Realism as One of the Concepts That Have Evoked a Wide Range of Controversy - Essay Example

DO YOU AGREE THAT REALISM HAS “GOT THE BIG THINGS RIGHT”? College DO YOU AGREE THAT REALISM HAS “GOT THE BIG THINGS RIGHT”? Introduction Realism is one of the concepts that have evoked a wide range of controversy within the international relations theory due to its conceived practicality to other approaches. The history of realism dates back to 431 BC during the period of political realism in Sparta. This concept gained attention due to the conceived failures of idealism during the periods of political upheaval. The idea that thrives in a wide range of scholarly work is that realism provides a systematic and practical approach to solving international problems. However, there are those who feel that realism has failed in various occasions that demanded a practical approach. This essay argues that realism has helped in setting the big things right within the international arena. The concept of Realism Realism is a school of thought that derives the concept of things as they are, regardless on the way people may want them to be, with a tendency to be practical and more pragmatic. This idea juxtaposes with the idea of idealism which refers to the conception of things as they should be and the way people would want them to be. In the international relations theory, there has evolved a big controversy on which concept best describes how nations relate and how conflict among international states can be resolved. The concept of classical political realism evolved in the early 431 BC during war between Sparta and Athens (Monten, 2006). When Thucydides witnessed this war, he made a historical analysis of the war defying the popular belief of Gods during this period. He argued that war can be analysed by considering the facts of the war, hence defying the idealistic approach that the people used at this time. In this period, people had an idealistic mentality and they believed in gods and that everything happened as it should be. Thucydides pointed out that history should be analysed from an objective perspective bearing in mind that nations are monarchs that are always seeking for economic and political power. He stated that it was only practical that the strong nations should always rule the weaker nations. Political realism has three important tenets that apply within the international relations theory. First, realism describes the concept of ‘statism’ and describes states as the major role players in international politics. Unlike the liberalism theories that consider the role of non-states sectors within the international politics, realism theory is state-centric. Another important concept of realism is that international politics is a tag of war as anarchic states struggle to survive each in its own way. This refers to the competitive natures of states as they seek to gather power and control other nations. The last tenet of realism is ‘self-help’ that describes the notion that nations act in self-interest, with the sole of aim of benefiting their nations. On this note, realism sees nations as competing entities within an uncontrolled international system (Vrabic, 2014). As such nations act to benefit themselves, rather than benefit rival states. This idea of realists contradicts the liberalism school of thought that perceives international relations as a cobweb within which every nation has the privilege to choose their course of action. Political Realism in International Relations In international relations, there has evolved a great idealist-realist debate as author seeks to reveal which school of thought best describes state behaviour. Machiavelli is among scholars who termed idealism as irrational in its belief that moral principles govern the way states behave within the political field (Brown, 2012). He states that idealism has failed by explaining political relationships on how they should be rather than the way they are. On this ground that political behaviour arises from the nature of human beings, who are naturally competitive and would do any evil to gain power over the other. Therefore, when nations interact, they do so in such a way that each benefits from this relationship for survival. This idea is similar to Thucydides argument that power is the main agenda for nations as relations are defined by the power that each nation possesses. Just like human beings compete uncontrollably, nations compete for power to acquire sovereignty. Hobbes and Locke developed ideas concerning the human nature. They held different ideas concerning the character of human beings. According to Hobbes, the human beings have a strong drive that propels them towards desire for power. He draws the image of this desire for power as a strong greed. He calls it desire for ‘power after power that only ceases at death’. It is this strong greed that brings men naturally to a tough competition. This completion in turn drives them to have animosity. In this view human beings become rivals of one another. Therefore they are even ready to kill in order to eliminate their competitors (MacKay, 2013). They struggle to make fellow humans to worship and serve them as they enjoy the privileges of being the heads. On the other hand, Locke claims that human beings are social in nature. They recognize the presence of a stronger being who is God. He explains that the laws of nature are pre-set by God who is the creator. Hence Man as a social being they are concerned with the well-being of their fellow beings. They are protective to them and are even ready to die for one another as they ensure their fellow’s safety. They portray the image of an animal protecting its young ones. According to Hobbes, it is this nature of human beings that see them save their fellows in times of danger. From a close look, Hobbes realist approach about the nature of human as a people greed for power is the basis of realist politics. According to Hobbes, the nature of human beings that gives them the right to compete and to outdo one another is the one that gives rise to the need for government. He says that the fact that human beings are at war with one another for their selfish success makes them threats to one another. In fact they develop a fear for one another. Due to the fact that they are equal and have equal abilities to eliminate one another, it gives them too much power on their hands. This is why they agree to surrender this power belonging to the people to a sovereign body to rule them fairly and to protect them. They have to choose some few individuals to form up the sovereign body that would rule them fairly. Hobbes therefore believes that the government has no power. It is only empowered by the people. The government exercises the power to come up with laws governing the people and to establish a system of security, collecting tax e.t.c. however this idea had a weakness arising as to when the government becomes hostile to the people. He said that the government may abuse the rights of the people. He saw no solution for such a situation. In his view, it would be impossible to reverse the course of events since it would be better to be governed by such a government than rather be guarded by the law of nature (MacKay, 2013). Locke on the other hand had a different opinion. He argued that the people had absolute right to make up a government that satisfies them. He says that when the government becomes hostile the people have a right to revolt against it and reconstitute another one that performs to their expectations. It is clear that the two philosophers recognize the need for a government though they have a different opinion on the course of the government. The Big Things In international relations, there is evidence that nations are always in some kind of conflict which realist sees as the war for power or pursuance of self-interest. Realists point out that nations engage in war as they seek power or acquire sovereignty over other nation states. Since nations are competitive in nature, they will engage in activities that will amass power and or even contribute to their economic development. The history of global relations provides a lot of evidence of the hunger for power among nations. The expansionism strategy of the west is a manifestation of the state of nature of human beings, which is much similar to that of the nations. In the 1900s, the western nations set out across the world in search for economic expansion and their destination comprised of other weak nations (Ray, 2004). For instance, British moved to third world countries in search of cheap labour, minerals and raw materials for their industries. This alludes to the concept of greed for power among nations and the evil will of nation in striving to remain top of other nations. The western countries oppressed weaker nations as they pursued their selfish interest of becoming super power nations. The idealistic way of thought failed to explain the political agendas of western nations. Idealists see nations as friendly entities that are governed by unseen rules. They believe that nations are meant to be friendly to one another if they have to benefit from their close relations ((Baniak & Grajzl, 2014). From a critical lens, it is clear that self-interest overrides moral principles, hence defying the idea proposed by idealists. The failure of idealism to explain how nations inter-relate has made realism the paradigm in the international relations theory. The realistic way of thought seems reasonable in its attempt to explain the behaviour of states and the conflict that has punctuated the history of the world. In the expansionism strategy, the west seems to have been in the pursuit for power, not only for personal survival but also to rule the weak nations. This is similar to Thucydides idea that strong nations will always rule weak nations due to their insatiable greed for power. Another important proposal of realists is that policy comes as a result of the need to balance power and to regulate the inter-state behaviour. In Hobbes realistic idea of government, he states that the government formation is a result of submission of power to a sovereign body as a way of protecting people from one another (Baniak & Grajzl, 2014). Similarly, in the international relations, there is evidence that states are rival agents and the only way to control the greed for power is to ensure that they submit this power to an international governing body. In current politics, there is evidence of this submission of power and the birth of international policies as a way of regulating inter-state behaviour. For instance, the European Union develops laws that govern the relations between its member states. The European governs the rivalry between member states and eliminates any conflict between the laws. The United Nation is another body that was born out of the urge to control of country behaviour as one way of cancelling competition government by selfishness. As realist argue, if there are no international laws the war would be inevitable and conflicts would be a permanent feature of the international system. Neo-Realism as the Paradigm A neo-realism seems to be a more optimistic approach in solving international conflicts by controlling power struggle. Unlike classical realism that provides no solution to the greed for power among states, neorealism provides hope for health relations among nations. Waltz states that; “The locus of the important causes of war is found in the nature and behaviour of man. War results from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses, from stupidity… If these are the primary causes of war, then the elimination of war must come through uplifting and enlightening men or securing their psychic-social readjustment.” (Pashakhanlou, 2014) The idea of Waltz is that the war between nations can be controlled through development of policies that govern the behaviour of different states. The defensive and offensive versions of neorealism present two sides of the same coin. The defensive realist’s state that the nations avoid seeking for power as this would incite other nations to arise against them in an effort to maintain hegemony (Joseph & Wight, 2010). Therefore, states will look for as much as possible until they cannot look for more. This is evident in the German’s expansionism strategy in which Bismarck stopped after winning the Afro-Prussian war. This is because the country was aware that amassing this power would trigger reaction from other nations as they seek to close this power gap. On the other hand, offensive realists state that despite how much power countries possess, they will use all means to gain more power. They suppose that the quest for power ends only after the nation cannot gain more of it. From a close look, neo-realists concede that there is a point when states cannot amass more power and this is the point where the hope for interstate war lies. As compared to the classical realism theories, the latter supposes that there is an ultimate solution to the war between states. The classical theories seem provide the notion that there is no limit for the hunger of power (Baniak & Grajzl, 2014). The implication of classical theories is that there is no hope that nations would cooperate and that war reins the history of the world. The critics of classical realism state that the theories fail to provide a basis for ending the war between nations, which is unreasonable an unacceptable in a real world. Notably, it is possible that nations cooperate and remain in harmony as long as their relationship is mutual. The Contribution of Realism in getting the big things right The idea that realism has resulted to the ultimate solution of the big problems that exist within the international relation is contentious. There seems to be occasions when realism has succeeded in providing harmony and some in which it has failed. To evaluate the role of realism in ‘getting the big things right’ is to evaluate how the approach it provides has helped in resolving international conflicts. To begin with, realism suggests that the only way that the selfish nature of state can be controlled is using international policies. The role of international policies in the international politics has contributed, in a great way, to the harmony within states. The European Union Law has helped to bind the European nations and to control any rivalry among them. The European laws have had positive impact in controlling the rivalry for coal, steel and atomic energy among member states (Martínezgarnelo, 2014). The European council designs laws that regulate the distribution of resources and control any boundary conflicts that exist among member states. Another important body is the United Nations that sets laws to govern the way nations behave towards one another. The United Nation plays the role of moderating inter-state behaviour and to regulate the way countries interact. The UN’s role in the Iraqian war of 2003 is one of controversial situations that the body has had to handle. In this war, the UN involved the US and Iraq in a diplomatic process to resolve the conflict. While the UN has succeeded in many other occasions, it is evident that the UN did not stop the war against Iraq. Although the UN was against the attack of US in Iraq, US liberally announced that diplomacy had failed and decided to attack Iraq (Guerlain, 2014). This is one of the downfalls of Realism in international relations. While realism suggests international bodies are the ultimate means to control the evil nature of states, it is clear that at times they fail (Sylvester, 2013). The US invasion in Iraq alludes to the liberalism school of thought that notes that nations have the freedom to do whatever they will, including the search for power (Hall, 2011). Therefore, to some extent, realism has failed in getting the big things right. Where international relations involve charity work, there arises a question of whether realism or idealism plays role. For instance, in 2011, over 91 countries donated aid to Japan during a time of catastrophe. From a realist’s interpretation, every action by a country is guided by the greed for power. However, in situations of compassion, it appears that the idealist theory that refers to the friendly relationship between nations seems to be the principle driver to the contribution of nations in charity work (Donnelly, 2000). However, it is clear that there are situations when charity contribution during international disasters is a selfish strategy that aims at constructing the international image of nations. This can be perceived as part of organizations effort to acquire political power within the global arena. Evaluating the current urge for nations to enter the global market, it is clear that sometimes donations may not be out of compassion but a strategy to remain powerful. From another end, the realism theories are crucial in explaining the way nations relate in the present world. Undoubtedly, nations cooperate not because they are selfless, but because their cooperation leads to mutual development. Hence, in cooperating, countries pursue economic stability or mutual benefit with those they establish relationship with. For instance, the cooperation between the western nations and the African nations seem to be based on symbiotic relationship (Ratti, 2012). The US benefits from imports and exports while the African nations profit from loans and other forms of donations. In a nutshell, a close analysis of international relation shows that nations interact in such a way that at the end of the day they pursue personal interests. Conclusion In conclusion, in many ways, realism has played an important role in getting the big things right. Realism provides a practical approach in explaining how nations behave towards one another and provides solution to the war and conflict that exists between nations. Since nations are driven by personal interests, the only way to tame is to provide a mechanism that allows them to submit power to a greater body. This alludes to the role of international organizations in regulating the state behaviour and to prevent clashes between nations. Although these bodies sometimes fail to control international behaviour, it is clear that this is a manifestation of the greed that nations have. The liberalism idea that nations are free in doing good or bad is unacceptable since it ignores the fact that nations participate in actions that profit them. Similarly, the idealistic notion that states have the will to do good in cooperating is unreasonable as it seems explain how things should be rather how they are. Therefore, realism is crucial in international relations at it helps organizations to attain hegemony by controlling their selfish interests. Bibliography Baniak, A, & Grajzl, P 2014, When Do Times of Increasing Uncertainty Call for Centralized Harmonization in International Policy Coordination?, Emerging Markets Finance & Trade, 50, 4, pp. 128-144, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014. Available from:< http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/99335215/when-do-times-increasing-uncertainty-call-centralized-harmonization-international-policy-coordination > Brown, C 2012, Realism: rational or reasonable?, International Affairs, 88, 4, pp. 857-866, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014. Available from: Donnelly, J. 2000. Realism and international relations. Cambridge, [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press. Available from:< http://books.google.co.ke/books?id=509idQ4icxIC&printsec= frontcover&dq= Realism+and+international+relations&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4—DVKjXHoXyUr HNgvAP&redir _esc=y#v=onepage&q=Realism%20and%2 0interna tional %20relations&f=false> Guerlain, P 2014, Obamas Foreign Policy: Smart Power, Realism and Cynicism, Society, 51, 5, pp. 482-491, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014. Available from: Hall, I 2011, The Triumph of Anti-liberalism? Reconciling Radicalism to Realism in International Relations Theory, Political Studies Review, 9, 1, pp. 42-52, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014 Available from: Joseph, J., & Wight, C. 2010, Scientific realism and international relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. MacKay, J 2013, International politics in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century central Asia: beyond anarchy in international-relations theory, Central Asian Survey, 32, 2, pp. 210-224, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014. Available from: Martínezgarnelo, Y, 2014, The Eastern Partnership as an expression of the European Neighbourhood Policy: reinforcing the European normative power with the Eastern partners, Eastern Journal Of European Studies, 5, 1, pp. 131-143, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014. Available from: Monten, J 2006, Thucydides and Modern Realism, International Studies Quarterly, 50, 1, pp. 3-26, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014. Available from: Pashakhanlou, AH 2014, Waltz, Mearsheimer and the post-Cold War world: The rise of America and the fall of structural realism, International Politics, 51, 3, p. 295, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014. Available from: Ratti, L 2012, All Aboard the Bandwagon? Structural Realism and Italys International Role, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 23, 1, pp. 87-109, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014. Available from: Ray, A. K. 2004, Western realism and international relations: A non-western view. New Delhi: Foundation Books. Sylvester, C 2013, Experiencing the end and afterlives of International Relations/theory, European Journal Of International Relations, 19, 3, pp. 609-626, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014. Available from: Vrabic, D 2014, International Relations, Realism as an Approach to:, Value Inquiry Book Series, 276, pp. 289-290, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 December 2014. Available from:< http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/97490411/international-relations-realism-as-approach-to> Read More