The Realist Approach to International Relations - Case Study Example

Running head: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS International Relations [Writer’s Name] [Institution’s Name] International Relations Chapter 1 Introduction In this paper I shall emphasize on the fact that realism offers timeless wisdom, a good manual for state practice and therefore must be respected as a theory of international relations. The realist approach to international relations has its roots in the state's pursuit of power and the outright importance of the state above all else. Realism states that international relations should not be studied as how things should be but as how they are. We can clearly differentiate between the 'economic person', the 'religious person', the 'moral person', the 'political person' and so on so forth. In order to understand politics, we must study only the 'political person' for example we should study the political actions of a statesman as a synonym of a state. The theory of political realism is completely based on the idea of a rational actor. We must compare the real events to this ideal, normative depiction. Realism begins with the principle that states must act to preserve their security by amassing instruments of violence. Necessity prevails as the dominant concept in realist theory. The necessity of preserving immediate security and survival while overlooking the search for international harmony, the necessity of identifying the unavoidable constrictions on political choice, and the necessity of not pushing the boundaries of political change. Thesis Statement Realism offers timeless wisdom, a good manual for state practice and therefore must be respected as a theory of international relations. Chapter 2 Discussion International Relations theory relies on the construction of disciplinary history by particular communities of researchers. If a group’s construction of disciplinary history is effective, then they will have successfully reshaped the discipline’s history to legitimate their own paradigm while simultaneously delegitimating those of others. This retelling of the discipline’s history provides a sense of progress by demonstrating how one paradigm can better explain past and present events than another. But this is only part of the story. Progress assessment is actually a reflection of a more fundamental aspect of the construction of disciplinary of history — that of forging and maintaining a social identity. In order for any individual to understand that component of their identity which is social, she or he must have a sense of the history of the group1. Today's notion of realism developed as a reaction to the idealism of liberalists after the First World War. Idealism puts forward morality, international law and international organization as opposed to power as the basis of international relations. Be it with its ancient philosophical inheritance, its critical analysis of utopian ideology or its influence on diplomacy, realism has secured an important part in the international relations of today. It might be thought that realism, being such an old and recognized theory is fairly easy to define, but looking at examples of representative definitions of realism by political theorists and scholars proves that there is a relative amount of diversity in the definition of realism. A short definition will definitely exclude a number of areas of realism; too broad a definition loses several trains of thought. The essential ideas of the realist school are as follows: International relations are entirely open to study which completely objective in nature. Events can be defined as laws, exactly like they are in scientific theories to2. The key actor here is the state. Many times the state might be known to be the city-state, kingdom or clan. Individuals are of lesser significance. As a result organizations like the United Nations and political parties, etc, are all comparatively unimportant. The first outcome is that the international system is one of chaos, with no general ruler. A second outcome is that the state is definitely body that can be called a unitary actor. The state acts in a constant way, with no signs of divided aims. State behaviour is based on reason. States act as if they sensibly consider the costs as well as benefits of each and every path that is open to them. States act to use their security or power in the best possible way. The difference here at times proves controversial as the most favourable method to guarantee security is frequently equivalent to using power to its maximum capability. States often are completely dependant on force or the intense threat of force to achieve their ends. The most vital factor in deciding what is going to happen in international relations is the sharing or distribution of power. Ethical considerations are generally not considered. Universal moral values are hard to describe, and unattainable if both survival and power are not present. There are many arguments for and against this approach to the relationship between states. A totally Machiavellian approach to international relations only results in continual conflict. Idealism fails however because of the inevitability of conflict. Successful policy theories should encompass aspects of both idealism and realism. Political realism, also known as real politic or simply power politics has a history which dates back to the Greek historian Thucydides who, in the fifth century BC, stated that "the strong do what they have the power to do, and the weak accept what they have to accept." He considered the real reason for the Peloponnesian War to be the rapid growth and development of Athenian power as well as the fear that spared in Sparta due to this war. Idealists believe that the practice of international relations should stem from morality. The Chinese writer Mo Ti called attention to the fact that every person knows that murder is wrong, but when murder is committed in war it is applauded and dubbed to be a righteous act. Mo Ti, who lived over 2000 years ago, found this nonsensical, he said "If a man calls black black if it is seen on a small scale, but calls black white when it is seen on a large scale, then he is one who cannot tell black from white." At around the same time, during the "warring states" period, Chinese strategist Sun Tzu, who advised the rulers of the era to use power to further their welfare, argued that morality should be discarded as it was not very useful to rulers of states who were faced with armed and dangerous opponents. In the early 1500s a realist political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli shared Thucydides' importance. Niccolo Machiavelli was usually predestined at the time; because of his contemptuous and amoral guidance on the manner government should be run. Nevertheless, what he wrote in his writings turned out to be the essence of what is known at present as realism. In his book, The Prince and the Discourses, he states Although since my purpose is to say something that will strongly prove to be of practical use to the reader , I think that it is appropriate to characterize things as they are all in what can be known as the real truth, as they are not just a figment of the imagination .A lot of people have dreamed of republics as well as principalities in these dreams truth does not exist; the gulf involving how one ought to live along with how one does live is so widespread that a man who does not give attention to what in fact needs to be done this is a sure the path to self-destruction, thus is does not help self-preservation. The fact is that a man who wants to take steps, a man who is guiltless in every way automatically becomes unhappy amongst those who are not virtuous. Hence if a prince desires to maintain his rule he has to learn how not to be truthful, as well as make use of this or not according to the requirement of his period of rule. The First World War seemed to be a major challenge to Realism. Practices Realist was more and more doubted, this mostly happened in the United States as their national practice was remarkably different from the European states. The post-war era was an era of optimism as well as pacifism. Near the to late 1930s the optimism was well known till the end of the First World War and was unravelling. While Germany’s new Nazi government was intimidating its neighbours, Italy had conquered Ethiopia, Japan was planning to build a new empire that would separate from China, civil war had spread like wild fire throughout Spain - and the World couldn’t do a thing to put an end to these new catastrophes. In this atmosphere the historian as well as former diplomat3, E.H. Carr simply launched a completely armed attack on the liberal principles that had for a protracted time marked the recently found international relations theory of the inter-war years. According to Carr, each and every field of study goes through a phase that is naive of "utopianism”. Signifying a reaction in opposition to the wish-dreams of the initial stage, realism is expected to presume a critical as well as somewhat pessimistic characteristic. In the field of thought, it places its significance on the approval of facts as well as on the analysis of their causes as well as outcomes. However while Carr, argued his case strongly; he realized that as the discipline developed there was a possibility of blending realism and utopianism. In the instant after effects of the Second World War, Hans J. Morganthau was well known for having successfully systematizing classical Realism. Morgenthau begins with the argument that he is giving a structured “theory of international politics that is really well structured ".He had a strong believe that his theory is completely bringing "order as well as meaning" to facts which need to be proved. It gives a clear explanation of the observed phenomena and is logically reliable; it is also completely based on fixed premises. Morgenthau's theory is completely based on six principles, These principles are as follows: The first principle which he believes in is that International relations are ruled by means of objective laws that have their deep roots in human nature. The second principle which he believes in is that the most vital thought is the concept of interest that is clearly defined in terms of enduring power. The third principle which he believes in is that Interest that is also defined as power is an objective type which is universally applicable, although its specific meaning might modify with time as well as situation. Whereas moral principles have a deep rooted place, they cannot in anyway have the same definition every time and place, it relates in a different way to individuals as well as the state. The fourth principle which he believes in is that the deep rooted moral aspirations of a particular state are not in anyway moral laws that govern the entire universe.4 Politics is a sovereign field, it is the requirement of this felid that it is to be analysed as an entity, without being subordinated to values that have external worth. In 1979 Kenneth N. Waltz tried his best to reformulate realism in a novel as well as unique way. His main objective was to treat the defects with previous theories of international relations, as well as classical realism, by applying a more logical approach. The approach he gave relating to Theory of International Politics became recognized as Neorealism5. While classical Realists recognized international politics in terms of the qualities of states as well as their communication with one another, Waltz strongly believed that there was a level greater than this. According to Waltz, The notion that international politics can by all means be thought of as a system with a correctly defined structure is Neorealism's fundamental removal from traditional realism. The situation of the system as a complete theory had a strong effect not only on the state level factors but also on state behaviour. By focusing on the temperament of the system-level structure, Waltz totally avoided the requirement to make assumptions concerning human nature, morality, power as well as interest. Neorealists were as a result able to see power in a strange way. For the classical Realists power was equally means as well as an end, and rational state behaviour was simply using up most of the power. Neorealists found out that an enhanced guide can be provided by means of assuming that the vital state interest was in entirely based on security, and even though gathering power frequently ensured that, in a number of cases it just aggravated an arms race. Yet while power was no longer played the role as an important motivator, its distribution was the key factor in deciding the nature of the structure. As Waltz puts it, ‘the close juxtaposition of states promotes their sameness through the disadvantages that arise from failure to conform to successful practices’. The states that emerge in anarchy are unitary and rational, seeking above all to survive while maximizing perceived utility. They will naturally pursue their national interest defined in terms of power according to offensive neorealism, or in terms of security according to defensive neorealism. Due to the anarchic nature of the international system, and the absence of any recourse in the case of aggression, states have only themselves to rely upon to protect their interests, sovereignty, and indeed, their very survival. Therefore, power becomes the main currency of international relations since it guarantees the state’s survival. According to offensive neorealism, states will aggressively seek to maximize power to pre-empt challenges arising from peer competitors. According to defensive neorealism, states will only pursue power as a means to achieve security. Security is seen as relatively plentiful among states focused on the probability rather than the mere possibility of conflict Realists believe that states exist in a natural anarchy of world politics6 Where every state looks out for its own national interest. The security dilemma stems from the idea that all states are potential enemies and that enhancing the security of one state produces a relative loss of power for all other states. Realists believe that peace can only be achieved by a balance of power among several states as opposed to a bi-polar, hegemonic world. Idealists or liberal institutionalists believe that states can achieve security through construction of international regimes and structures. There are many alternative approaches to realism, for example constructivism or identity politics which explores world politics from the viewpoint those international relations can be best explained by a collection of identities, rather than states7. Instead of taking the state as the given and only relevant unit of analysis this theory imagines the possibility of many different states, many distinct identities. It then follows that alternative kinds of states do not treat each other in a similar manner. This approach has been used to explain many of the hard questions in international politics that realism has difficulty answering. For example, the notion that there is more than on "Russian state" is a prime concern of identity politics. Russia's behaviour in international politics is an outgrowth of these identities. What are Russia's identities? Consider the vast number of terms used to describe Russia in journals and newspapers. Russia is considered to be an "ex-communist state", it is also known as a “developing state", and if we talk about politics then it is considered as a "democratic state", it is an also known as a "Asian state", and can also be called a "nuclear state" and so on and so forth . According to theories of identity politics, we can best understand Russian behaviour by studying these particular identities and how policy choices influence these identities. Therefore, identity politics considers a dramatically different set of variables than realism. Critical theory appeals to a number of different non-quantitative fields to analyze world politics, whereas realists believe that the influence of religion, culture, history and other variables is subordinate to precise measurements of material capabilities. Realist theory is also unable to explain major events in world politics such as the end of the Cold War and the two world wars. Whereas realists measure only the role of states and the balance of power between them in world politics, critical theories take a more expansive course, incorporating actors like non-governmental organisations, transnational corporations and factors like domestic politics into their explanation of world politics. Chapter 3 Conclusion Thus, by the above in depth discussion of realism and international relations it can be said that Realism offers timeless wisdom, a good manual for state practice and therefore must be respected as a theory of international relations. The discussion gives ample arguments in the favour of realism and how it is important to international relations. Therefore a successful international relations policy should include aspects of realism and other maybe more idealistic theories. References Burchill, S. and Linklater A 1996; Theories of International Relations, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, St.Martin's Press, Inc., pp.67-90. Cameron G. Thies 2002; Progress, History and Identity International Relations Theory: The Case of the Idealist–Realist Debate European Journal of International Relations SAGE Publications and ECPR Louisiana State University, USA, Vol. 8(2): pp147–185 Donnelly, J 2000; Realism and International Relations, The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 2RU, Cambridge University Press, pp.6-13. Goldstein, J.S 2004. International Relations, London, Pearson Longman, 5th Edition. Pp.71-78. Linklater, A 1990., Beyond Realism and Marxism - Critical Theory and International Relations, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 2XS, The Macmillan Press Ltd., pp1-8. Simon Collard-Wexler 2006; Integration under Anarchy: Neorealism and the European Union, European Journal of International Relations p 399 Spegele, R.D 1996., Political Realism in International Theory, The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP, Cambridge University Press, pp230-244. Read More