A High-Profile War Game and a Clear Illustration of the Realist Theory - Essay Example

? Theories of Global Politics Is the Realist Approach to International Politics Redundant? As the may well imply, this paper aims to explore the relevance of realist thought and tradition in the context of the international political framework of the 21st century. There have been many arguments post the end of the cold war declaring realism as redundant and outdated. However, a close examination of certain international events indicates otherwise. During the course of this paper, I will briefly explain the tenets of realism (as explained by some of the greatest exponents of the theory such as Hobbes, Machiavelli, and Morgenthau et al) and apply the same to the current international political situation, citing specific cases to support its validity. Is the Realist Approach to International Politics Redundant? Realism, in its simplest sense, simply describes international politics as a state of anarchy, where each and every state has reason to fear other states and, for that reason, is justified in wanting to secure itself against these potential threats. It assumes that power is or ought to be the primary driver of all political action, whether at the domestic level or international (Alexander Moseley, 2005). As eminent realist thinker Thomas Hobbes (1651) put it “where an invader hath no more to fear than another man's single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess a convenient seat, others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him, not only of the fruit of his labor, but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another” (Leviathan, Ch 13). Loosely translated, Hobbes assumed that people are naturally equal, motivated by competition, diffidence and glory, and that they interact in the absence of government. Hobbes concluded that man, and in turn the state, was in a constant state of war. A realist is one who subscribes to the thought that it’s a ‘dog eat dog world’, that every man has the capability to harm or destroy another while competing for the same goal which only one of them can achieve and that every other man has the tendency to be evil in such a situation. From the international perspective, there is no higher power than the state, which is motivated by its national self interest, is trying to a accomplish the same thing as other states in the world i.e. ensure its survival and in the absence of an international government, a state can pursue its national interest in terms of power and that the interests of the state transcend the issues of morality and ethics. The purpose of realism is to promote the notion that power is the fundamental feature of international politics and is therefore, essential for survival. It does not necessarily mean that the most powerful state has the greatest chances of survival. However, the state with the least power is at a considerable disadvantage among its peers. Hobbes claimed that, “even the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others” (Leviathan, Ch 13). In other words even the strongest of states is not safe while there are other states with the potential to unite or employ less overt means of warfare against it. The limited resources of the world would lead to competition between nations, the relative equality described by Hobbes would lead to fear of assault from another country, and man’s inherent vanity would ever more serve to heighten the state of tension between nations of the world. Realism does not suggest that the nations of the world would be prepared to launch a full scale war against each other at the drop of a hat. As Jack Donnelly explains, “We can figure out the rules of coexistence and cooperation. But without a government to enforce those rules, we remain condemned to war” (Realism and International Relations, P. 15). As long as there is no superior power to constructively tap into man’s primal motives of confidence fear and glory, nations are bound to remain in a state of distrust and look to counteract any other nation’s bid for power. Another eminent thinker supporting the realist concept, Kenneth Waltz argued that each state must be considered as independent, autonomous and relatively equal elements seeking to realize its own interests as nobody else could be relied upon for the same (Theory of International Politics, 107). Waltz went on to state that in a world without a specific hierarchical order i.e. with a bipolar or multipolar concentration of power, countries acted not only with reference to their specific interests, needs and moralities, but also to maintain the ‘balance of power’ in the world. This can be illustrated with the help of an example from recent times. The Republic of India has been known to maintain a policy of ‘non-intervention’ in international disputes not concerning it. However, after the tragedy of September 11, 2001, India offered aid and cooperation to the United States of America, shortly after their close neighbor and rival nation Pakistan was enlisted to help USA on its campaign against terror. While it would have served India well to distance itself from the today much criticized campaign, the nation saw the necessity to participate to balance the power gained by its rival by favoring USA. Examining the relevance of realism in international relations today, there are a number of flaws that one can immediately point out. For starters, realism fails to explain the decline of states to international organizations and multinational corporations in the economic sphere. Much of every nation’s internal as well as external policies are dictated by the interests of these corporations with considerable investments in their countries. Take for example, the recent move by countries such as the UK and USA to cut tax benefits to companies outsourcing jobs to other countries. The move was met with stiff opposition from the MNCs depending on jobs being outsourced, which eventually forced the governments to reach a common compromise. Another fallacy of Realism is that it evaluates states at the primal level and classifies them in an almost homogenous manner. It pays virtually no attention to how the internal make up of different states affects their foreign policies. A communist dictatorship and a capitalist democracy are considered to have more or less the same behavior. Finally, it cannot account for non-state elements of power, such as the terrorist groups plaguing the world’s countries to further their own needs. Many states are suspected and even accused of supporting terrorist initiatives against other states while others have united against terrorism on a whole and have sought to aid each other in times of crisis (the recent massacre on 26th November, 2009 in Mumbai is one such example). It also cannot explain why states endeavor to offer aid to each other during disasters (natural or otherwise). The aid pouring into Japan from countries all over the world when it is in a vulnerable state due to a Tsunami and earthquake is one such phenomenon that realism cannot explain. Why would countries all over the world unite, at their own expense, to rehabilitate a state that had lost a significant amount of power due to a natural calamity? While these gaping holes in the realist theory do offer food for thought, they do not by any stretch of imagination signify that realism is redundant in international politics in today’s age. There have been many instances in recent decades where the tenets of realism have been proven to be true through the behavior of nation states. Some of these have been discussed below. One example that comes to mind, with reference to Hobbes’ claim that fear among countries would lead to anticipation and eventually war between them. A country that is constantly in fear of an attack from its neighbors is bound to attempt to strengthen its security to prepare for such an eventuality. In turn, its enemies, upon seeing it bolster its armory, would feel threaten by this and work to build up its own arsenal, leading to an arms race and resulting in war. The initial claim by the United States of America during the invasion of Iraq was along similar lines. The US administration had officially stated that Saddam Hussein’s alleged programs for weapons of mass destruction and the possibility that these arms could be passed on to Al Qaeda had posed a threat to USA and its allies. Therefore, the justification of a preemptive strike offered by the USA stands to support the theory of realism. The US, diffident about its own security in front of Iraq’s growing nuclear capabilities and also threatened by the possibility of its enemy Al Qaeda getting their hands on these weapons, sought to consolidate its power by launching an offensive against Iraq. Another example supporting realism can be found in the high tension in Sino-Indian relationships. Ever since the Kargil war, China and India have been engaged in a cold war of sorts with each other. Both have been deploying troops along their shared border in order to be prepared for any attack by the other party. As reported by the local online newspaper IBN live in 2009, “China had deployed close to 50,000 troops in its biggest cross country tactical mobilization exercise that has sent alarm bells ringing in India as it is seen as Beijing’s efforts to improve its ability to deploy troops in Tibet whenever reinforcements are required” (IBNlive.com, 2009). The Indian response to this was that about 50 per cent of the troops along the line of actual control between the two countries were moved to forward posts for nearly a month. This high-profile war game is a clear illustration of the realist theory, with both countries working to aggressively reinforce security along their borders to prepare for an invasion by either side. In the same year, Pakistan’s former President General Pervez Musharraf admitted to having used US aid given to Pakistan for the war against terror to strengthen Pakistan’s position and defenses against India during his tenure. The move had been in direct violation of the rules governing the use of military aid, however, Musharraf believed that his actions were justified and that he had acted in Pakistan’s ‘best interests’ (Times of India, September 2009). Some realist thinkers, comparing international politics to a ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ like situation had suggested that a country which would like to cooperate with its neighbors could still end up engaging in devious practices to deal with the possibility (or inherent ‘evil) of their neighbors resorting to the same practices against them. The example provided above is proof of the validity of this argument. While realism has many flaws that significantly reduce its utility and relevance in today’s age of globalization and economic warfare, it is still quite applicable to the scenario. It cannot be said that realist thought dictates each and every action in world politics. However, the conditions under which the notion was born and gained popularity still exist in many parts of the world today. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, each country is still relatively equal to its peers, being able to wipe out an entire country with the push of a button. There is still no international government to govern the relations between these nation states. The UN is only a sad mockery of the institution it was meant to be. Countries still live in fear of each other, still compete for the same resources and are still motivated by a sense of glory and vanity. All these factors show that realism is in no way redundant in international relations. However, there is plenty of scope for modification of the theory by adapting it to the changed political scenario. References Donnelly J. (2000). Realism and International Relations. Cambridge. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Hobbes T. (1651). Leviathan. Moseley A. (2005) . Political Realism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/polreal/ Vogt A. (2010). Realism: International Relations Theory in Brief. Bukisa. Retrieved from http://www.bukisa.com/articles/331678_realism-international-relations-theory-in-brief Waltz K N. (1979). Theory of International Politics. California. Addison Wesley Publishing Company. IANS. (2009). Indian Army on ‘Operation Alert’ Along China Border. IBN Live. Retrieved from http://ibnlive.in.com/news/indian-army-on-operation-alert-along-china-border/101527-3.html PIT. (2009). US Funds were used to Strengthen Defence Against India: Musharraf. The Times of India. Retrieved from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-13/pakistan/28064644_1_musharraf-baloch-nationalist-leader-nuclear-assets Read More