosophies. International affairs are complex but they are subject to laws that transcend time and space. The approaches had pioneered and revolutionized the way international politics are viewed. The examples that have been provided gives credence to the two approach although which one is correct, one can never be sure of. This is because some events are really geared to achieve security while some are geared for power concerns. The complexity even increases when one realizes that both may be the ultimate goals of the states. References: Brooks, Stephen G. (1997).Dueling Realisms (Realism in International Relations). International Organization, Vol. 51, no. 3 (Summer 1997) Carr, Edward Hallett .(1946). The Twenty Year’s Crisis, 1919-1939. An Introduction to the Study of International Relations , 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph Jr. (1977).Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little Brown: 1977 Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). The Tragedy of Power Politics. New York: W.W. Norton Morgenthau, Hans J. (1948). Politics Among Nations 1st ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf Morgenthau, Hans J. (1978). The Struggle for Power for Power and Peace 5th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Rosenau, James and Durfee, Mary (200) Thinking Theory Thoroughly: Coherent Approaches To an Incoherent World. Washington: Westview Press Waltz, Kenneth N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw Hill. Dunn, Martin (1998). The Origins of Realism. Retrieved Nov 4, 2006 from www.geocities.com/virtualwarcollege/ir_realism.htm Hollander, Jason (2000). Prof. Kenneth N. Waltz’s Political Realism Wins James Madison Lifetime Achievement Award in Political Science. Columbia University News: 28 March 2000. Retrieved Nov 5, 2006 from www.columbia.edu/cu/pr/00/03/kennethWaltz.html Kellogg, Frank and Briand, Aristide (1928) Kellogg – Briand Pact. Retrieved Nov 5, 2006 from http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia Machiavelli, Nicolo (1515) transl by Marriot, W. THE PRINCE . Retrieved Nov 5, 2006 from http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince.txt Read More