Realism and the Preparation for War - Case Study Example

Realism and the Preparation for War Q1. Assumptions of Realism that have been articulated in the Dialogue One of the mostimperative episodes of the war between Sparta and Athens is referred to as the ‘Melian dialogue’. The dialogue represents an amazing illustration concerning the realist principles. The case study does reconstruct a fascinating dialogue between the Athenian leaders who wanted to conquer islanders and the response that was later provoked. The Athenians talked in depth and focused on the logic of power politics. On the other hand, the Melians tried to back the logic behind power based on justice, Spartan’s help, and God. As the dialogue unfolds, it is evident that the Melians finally submitted to the realist law that power politics in deed prevail in everyday affairs. The concept of realism has various assumptions about international relations. For instance, it assumes that the state is the most imperative, rational, and unitary actor. Additionally, there is the assumption that international relations are conflictual because of the anarchy. Moreover, there is the assumption that the primary concern of the global states is simply survival and the international system is seen to be anarchic. Therefore, realists believe that human beings are not necessarily benevolent but rather are bloodthirsty and self-centered (Brawley 34). Therefore, it is without doubt that the Athenians version of realism has clearly resonated in the entire dialogue. Moreover, the interpretation of the Melian dialogue is similar to that of the realists. To be a realist means that that one’s view on human nature as well as the actions of the states are realistic and sober; hence, not based on utopian and idealistic expectations. The realists are only interested with the brute facts of the political situations and do not focus on how things should have been. From a realist point of view, the assertions of the Athenian ambassadors in the dialogue reflect bumpy but inevitable facts on politics. It is obvious from the dialogue that human beings engage in war and politics to enhance their authority and to make use of it for their selfish interests. Moreover, the realists do believe that the most fundamental interest of the state is to survive. Therefore, in the search for survival, states end up relying on their devices and take all significant steps, including war to protect as well as secure their power. In that case, the reason why the Athenians in the dialogue refuse to grant the wishes of the Melians to remain neutral; hence, had to subjugate them was because if the Athenians did not establish their dominion and power over the Melos, they would have been seen as weak. This means that in order to survive as a kingdom, they had to show people they had authority and were prepared to employ it regardless of whom they trampled. Therefore, they ignored the principles of fair play as seen in the dialogue (Baylis Smith and Owens 105-107). It is obvious from the dialogue that various assumptions of realism have been articulated. In that case, the Athenian representatives were realists. However, the fact that the Athenians have been portrayed as hardcore realists does not necessarily mean that the author agrees with their opinions or tries to promote a realist comprehension of world politics in the historical font. One of the main assumptions in realism is that states tend to pursue self interest. In regard to the dialogue, the Melians are seen accepting the idea of a dialogue but are against the circumstances. This is because the Athenian forces have surrounded them and their intention, which is self centered is obvious. This means that the dialogue could not be about what is just or fair since the Athenian force was immanent. This is an indication of realism whereby one state is focused on showing prominence, power, and authority over the other, using selfish means (Frankel 177-181). Q2. Whether the Phrase in regard to the Strong and the Weak is still relevant Today In the dialogue, the Athens were negotiating from a position of immense power whereby they insisted on unconditional surrender. They demanded that the Melians submit themselves to the empire and refrain from neutrality. Early in the dialogue, they tell the Melians: "You know as well as we do that, when these matters are discussed by practical people, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they can and the weak do what they must". (Cline and Graham 139) It is obvious that the above phrase is still relevant today to some extent though what is observed in the modern days on power disparities fails to conform to the conformist expectations of politics and supremacy. Today, the strong are seen to have a choice whereas the weak do not; hence, are often constrained by their inability. Relating to the quote, it is obvious that power matters in relations between nations, mostly in cases where by there is power inequality. Today, issues of right and wrong, fairness, and equity only arise when the nations are of equal power. However, when the power is immensely asymmetric, the weak are left with little or no choice. For instance, it is easy to transpose the above quote to modern times in relation to Al Qaeda leaders. They do recognize that there are power inequalities and their hope is based on the fact that mobilizing Muslim masses will help them in their war. They also believe that Muslims are more powerful than other religions; hence, they assume that others are weak and it is easy to defeat them. Moreover, there are large asymmetries in power that affect both the weak and the strong. For example, as the world’s superpower, the US is subject to immense imperial temptation. This is because relative growth in authority and power leads to high expectations of compliance by other states. One can argue that the US did manage to succumb to the temptation when they were invading Iraq; hence, in modern times, the focus is more on failed and weak states (Stein 12-13). Furthermore, the combination of vast power unevenness and a connected world changes the utility and feasibility of military power. The weak hardly defeats the strong military though can use force as a means of political mobilization. In that case, although the above phrase is relevant today to some extent, in some cases the totally powerless are seen attacking the most influential and powerful states. For instance, the Al Qaeda group has constantly attacked the US and other strong cities with their strength originating from the hope that mobilizing the Islam group and their god will intervene and help them to succeed. For that reason, the strong cities at times feel endangered by the feeble and the global politics are more focused on the outright powerless nations (Stein 12-13). In a nation like Syria, people get to relate the lessons that were learnt when Athens destroyed Melos. The phrase ‘the strong do as they will and the weak do as they must’ helps in explaining why China as well as Russia chose not to allow the United Nations to end war. The Syrian case is just like that of the Melian dialogue since its government has been acting like the Athenian; thus, crushing all opposition. Moreover, the Syrian forces have been killing most civilians and a nation such as China has been quoted severally as killing prisoners and selling their body organs. In that case, the weak have no choice but to abide by the rules as the strong take over (Rice). Therefore, the question on whether the strong have a choice whereas the weak do not is rather contentious in the modern times. This is since in most instances, the sturdy continuously dominate those that are weak whereas in few cases the weak ends up attacking the strong. Q.3 What Sparta could have done when it found out what Athens had done Melos was a former colony of Sparta; hence, the Melians thought that Sparta had a duty to help them since they were allies. They also thought by refusing to defend them against Athens they would end up losing confidence of other colonies and allies. However, the Athenians had a firm belief that Sparta would not help the Melians but rather would serve its own selfish interests. Moreover, Athenians claimed that Spartans would find it futile to help Melos since it was just an Island, which was not paramount in the Spartan war. The Athenian prediction was correct as Sparta did not attempt to help defend Melos (Taylor 120-121). Considering that Melos was an ally of Sparta, it would have been ethical and moral to come to their aid. However, Melos was insignificant to Sparta and helping the Melians would be seen as a waste of resources. On the same note, in regard to realist theory, actors often make sound decisions and think strategically on the means in which they can survive. In that case, since Melos was of no use to Spartan, it was to be expected that they would fail to defend them. This is because helping them would have been a waste of time and resources, yet, Spartan was fighting for its interests, which was survival. Moreover, according to realist theory, it is obvious that the Athenians did not infringe the law when they used military force and power on Melos. This is because power was significant and weak states were inferior whereas the stronger ones were dominant. This means that the Spartans who were also fighting for their interests just like Athenians did not see the need to help them as being a weak state, the Melians could have accepted the Athenian’s offer without resistance. In that case, assuming that Spartans would have helped Melos on the basis of morality and ethics is far fetched, since ethics do not play a role in realistic theories. Although the classical realists do not entirely reject the possibility of morality and ethical judgment, they are quite critical in regard to moralism. This is because abstract morals tend to fail in taking account the present political realities (Frankel 178-181). For that reason, what Spartan did when it realized its allies were being attacked was normal on the basis of realist theory. Works Cited Baylis, John., Smith, Steve and Owens, Patricia. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. Brawley, Mark. Power, Money, and Trade: Decisions that Shape Global Economic Relations. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2005 Cline, Eric and Graham, Mark. Ancient EmpiresL from Mesopotamia to the Rise of Islam. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Frankel, Benjamin. Roots of Realism. New York: Routledge, 2013. Rice, Bill. Imperialism is Not Just an American Game. Borderless News and Views, 2013. Web. 21 January 2014 < http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/2013/05/imperialism-is-not-just-an-american-game/> Stein, Arthur. Power Politics and the Powerless, 2010. Web. 21 January 2014 < http://www.princeton.edu/~pcglobal/conferences/basics/papers/stein_paper.pdf> Taylor, Martha. Thucydides, Pericles, and the Idea of Athens in the Peloponnesian War. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Read More