Do Classical Realists Show That There Is No Place For Morality In International Politics - Coursework Example

Do ical Realists show that there is no place for morality in international politics? of the Module 3 January Do Classical Realists show that there is no place for morality in international politics? Introduction Classical realism emerged as a reaction towards the idealist and positivist theory of international relations. The idealist theory of international relations governed discourses on international politics during the interwar period until the advent of classical realism. Idealist theories emphasized that the elimination of war, improved diplomacy and pacific international laws would create a better international order (Chambers, 2008, p. 934). Idealism perpetuates that human beings’ morality and enlightened self-interests would pave way for peaceful and cooperative international relations. On the other hand, classical realists hold that fundamental concepts of power and national interest dominate international politics (Chambers, 2008, p. 934). Similarly, classical realists repudiate the positivist stance that law would transcend the everyday world of politics. Classical realism was, in fact, a sensible reaction against utopianism, idealism, and moralism that undermined the pursuit of national interest; in turn, classical realists strongly propagate that national security and acquisition of power are the driving forces in international relations (Lumsdaine, 1993, p. 8). Classical realists tend to value morality secondary to power and national interest and for them morality is restricted to communities and societies within domestic politics. However, classical realists do not argue that there is no place for morality in international politics. On the other hand, they postulate that the politics of moral ideals is often tempered by the politics of power in international relations. They also point out that states may have to violate moral principles to protect their national interests and therefore a country’s foreign policy cannot be rooted on non-realist principles of morality or ethics. Similarly, classical realists envision a world order that is characterized by violence, conflicts, insecurity, and lawlessness. The classical realist theory of international relations deserves primary attention in the wake of continuing international tensions and conflicts among world nations. Classical realists tend to value morality secondary to power and national interest in international politics. While many realists maintain that morality has no role in international politics there are others who hold that moral structures are applicable in domestic politics only (Forde 1993, p. 64). The incompetency of a moral order to govern international politics and international relations is evident in the theoretical perpetuations of classical realists. The inability of the League of Nations and international laws to prevent further international wars offers credential for the thoughts of classical realism. Similarly, the continuing international and transnational conflicts prompt one to think in favour of classical realist theory of international politics. Hans Morgenthau, a key exponent of classical realism, considers human beings ‘inherently moral as well as political animals;’ Carr admits the element of morality in world order; but both the thinkers point out that the politics of moral ideals is often tempered by the politics of power in international relations (Barkin, 2005, p. 462). Classical realists, especially Morgenthau, distinguish between private and public morality. He purports that while individuals are free to pursue their individual private morality the “state cannot afford to preach morality if the safety and security of its people are in danger” (Chatterjee, 2010, p. 18). Political ethics in international relations appears contradictory to private morality as the priority in the former is the preservation of national interest and national security. However, Morgenthau does not consider national interest as ‘a fixed, impenetrable entity’ but he exhorts statesman to identify, pursue, and act upon the national interest in terms of accomplishing material power (Kitchen 2010, p. 127). It is ethical for Morgenthau if states engage in wars, conspiracies or spying to ensure the security of its people. For Morgenthau, political morality is acting with prudence and a leader’s role is to initiate actions in accordance with the changing political situations irrespective of his private morality. He also warns that a country’s foreign policy cannot be rooted on non-realist principles of morality or ethics. On the other hand, every state is moved by its own self-interests while engaging in international relations. Classical realists therefore argue that international politics is not governed by morality. On the other hand, international politics is an autonomous sphere which is free from ordinary moral considerations and is governed by objective laws (Lumsdaine, 1993, p. 8). Machiavelli, in this respect, conceives international politics as an independent realm with its own laws that are considerably different from moral laws or ethical cores (Forde 1993, p. 66). The principles of international realm, for Machiavelli, are determined by success in terms of survival, longevity, or glory. Similarly, for him, conflicts and anarchy govern the international realm as states are divided on their national interests. As such, neutral rationality lies at the core of international power politics and every state caters to the best rational choices that may protect its national interest the best. For classical realists, morality is restricted to communities and societies within domestic politics. While moral and ethical mores exist in domestic affairs Machiavelli cautions one to distinguish between the exercise of morality in domestic politics and international politics. When it comes to international politics ethical questions on what is right and wrong or what is good and evil are overshadowed by “practical questions of what can and cannot be achieved in terms of national interest” (Kissane, 2014, p. 62). As such, classical realists discourage leaders of sovereign states to be imbibed by morality in their decision making or foreign policies. That is why Machiavelli cautions the Prince not to apply rules of justice and morality in international dealings while for Hobbes rules governing international politics are ‘fundamentally flawed, fundamentally amoral and destructive’ (Kissane, 2014, p. 62). Machiavelli’s analysis of international politics is rooted on the principles of self-defence and national interest. Machiavelli is in support of imperialism when it caters to the preservation of national interest. Machiavelli praises the ancient Romans for pursuing a policy of universal imperialism and he argues that they conquered Greece and Syria to avoid threats to Roman security (Forde, 1993, p. 65). However, Machiavelli’s account of morality in international relations fails to distinguish between just and unjust wars or between aggression and defence. It is also worthwhile to analyze the views of Thucydides and Hobbes on the role of morality in international politics. Thucydides elaborates his ideas on classical realism in the backdrop of the Peloponnesian war between Sparta and Athens. Thucydides postulates that states may have to violate moral principles to protect their national interests. He points out that external necessities and internal compulsions may prompt political communities to violate moral principles in foreign affairs (Forde 1993, p. 73). He justifies Sparta’s attack on Athens to protect its national interest and preserve its national security. Even though the war was initiated by Sparta Thucydides sees nothing immoral about it. Similarly, Hobbes unearths the relationship between morality and natural law and points out that the foundation of natural law is self-interest. For Hobbes a common power is essential for people to follow the laws of nature while it is irrational in the case of state of nature as the dilemma lies in commanding cooperation (Beitz, 1979, p. 31). Similarly, the concept of an effective international morality itself is irrational and impractical for him. Hobbes argues that the essence of international realism is ‘the primacy of self-interest over moral principle’ manifested through the necessity and the rights of individual states in international politics (Forde, 1993, p. 62). However, Hobbes does not argue that morality is completely inapplicable to international politics; on the other hand, the undercurrents of his theoretical postulation is that ethical principles fail to establish themselves under the conditions of international politics. Critics of classical realism argue that the stream of thought perpetuate a pessimistic view of human nature. Many argue that Morgenthau possesses a negative view of human nature. On the other hand, Morgenthau believes that human nature is susceptible to misuse and temptations of power and this belief prompts him to reject the liberal strain of international relations theory that stresses on the natural harmony of interests among states, pacifism and a world order rooted in peace and morality (Kaufman, 2006, p. 25). As Kitchen (2010, p. 123) points out, Morgenthau regards both ethics and morality as products of power in international relations. Morgenthau concludes that perpetual peace is an unattainable dream under the current international arena. It can thus be seen that classical realists, while recognizing humans as moral beings, regard any moral theory in the absence of recognition of power as a futile exercise in international politics (Barkin, 2005, p. 460). International relations are thus governed by the essential human nature that seeks power and security rather than morality. Classical realists seek to analyze international politics in terms of human nature; they argue that international politics is “governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature” (Kitchen 2010, p. 123). Hans Morgenthau, in this respect, describes states as ‘rational, self-interested, opportunistic individuals’ that are preoccupied with power, national interest and security rather than morality or ethical consideration (Chambers, 2008, p. 935). He purports that states would cease to abide by international agreements if they contradict the states’ vital interests. Similarly, classical realists hold that while morality, ideology, religious and cultural factors may have an impact on human life within communities power is the primary concern of every state. They also point out that the ethics of international relations are situational and as such no states form their foreign policy based on private morality or personal virtue. The principles of power politics govern international relations. As such all successful leaders, according to Morgenthau, need to adapt to “the changing power-political configurations in world politics” and make “the national interest the ultimate standard of their policies” (Chambers, 2008, p. 936). Morgenthau also regards military preparedness as an essential core element of national power to sustain national interests and guard against foreign interventions. Classical realists such as Thucydides, Hobbes, Machiavelli, Carr and Morgenthau hold that it is “too dangerous for states to pay much heed to moral concerns” (Armstrong, Farrell & Lambert 2012, p. 83). They also hold that the exercise of such state power would culminate in violence, international tensions, war, and conquest. Carr, in this respect, denounces the liberal idea of preventing war in international politics and purports that the opposing interests of states would culminate in conflicts and wars (Chatterjee, 2010, p. 18). Carr does not believe that a regulatory international authority is capable of preventing future wars in international politics. Carr also foresees that power, instead of morality, is the driving force in international politics and relations (Chatterjee, 2010, p. 18). Similarly, Hobbes, Machiavelli and Thucydides also emphasize the ever-present risk of war and the raw exercise of power in statecraft; Carr conceives a real world scenario with little harmony of interests among states; Morgenthau condemns international law and order when he finds Nazis seizing power in Germany and plunging the world into war; and all these thinkers are unanimous in their postulation that international politics is characterized by the struggle for power (Armstrong, Farrell & Lambert 2012, p. 78). Classical realism, as propagated by these thinkers, stress on the exercise of power at the exclusion of moral considerations. Classical realists thus conceive the international system as fiercely competitive and anarchic; for them, material factors, such as military resources and the balance of power govern international politics rather than non-material factors such as norms, institutions, international law, ethics or morality (Armstrong, Farrell & Lambert 2012, p. 79). Therefore, the thinkers exhort states to be rational actors to protect its commonly shared national interest and preserve its security. Similarly, classical realists regard violence, conflicts, war, insecurity, and lawlessness as integral parts of domestic as well as world politics. Morgenthau argues that “people are by nature self-interested and power-hungry” and this inherent human nature would prompt states to compete for power within international politics just as political parties compete each other for power in domestic politics (Chatterjee, 2010, p. 18). For him, this struggle for power is an essential prerequisite for states to maintain their national interests. This has rightly been pointed out by Lumsdaine when the author observes that international politics is characterized by “violence, the struggle for power, group self-centeredness, and indifference to the rights and fates of others” (Lumsdaine, 1993, p. 11). It is no surprise to the classical realists that these forms of conflicts culminate in the exercise of force, violence, brutality and organized mass killings in war. Classical realists therefore hold that a powerful sovereign state governed by a powerful leader is essential for safeguarding external threats and for managing conflicts within the state. It is interesting to note that almost all modern states spend the greatest amount for defense purposes. The theorists also are aware of the permanence of these conflicts in domestic politics as well as in international affairs. Another major premise of classical realism is its emphasis on the anarchic nature of world order. Classical realists such as Thucydides, Hobbes, and Morgenthau do not belief in the practicality of international peace and stability and they argue that the state system creates international anarchy (Chatterjee, 2010, p. 18). Classical realists predict that the uniformly selfish human nature coupled with the struggle for power of states may contribute to international anarchy (Lumsdaine, 1993, p. 8). They purport that poor foreign policies and subsequent conflicts between sovereign powers may lead to destruction and anarchy (Kissane, 2014, p. 59). The lack of a central authority in the international system makes international laws vulnerable and powerless. The continued conflicts among sovereign states undermine the likelihood of a moral international sphere even though temporary international cooperation among superpowers based on mutually beneficial interests are possible. This prompts classical realists to accept anarchy, conflicts and war as integral parts of the international system (Kissane, 2014, p. 59). As Kitchen (2010, p. 124) records, international politics is “fundamentally about power, which is accrued, defended and wielded only in pursuit of the national interest defined as national security, the nature of which can be identified and assessed in terms of material capabilities.” In the absence of a sovereign power in the international system each state formulates foreign policies in favour of its national interest and security and conflicts arise when they clash with the interests of other states. Conclusions Even though classical realism emerged as a reaction towards the idealist and positivist theory of international relations the theory has greater contemporary relevance in the global world today. It is true that morality has ceased to be a controlling force in international politics and today power relations govern international affairs. Classical realists do not argue that there is no place for morality in international politics but they pinpoint the reality that the politics of moral ideals is replaced the politics of power in international relations. They also reveal the futility of modelling the state’s foreign policy after moral principles. The anarchy, violence, conflicts, insecurity, and lawlessness envisioned by classical realists are equally applicable to international politics today. However, it is worthwhile to reread the perpetuations of classical realists in the wake of international peace and cooperation movements such as that of the United Nations, WHO, the World Bank, numerous NGOs, charitable organizations, and various voluntary organizations. Despite these positive changes in the international political arena, it is true that political and military power governs international politics today and political conflicts are still apparent in many parts of the world. References Armstrong, D., Farrell, T & Lambert, H. (2012) International Law and International Relations. 2nd edn. New York: Cambridge University Press. Barkin, S. (2005) “Realist constructivism”, in Little, R & Smith, M. (eds.) Perspectives on World Politics. 3rd edn. New York: Routledge, pp. 457-465. Beitz, C.R. (1979) Political Theory and International Relations. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Chambers, G. (2008). Critical perspectives on Hans Morgenthau’s approach to international relations. [Online]. Available at: http://dosya.marmara.edu.tr/ikf/42-CRITICAL-PERSPECTIVES-ON-HANS-MORGENTHAU.pdf (Accessed: 2 January 2015). Chatterjee, A. (2010) International Relations Today: Concepts and Applications. New Delhi: Pearson Education India. Forde, S. (1993) “Classical Realism”, in Nardin, T & Mapel, D.R. (eds.) Traditions of International Ethics. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 62-84. Kaufman, R. (2006) “Morgenthau’s Unrealistic Realism”, Yale Journal of International Affairs, pp. 24-38. [Online]. Available at: http://www.yale.edu/yjia/articles/Vol_1_Iss_2_Spring2006/kaufman217.pdf (Accessed: 2 January 2015). Kissane, D. (2014) Beyond Anarchy: The Complex and Chaotic Dynamics of International Politics. Columbia University Press. Kitchen, N. (2010) “Systemic pressures and domestic ideas: a neoclassical realist model of grand strategy formation”, Review of International Studies, 36, pp.117-143. Lumsdaine, D.H. (1993) Moral Vision in International Politics: The Foreign Aid Regime, 1949-1989. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Read More