Realism in International Relations Summary (PDF)

Class 4. The triumph of realism after World-War II. Today we are going to talk about another fundamental ‘classical’ theory in international relations: realism. The starting point is the failure of the idealist/liberal project. Despite the efforts of prominent liberal sc...

Class 4. The triumph of realism after World-War II. Today we are going to talk about another fundamental ‘classical’ theory in international relations: realism. The starting point is the failure of the idealist/liberal project. Despite the efforts of prominent liberal scholars and politicians, idealism and liberalism failed to retain a strong hold and a new theory emerged to explain ‘reality’, war, and international relations across time. That theory became known as realism. Liberal ideas focused on establishing a respected body of international law and institutions to manage the international system were rejected by realists. These ideas were criticized by realists during the 1930s who argued against utopian and idealist views of International Relations and challenged their ability to prevent conflict. As its name suggests, advocates of realism claim that it reflects more accurately the ‘reality’ of the world and that it more effectively accounts for change in international politics than idealism and liberalism do. Realism gained momentum particularly during the inter-war period (1918-1939). It developed as a response to idealist and utopian theories in international relations during the time. After the Second World War, realism became even more popular in both an academic and foreign policy setting, when it appeared to offer a convincing account for how and why the worst conflict in known history originated after a period of supposed peace and optimism. The focus shifted from cooperation, institutions and peace to competitiveness and conflict in international relations. See slide on WWII Basic realist ideas and assumptions: 1. A pessimistic view of human nature (contrast with idealist and liberal view on trust in human nature and progress); 2. A conviction that international relations are necessarily conflictual and that international conflicts are ultimately resolved by war; war is inevitable.3. A high regard for the values of national security and state survival; 4. A basic skepticism that there can be progress in international politics that is comparable to that in domestic life. These ideas and assumptions steer the thought of most leading realist IR theorists both past and present. We will discuss these basic ideas and concepts today. But first, let us watch a video that introduces realism. It’s a short interview with an American IR professor, Randall Schweller. VIDEO. REALISM: THEORY IN ACTION https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnKEFSVAiNQ o HOW CAN REALISM BE SUMMARIZED? § Pessimistic view of the world  § Contrast with the optimism of idealists and liberals § Focus on power and security § States seek autonomy § You cannot trust anyone § Interdependence must be avoided § States can never have enough power § Rejection of idea of perpetual peace based on harmony of interests § There is no natural harmony of interests § The only just war is the one that promotes national interest § The danger of war is always present o WHAT ARE SOME KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN REALISM AND LIBERALISM? § Pessimistic view/approach § Contrast with liberals: liberals believe that interdependence leads to peace; realists do not believe in interdependence; they focus on power and security which are relentlessly sought by states Classical realism In realist thought, humans are characterized as being preoccupied with their own well-being in their competitive relations with each other. Thus, realists do not typically believe that human beings are inherently good, or have the potential for good, as liberals do. Instead, they claim individuals act in their own self-interests. Humans strive to have the ‘edge’ in relations with other people – including international relations with other countries. In that sense, humans are basically the same everywhere. The desire to enjoy an advantage over others and to avoid domination by others is universal. This pessimistic view of human nature is strongly evident in the IR theory of Hans Morgenthau who was probably the leading realist thinker of the XX century. International arena is a world characterized by inevitable conflict over power, and war between states Core assumption of realists is thus that world politics exists and operates in a permanent condition of international anarchy, i.e., it is a system with no higher, overarching authority, no world government. The state is the pre-eminent actor in world politics: individuals, international organizations etc. are either far less important or irrelevant.  The main point of foreign policy is to project and defend the interests of the state in world politics. But states are not equal: there is an international hierarchy of power among states. The most important states in world politics are great powers. International relations are understood by realists as primarily a struggle between the great powers for domination and security. Main normative values a state must pursue are national security and survival. These two values drive realist doctrine and realist foreign policy. The state is essential for the good life of its citizens: without a state to guarantee the means and conditions of security, human life is bound to be in the famous words of Thomas Hobbes ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’. The state is seen as a protector of its territory, of the population and of their distinctive and values way of life. The national interest is the final arbiter in judging foreign policy. The fact that all states must pursue their own national interest means that other countries and governments can never be relied upon completely. All international agreements are provisional and conditional on the willingness of states to observe them. All states must be prepared to sacrifice their international obligations for the sake of their own self-interest if the two come into conflict. This makes treaties and all other agreements, conventions, customs, rules, laws etc. between states merely expedient arrangements which can and will be set aside if they conflict with the vital interests of states. There are no international obligations in the moral sense of the word – i.e., bonds of mutual duty – between independent states (note how this is in sharp contrast with liberalism and institutional liberalism in particular). The only fundamental responsibility of states is to advance and defend the national interest. This means also that there cannot be progressive change in world politics that is comparable to the development that characterizes domestic political life. Balance of power: a key tool used by realist theory. It indicates the constant pursuit of power by multiple states to dominate others. States secure their survival by preventing any one state from gaining enough military power to dominate all others, which leads to a ‘balance’. It is also understood as the efforts of states to create an equilibrium using forces such as alliances. Balance of power is desirable as it creates an inability to be dominated by another state and therefore provides security. A distinction should be made between classical realism and contemporary(neo-) realism. We will talk more in detail about neo realism in a couple of weeks. Classical realism (which is the focus of today’s class) is one of the traditional and core approaches to IR that was prominent prior to the behavioralist revolution of the  1950’s and 1960’s as we will see. Classical realism is a basically normative approach and focuses on the core political values of national security and state survival. Contemporary (neo-) realism on the other hand, is a more recent IR doctrine. It is more scientific in approach and focuses on the international system or structure and it is largely American in origin. Classical realists have looked as far back as to the ancient world where they detected similar patterns of human behaviour as those evident in our modern world. They have drawn inspiration from thinkers such as Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes (we will discuss each of them shortly). They all share the same view to a greater or lesser extent. They believe that the acquisition and possession of power and the deployment and use of power are a central preoccupation of political activity. International conflicts are thus portrayed above all else as ‘power politics’ Classical realism: to understand it, we need to examine the thought of three outstanding classical realists of the past: 1. The ancient Greek historian Thucydides; 2. The Renaissance Italian political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli and 3. XVII century English political and legal philosopher Thomas Hobbes. Thucydides What we call international relations, he saw as the inevitable competitions and conflicts between ancient Greek city-states (which together composed the cultural- linguistic civilization known as Hellas) and between Hellas and neighboring non-Greek empires, such as Macedonia and Persia. Hellas and their non-Greek neighbors were not equal: on the contrary, they were substantially unequal. There were a few ‘great powers’ such as Athens, Sparta and the Persian Empire, and many smaller and lesser powers – such as the tiny islands states of the Aegean Sea. Inequality was inevitable and natural. A distinctive feature of Thucydides’ realism is its naturalistic character. According to Thucydides, men are political animals, and political animals are highly unequal in their powers and capabilities to dominate others and to defend themselves. All states, large and small, must adapt to that given reality of unequal power and conduct themselves accordingly. If states do that, they will survive and even prosper. If states fail to do that, they will place themselves in jeopardy and may even be destroyed. So, importantly what he emphasizes is the limited choices and the restricted sphere of action available to states in the conduct of foreign policy. He also emphasizes that decisions have consequences: before any final decision is made, a decision-maker should have carefully thought through the likely consequences, bad as well as good. He thus emphasizes the ethics of caution and prudence in the conduct of foreign policy. Foresight, prudence, caution, and  judgment are the characteristic political ethics of classical realism which makes a distinction between these and private morality and the principle of justice. In his famous study of the Peloponnesian War (which took place between Athens and Sparta at the end of the V century BCE), his ‘radical’ realist philosophy is reflected in the words and speeches of the leaders of Athens – a great power – in their dialogues with the leaders of Melo – a minor power – during a moment of conflict between the two cities (Athens wanted to add the neutral island of Melos to its empire and sent envoys to encourage Melians to surrender). The Melians made an appeal to the principle of justice, which to them meant that their honor and dignity as an independent state should be respected by the powerful Athenians. But, according to Thucydides, justice is of a special kind in international relations. It is not about equal treatment for all. It is about knowing your proper place and adapting to the natural reality of unequal power. The way the Athenians reply to the Melians’ appeal to justice is one of the most famous examples of the classical realist understanding of international relations as basically an anarchy of separate states that have no real choice except to operate according to the principles and practices of power politics in which security and survival are the primary values and war is the final arbiter. See slide on ‘the strong and the weak’. Basically, one of his main arguments is that the strong should rule the weak, as they have the power to do so. Machiavelli Machiavelli is considered one of the most important founding fathers of realist theory. He lived in the XVI century in Florence and was a diplomat, historian, and theorist. He regularly expressed a negative opinion of human nature in his work. In one of his poems, he characterizes human nature as ‘insatiable, arrogant, crafty, and shifting and above all, malignant, iniquitous, violent and savage’. Power (the Lion) and deception (the Fox) are the two essential means for the conduct of foreign policy, according to the political thinking of Machiavelli. The supreme political value is national freedom, i.e., independence. The main responsibility of rulers is to always seek the advantage and defend the interests of their state and ensure its survival. This requires strength: if a state is not strong, it will be an invitation for others to prey upon it; therefore, the ruler must be a lion. But it also requires cunning and ruthlessness in the pursuit of self-interest: the ruler must also be a fox. If rulers are not astute, they might miss an opportunity that could bring great advantages or benefit to them and their state. The fact that statesmen and stateswomen must be both lions and foxes is at the heart of Machiavelli’s realist theory.  Theory of survival: the assumption is that the world is a dangerous place, but it is also a place of opportunities. If anybody hopes to survive in such a world, they must be always aware of dangers, must anticipate them and take the necessary precautions against them. To prosper, they need to recognize and exploit the opportunities that present themselves. The conduct of foreign policy is thus an instrumental or ‘Machiavellian’ activity based on the intelligent calculation of one’s power and interests as against the power and interests of rivals and competitors. Realist leaders should be prepared to engage in pre-emptive war and similar initiatives. The realist leader is alert to opportunities in any political situation and is prepared and equipped to exploit them. See slide on ‘the prince’s obligations’. According to Machiavelli, the state leader must not act in accordance with the principles of Christian ethics: be peaceful, avoid war except in self-defense or in pursuit of a just cause, be charitable etc. these moral maxims are seen by Machiavelli as the height of political irresponsibility. If state leaders operate in accordance with these Christian virtues and not according to the maxims of power politics, the state will fail and with it the security and welfare of its citizens. Political responsibility flows in a different way from private morality. The fundamental overriding values are the security and the survival of the state, and these values must guide foreign policy. There is also a civic-virtue aspect to Machiavelli’s thinking. Rulers must be both lions and foxes because their people depend upon them for their survival and prosperity. Thomas Hobbes According to Hobbes, we can gain a fundamental insight into political life if we imagine men and women living in a ‘natural’ condition prior to the invention and institution of the sovereign state. He refers to this pre-civil condition as the ‘state of nature’. The state of nature is an extremely adverse human circumstance in which there is a permanent state of war of every man against every man. In their natural condition, every man, woman and child is endangered by everybody else, life is constantly at risk, and nobody can be confident about his or her security and survival for any reasonable length of time. People are living in constant fear of each other. It is obviously desirable but also urgent to escape from those intolerable circumstances at the earliest moment. Hobbes believes a way out is possible from the state of nature to a civilized human condition and that is through the creation and maintenance of a sovereign state. Men and women can turn their fear of each other into a collaboration to form a security pact that can guarantee each other’s safety. So, they collaborate politically because of a fear of being hurt or killed by their neighbors: they are ‘civilized by fear of death’. They are driven to institute a sovereign state not by their reason but by their passion (or fear). They collaborate to create a state with a sovereign government  that possesses absolute authority and credible power to protect them from both internal disorders and foreign enemies and threats. However, the statist solution to the problem of the natural condition of humankind automatically poses a political problem: a peaceful and civilized life can only be enjoyed within a state, and it cannot extend beyond the state or between states. The very act of instituting a sovereign state to escape from the fearful state of nature creates another state of nature between states. That poses what is traditionally referred to as ‘the security dilemma’ in world politics: the achievement of personal security and domestic security through the creation of a state is necessarily accompanied by the condition of national and international insecurity that is rooted in the anarchy of the state system. There is no escape from the security dilemma because there is no possibility of forming a global state or world government. The international state of nature between states is not as threatening or as dangerous as the original state of nature: it is easier for states to provide security than it is for individuals to do it on their own. States can arm themselves and defend themselves against foreign-security threats in a credible and continuous way. The main point about the international state of nature is that it is a condition of actual or potential war. There can be no permanent or guaranteed peace between sovereign states. War is necessary, as a last resort, for resolving disputes between states that cannot agree. States can arrange treaties with each other to provide a legal basis for their relations; international law can indeed moderate the international state of nature by providing a framework of agreements and rules that are of advantage to all states. But international law is created by states, and it will only be observed if it is in the security and survival interests of states to do that; otherwise, it will be ignored. Thus, for Hobbes as well security and survival are values of fundamental importance. But the core value of Hobbesian realism is domestic peace – peace within the framework of the sovereign state. The state is organized and equipped for war to provide domestic peace for its subjects and citizens. All classical realists agree on the following points: that the human condition is a condition of insecurity and conflict; that there is a body of political knowledge or wisdom to deal with the problem of security; that there is no final escape from this human condition, which is a permanent feature of human life; that there are no permanent solutions to the problems of politics – including international politics; that there can be no enduring peace between states.  Hans Morgenthau In the aftermath of the Second World War, Hans Morgenthau sought to develop a comprehensive international theory as he believed that politics, like society in general, is governed by laws that have roots in human nature. His concern was to clarify the relationship between interests and morality in international politics, and his work drew heavily on the insights of historical figures such as Thucydides and Machiavelli. In contrast to more optimistically minded idealists who expected international tensions to be resolved through open negotiations marked by goodwill, Morgenthau set out an approach that emphasised power over morality. Indeed, morality was portrayed as something that should be avoided in policymaking. To begin with, men and women are by nature political animals: they are born to pursue power and to enjoy the fruits of power. He speaks of the animus dominandi which indicates the human ‘lust’ for power. This craving for power dictates a search not only for relative advantage but also for a secure political space within which to maintain oneself and to enjoy oneself free from the political dictates of others. This is the security aspect of the animus dominandi. The ultimate political space within which security can be arranged and enjoyed is the independent state. Security beyond the state is impossible. The animus dominandi inevitably brings men and women into conflict with each other, which creates the condition of power politics at the heart of realist theory. Morgenthau sees men and women as having a ‘will to power’, which is particularly evident in politics and especially international politics: ‘politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its immediate goal and the modes of acquiring, maintaining and demonstrating it determine the technique of political action’. The anarchical system of states invites international conflict which ultimately takes the form of war. The struggle between states leads to the problem of justifying the threat or use of force in human relations: we arrive at the central normative doctrine of classical and neoclassical realism. Morgenthau follows Thucydides and Machiavelli. There is one morality for the private sphere and another very different morality for the public sphere. Political ethics allows some action that would not be tolerated by private morality. Morgenthau is critical of those theorists and practitioners such as Woodrow Wilson, who believed that it was necessary for political ethics to be brought into line with private ethics and that standards of conduct and of responsibility observed among individual citizens of civilized states should also be observed among nations and their governments. Morgenthau considers this outlook ill-advised, mistaken, and irresponsible, not only intellectually but also fundamentally wrong morally. It is a mistake because it fails to  appreciate the important difference between the public sphere of politics, on the one hand, and the private sphere or domestic life on the other hand. It would be irresponsible because political leaders bear a high responsibility for the security and welfare of their country and its people. They are not supposed to expose their people to unnecessary perils. For example, sometimes it may be necessary to trample on human rights for the sake of the national interest: for example, during war. For Morgenthau, the heart of statecraft is thus the clear-headed knowledge that political ethics and private ethics are not the same, that the former cannot be and should not be reduced to the latter and that the key to effective and responsible statecraft is to recognize this fact of power politics and to learn to make the best of it. Awareness that political ends (e.g., defending the national interest during war) must sometimes justify morally questionable or morally tainted means (e.g., the targeting and bombing of cities) leads to situational ethics and the dictates of ‘political wisdom’: prudence, moderation, judgment, etc. Those are the key virtues of political ethics. They do not preclude evil actions, instead they underline the tragic dimension of international ethics: they recognize the inevitability of moral dilemmas in international politics: that evil actions must sometimes be taken to prevent a greater evil. Reading: Morgenthau, ‘Six principles of political realism’ o Politics is rooted in a permanent and unchanging human nature which is self- centered and self-interested o Politics is an autonomous sphere of action and cannot be reduced to morals (as Kantian or liberal theorists tend to do). o Self-interest is a basic fact of the human condition o The ethics of international relations is a political or situational ethics which is very different from private morality: the leader has far heavier responsibilities than a private citizen. A leader is responsible to the people and is responsible for their security and welfare. o Realists are therefore opposed to the idea that particular nations – e.g., the US – can impose their ideologies on other nations and can employ their power in crusades to do that. They see it as a dangerous activity that threatens international peace and security, since it could ultimately backfire and threaten the crusading country. o Statecraft is a sober and uninspiring activity that involves a profound awareness of human limitations and imperfections. Pessimistic knowledge of human beings as they are and not as we might wish them to be. Power over morality: every political action is directed towards keeping, increasing, or demonstrating power. Policies based on morality or idealism can lead to weakness – and possibly the destruction or domination of a state by a competitor. In this sense  pursuing the national interest is ‘amoral’ – meaning that it is not subject to calculations of morality. To sum up, main differences between liberalism and realism The typical realist view is that world politics is primarily about domination between states, whereas the typical liberal view is that world politics is about cooperation between states. Let us think of theories as being lenses. Realists and liberals look at the very same world. But when viewing that world through the realist lens, the world appears to be one of domination. The realist lens magnifies instances of war and conflict and then uses those to paint a certain picture of the world. Liberals, when looking at the same world, adjust their lenses to blur out areas of domination and instead bring areas of cooperation and peace into focus. Then, they can paint a slightly different picture of the same world. Liberals share an optimistic view of IR, believing that world order can be improved, with peace and progress gradually replacing war. They may not agree on the details, but this optimistic view generally unites them. Conversely, realists tend to dismiss optimism as a form of misplaced idealism and instead they arrive at a more pessimistic view. This is due to their focus on the centrality of the state and its need for security and survival in an anarchical system where it can only truly rely on itself. As a result, realists reach an array of accounts that describe IR as a system where war and conflict is common and periods of peace are merely times when states are preparing for future conflict. Both liberalism and realism consider the state to be the dominant actor in IR, although liberalism does add a role for non-state actors such as international organisations. Nevertheless, within both theories states themselves are typically regarded as possessing ultimate power. This includes the capacity to enforce decisions, such as declaring war on another nation, or conversely treaties that may bind states to certain agreements. In terms of liberalism, its proponents argue that organisations are valuable in assisting states in formulating decisions and helping to formalise cooperation that leads to peaceful outcomes. Realists on the other hand believe states partake in international organisations only when it is in their self-interest to do so. Many scholars have begun to reject these traditional theories over the past several decades because of their obsession with the state and the status quo. Glossary Realism Key concepts Realism Classical realism Security dilemma Ethics of statecraft State of nature Balance of power International anarchy Realism The realist tradition in IR is based on 1. A pessimistic view of human nature; humans are self- interested and egoistic; 2. A conviction that international relations are conflictual and can always lead to war; 3. A high regard for the values of national security and state survival; 4. A strong skepticism that there can be progress in international politics. Classical realism A theory of IR associated with thinkers such as Thucydides, Niccolò Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes, and with the neoclassical realist Hans Morgenthau. They believed that the goal, the means, and the uses of power are a central preoccupation of international relations, which is an arena of continuous rivalry and potential or actual conflict between states that are obliged to pursue the goals of security and survival. In comparison with neorealism, which largely ignores moral and ethical considerations in IR, classical realism has a strong normative emphasis. Security Dilemma An important paradox inherent in the state system. A fundamental reason for the existence of states is to provide their citizens with security from internal and external threats; however, the existence of these armed states threatens the very security they are expected to maintain. Ethics of statecraft Ensuring national security and state survival is the fundamental responsibility of statecraft and the core normative doctrine of classical realism. The state is considered to be essential for the good life of its citizens. The state is thus seen as a protector of its territory, of the population, and of their distinctive and valued ways of life. The national interest is the final arbiter in judging foreign policy. State of nature Thomas Hobbes’ famous description of the original, pre-civil existence of humankind, a state in which life is ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’. In their natural condition, all people are endangered by everyone else, and nobody is able to ensure his or her security or survival. This mutual fear and insecurity is, according to Hobbes, the driving force behind the creation of the sovereign state. Balance of power The balance of power theory in international relations describes a situation in which states seek to secure their survival by increasing their power, thereby preventing any one state from gaining enough military power to dominate all others. International anarchy In international relations theory, anarchy is the idea that the world lacks any supreme authority or sovereign that regulates states’ behavior. In an anarchic system, there is no hierarchically superior, coercive power that can resolve disputes, enforce law, or order the system of international politics. In international relations, anarchy is widely accepted as the starting point for international relations theory.