Hans Morgenthaus Work - Politics among Nations - Essay Example

Hans Morgenthau is essentially correct that international politics is best understood as the struggle of s to advance their interests and their interests are defined as their power. Discuss. Hans Morgenthau’s work, Politics Among Nations, became the classic statement and blueprint of political realism as well as its defining arbiter. In this treatise, Morgethau’s argued that all human relations, including the relations among states, are based on the struggle for power. He stressed that “the struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience.” The significance of this perspective in international relations is that it posits that nations must act to advance its national interest, and that such interest is best defined by power. It supposedly achieves certain results (e.g. status quo, détente) that are pivotal in the stability of international relations. This paper will discuss why Morgenthau’s thesis is correct and how this theory has been applied. Political Realism In the book, Politics of Nations (1978), Morgenthau defined political realism in terms of six basic principles: 1. Political realism believes that politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature; 2. In international politics, the concept of interest is defined in terms of power; 3. Realism does not endow its key concept of interest defined as power with a meaning that is fixed once and for all; 4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action; 5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe; 6. Political realism is different from other schools of thought and that it maintains the autonomy of the political sphere. These principles expound on detailed explanations and illustrations that underscored the realist perspectives in international politics - that nations must advance their own self-interest because: a) it is more effective in achieving political objectives; b) it balances international powers; c) it is better than the idealist/moralistic approach in pursuing not just effective foreign policy, but social and other domestic objectives as well; and, d) it is crucial in a state’s very survival. A Critique of Idealism Morgenthau’s arguments cited the experience of the Second World War and international relations in a post-war period to drive home his point. He criticized the political idealism that preceded the First World War, the political theory, which he believed paved the way for the outbreak of the Second World War. He used the British experience as an example: Neville Chamberlain’s politics of appeasement were… inspired by good motives; he was… less motivated by considerations of personal power than were many other British prime ministers and he sought to preserve peace and to assure the happiness of all concerned. Yet his policies helped to make the Second World War inevitable.1 Morgenthau cited Churchill’s policy which apparently ran counter to Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement. He noted that Churchill was able to successfully navigate international politics than his predecessor because of the former’s strategy of advancing Britain’s power in the world stage. Interestingly, the seemingly selfish policy of self-advancement for states becomes an important tool for achieving and maintaining peace as well. As power becomes the principal theme of international politics, states wittingly an unwittingly strive to maintain an equilibrium or balance of it by attaining, preserving and/or increasing their respective interests. For Morgenthau, this is the most natural and efficient way of securing peace. Power and Morality Human nature is the central element of Morgenthau’s first principle of political realism. According to him, writers have put forward moral precepts which statesmen ought to take to heart in order to make relations between nations more peaceful and less anarchical; but they have rarely asked themselves whether and to what extent such precepts, however desirable in themselves, actually determine the actions of men.2 Here, one could easily understand that Morgenthau is not a believer of morality in international politics. One must remember that in his basic principles he merely mentioned a certain awareness because the competing national interests are now the main motives of international relations. He rightly claimed that often moral disapprobation “get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of survival.”3 The rationale is simple: there can be no political morality without prudence – the weighing of the consequences of seemingly moral action – to be the supreme virtue of politics. An interpretation of this claim was offered by Charles Beitz (1999). To quote: We are likely to make mistaken foreign policy choices if we take an excessively moralistic attitude toward them… a steadfast commitment to a moral principle that is inappropriate to some situation is likely to move us to make immoral or imprudent decisions about it.4 An important dimension to Morgenthau’s position in regard to morality in international politics is that his work serves as a warning against the tendencies of nations to be self-righteous about their foreign policies and even messianic in their intentions. What Morgenthau has achieved in this regard is that by presenting political realism as one that could cut through the masks of ideology and rhetoric to reveal the underlying motivations of nations. He concluded that, “it is exactly the concept of interest defined as power that saves us from that moral excess and that political folly. For if we look at all nations, our own included, as political entities pursuing their respective interests defined in terms of power, we are able to do justice to all of them.” 5 Conclusion Morgenthau’s work on political realism, particularly his arguments on international politics, offers us a rational and practical approach in the study of international politics. Morgenthau taught us that among the many interests of men are their preferences, desires or needs for some things over others. And so it is perfectly natural pursue self-interest because it is a mere extension of the processes of thinking about the human interest in survival. From here, one finds that political realism does not seek to oppose morality per se. Rather, as Morgenthau has show us, it seeks to derive morality away from traditions of politics. The lessons of the past provide an ample number of evidences that support this and that perhaps Morgenthau expected for us to transcend previous mistakes with his realist perspectives on international relations. Works Cited Beitz, Charles, Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton University Press, 1999. Morgenthau,Hans, The Twilight of International Morality, ArdentMedia,Inc.,1993. Morgenthau,Hans, Politics Among Nations, New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1978. Read More