In this report, I will be exploring the theoretical perspective of realists in regards to international relations. This report will encompass seven topics:
Introduction to Realism
Key Thinkers of Realism
Realists’ Analyses of Power
Evaluation of Realism
Offensive and Defensive Realism
Human Nature
Evaluation of the Predictive Power of Realism
1. Introduction to Realism
Realism is a political theory about power and security. There’s a belief that the coalition of power and security leads to prestige, autonomy and self-help. There is also a belief that perpetual peace does not exist so we have to be independent and always be prepared for future conflicts.
Realists frown upon interdependence as they believe in the inherent nature of man to be vying for power and never being trust-worthy. Realists also believe in the idea that securing high relative power can ensure security and, subsequently, enables self-help, prestige and autonomy for a nation.
Realism is regarded to be the definitive tradition in the field of international relations by an overwhelming majority of scholars. Many of the other political theories have stemmed from realism as they were in response to the ideas set out in the controversial theory. Many people did not believe in the inherent evil of mankind so this justified the creation of liberalism. Adding onto this idea of inherent evil, realists believe that we live in an evil world so everyone is only looking out for themselves as war is always lurking in the background of all international politics.
2. Key Thinkers of Realism
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli:
Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat, politician and philosopher of the renaissance period. Instead of focusing on how people should be and what people should act like, Machiavelli insisted on talking about people as they are, which often was a more pessimistic view of mankind. He has often been called the father of modern political science and is best known as the author of The Prince. The main focus of this book is how a “new” prince should act in order to secure and maintain power regardless of religious or ethical considerations.
Machiavelli argued that politics or diplomacy should be based primarily on considerations given factors and circumstances rather than explicit ideological notions. This is also called Realpolitik, and simply put it is based on what is best for the nations given the circumstances rather than what is the best goal to strive for, morally and ethically. Machiavelli has become notorious for his arguments that morality and ethics are not at all traits of a good politician instead quite the opposite. A good politician according to Machiavelli isn’t someone who is honest and kind but someone who knows how to defend, enrich and bring honour to the state. It is his view on what a good politician should be like that led to the term Machiavellian.
Machiavellian is widely used as an expression of contempt to characterise politicians as described in The Prince. But excluding morality, ethics and religion from politics and this break from the medieval way of thought are what made Machiavelli the father of modern political theory.
Thomas Hobbes:
Thomas Hobbes was an English philosopher, considered to be one of the founders of modern political philosophy. Hobbes is best known for his 1651 book Leviathan. In the Leviathan Hobbes writes about the “state of nature” which is an anarchic world in which everyone pursues their own self-interest. Like other realist thinkers, Hobbes’ political philosophy starts with his understanding of basic human nature, which he believed had to be kept in check by a strong government, without it, Hobbes argued that people would constantly be competing for power at the loss of the state.
In many ways, the modern international system is similar to the state of nature as described by Hobbes. Just like in the state of nature where individuals work independently to gain as much power for themselves as possible, in the international system nation-states are driven to maintain or gain power and independence. Hobbes also describes the state of nature as marked by constant tension and the possibility of conflict, very much like the international system today.
Hans Joachim Morgenthau:
Hans Joachim Morgenthau was one of the major 20th-century figures in the study of international relations. Morgenthau’s writings helped develop the realist theory as we know it today. This realist theory presumes that the nation-state is the primary actor in the international system, this state being an autonomous, rational and unitary actor. These states are sovereign entities with the sole right and responsibility to act within their borders, and that they will behave in ways to maximize their power and assure their survival.
In the second edition of his book Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau wrote a chapter called “Six Principles Of Political Realism” in which he described what political realism should look like:
Politics is governed by objective Laws which have roots in human nature
National Interest defined in terms of National Power
Interest is always Dynamic
Abstract Moral Principles cannot be applied to Politics
Difference between Moral Aspirations of a Nation and the Universal Moral Principles
Autonomy of International Politics
3. Realists’ Analyses of Power
According to the realist theory, all power belongs either to individual nationstates/world leaders ((classical) realism) or that power still belongs to states but is put in context of the international system and how that power compares to other states (neorealism or structural realism).
Generally power according to realists thinkers is described and explained in terms of hard power, and most of all military power. Realists essentially believe that military might for the most part resembles the actual power a state has. Realists also believe that nationstates will always use this power to further their own interests. And according to realists, the most basic of these interests are security and autonomy. Which means that according to realists every state will try to increase its power to ensure its security, autonomy and ultimately its survival. You could say that realists see the world around them from a fairly pessimistic viewpoint, as they believe that as a state you can not trust any other state with absolute certainty. Their believe of “today's friend could be tomorrow’s enemy” explains why realists believe that certain aspects of hard power such as military might and a strong economy ensures a states security.
At a global level, most realists believe that there isn’t one party or figure that holds all the power. There is not a higher authority to which states in the international system must answer. The only thing that we might say dictates power at a global level according to some realist theories is human nature, how we strive for power.
At an international level, the realist theory dictates that all power belongs to individual nation states. Because again like mentioned before, individual states do not answer to any higher authority. The realist theory states that a states’ power comes from its military might and success and from its economy. Some realists believe that within the international system, the US is the hegemony as it has the strongest economy and military. However others such as Mearsheimer don’t believe in such a superpower.
At a regional level, realists believe that again power is held mostly by individual states, regional hegemonies hold a large part of the power and have more influence over the region than other state actors. For example, China could be considered a regional hegemony in Asia as it has a strong economy and is furthering its military might and influence in the south china sea. At a regional level states strive to be as powerful as possible to ensure safety from their neighbours.
At a national level, realists place power in the hands of the government as it usually has control over the military, its economy and federal laws which everyone must obey. The government sometimes also has some control over the market, which is another way in which it might exert power. In the US it is the federal government that holds all the power at a national level.
At a local level, realism states that power is held by local forms of government or legislature such as municipalities, mayors etc. As they have some controls over local laws and codes, and they usually have control over a police force to enforce those laws. In the US you could consider state legislature to be a local form of government, these can have power in the form of the national guard. (despite this branch of the military owing allegiance to the federal gov., the national guard is often only federalised in times of war or during a national state of emergency declared by the president. When the commander-in-chief does not directly commands the national guard said command usually lies in the hand of local governors etc.)
At a communal level, there isn’t always a clear group or individual that holds power. Usually no laws and rules that everyone must obey, and no police or militaristic group to exert power. In a community there usually isn’t an authority to which people must answer.
4. Evaluation of Realism
“Recent realist theory has become a hindrance rather than a help in structuring theoretical debates, guiding empirical research, and shaping both pedagogy and public discussion.” - Jeffrey W. Legro and Andrew Moravcsik (Princeton)
This quote has been taken from an excerpt of a recent study by Princeton labelled “Is anyone still a realist?”. It is criticising modern realism and rendering it a non-pragmatic paradigm, simply stating that realism is now a representation of all the dangerous patterns that occur in our world.
Several studies also explore the idea that the predictive power of realism varies from group to individual. There are many actors, both state and non-state when it comes to power but it's become apparent that analysts believe only nations seem to act rationally and selfishly, they choose to pursue their own interests. However, non-state actors and individuals act far from rational and selfish. This idea is seen when democratic votes are going on: Voters’ beliefs are far from rational, and their motives are far from selfish. But if this realism model of selfishness and rationality doesn’t work on an individual level, how can it work on an international and larger-scale model?
However, even if many dispute the effectiveness of realism and its predictive power, there are still people who believe that the premise of realism (and subsequently, neo-realism and contemporary realism) still holds value. This is because of its accurate representation of the way that organisms interact in ecosystems, those organisms which appear to be formidable have more safety. Using this idea, we can apply it to politics and come to the consensus that when a country has more relative power, they are generally safer from any attack. It is apparent that the vital element of all of the individual forms of realism is the concept of having to gain relative power (through military or economic means) in order to ensure safety. This is seen in many case studies where safety is maintained through relative power advantages.
The basic premise of realism is as follows: we live in a self-help system, we have rational states in the international system (regardless of regime type) and the states existing all want to survive. This premise essentially shows the individuals and states as under the idea of every man for himself. This idea of the premise of realism really encaptures the key notion that power ensures security as everyone in the world has themselves as priority number one. Even if we don’t choose to accept this idea as true, many real-life case studies do prove this idea of man’s inherent selfishness (this concept will be explained further in Human Nature).
5. Offensive and Defensive Realism
The concept of realism diverges into two sections. Although there are many sub-sections of realism known as neo-realism (structural) and contemporary realism; the two very different subsections of realism (defensive and offensive realism) are more important to understand:
Defensive Realism: Defensive realism derives from neorealism. Defensive realists believe that states pursue security in a risk-averse manner. These realists believe that states do not want to risk conflict and want to stay relatively peaceful in order to attain power and security. Realists such as defensive realists believe that wars only occur when a greedy nation is introduced to the international system or an arms dilemma spins out of control. States prefer not to go to war because it is costly and it makes more sense to work towards peace as it preserves security.
Offensive Realism: Offensive realism also derives from neorealism. Offensive realists are realists who believe that states are security maximisers through eliminating all other states in the international system as this will guarantee security. This concept was thoroughly embodied by John Joseph Mearsheimer (an American political scientist), he believed that a state’s need for security and survival makes them inherently aggressive with the goal to maximise the state’s power. He believed in the seesaw effect of power in the world where in order to maximise one nation’s power, another nation’s power had to be decreased and this would have to occur in order to secure the security of a nation. Interestingly, Mearsheimer recognised war as a, sometimes essential, way in which states further there own gains and interests as the act of war had the seesaw effect of power because one country would lose power to another country, thereby ensuring the safety of the power-gaining nation. Mearsheimer, as a political scientist, is more deeply analysed in the section below.
Although both sides of realism could be right in their own circumstances, they both meet in an overlapping area. This grey area dictates the idea that security is gained through a relative power advantage (power parity at the very minimum). This works in accordance with the main idea of realism explored in the Princeton scholarly article, the idea of power ensuring security.
5.1 Key Thinker of Offensive Realism
John Joseph Mearsheimer:
John Joseph Mearsheimer is an American political scientist and an international relations scholar. Mearsheimer's major contribution to the realist school of thought is his proposal of the theory of offensive realism.
Mearsheimer's theory of offensive realism argues that a state’s need for security and survival makes them inherently aggressive with the goal to maximise the state’s power. According to Mearsheimer, nation-states inherently do not want to or simply won’t cooperate with one another. With the exception of according to Mearsheimer, “temporary alliances” yet even during those he argues that states still seek to enhance their own power whilst diminishing the power of their foes.
Mearsheimer based his theory on 5 major assumptions and truths:
There is no order in the international system, no authority that exists above states to oversee and resolve their conflicts.
However poor or small states can be, they all have at least some limited military capabilities.
States and world leaders can never fully be certain of the intentions of other states and world leaders.
States value their sovereignty, independence and mostly their survival above all else.
States are rational actors with the sole purpose of promoting their interest and furthering their gain.
According to Mearsheimer these assumptions or conditions “create strong incentives for states to behave aggressively to each other” Because states cannot be sure of the intentions and/or future intentions of other states, Mearsheimer concluded that it is rational for states to take measures such as increasing their military might to be prepared for any possible acts of aggression.
With this conclusion, it would seem logical that Mearsheimer spends a lot of time analysing what starts wars and what could potentially prevent them. This is probably also why Mearsheimer spend a good part of his career studying deterrence and its potential effects. In his first book Conventional Deterrence (1983) Mearsheimer explores how the beliefs of decision-makers of the outcome of war affect the success or failure of deterrence. According to Mearsheimer deterrence is likely to work if the potential attacker believes that a successful attack will be risky, unlikely and costly. Because he assumes that states are rational actors, he believes that they won’t attack if the potential risks and costs outweigh any potential benefits. With Mearsheimer's work in deterrence, he also investigated and advocated for nuclear deterrence. He argued that the US should have encouraged the Ukraine, Germany and other eastern European countries to develop nuclear arsenals to deter Russia from trying to reclaim some of the lands lost after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Mearsheimer, therefore, opposed Ukraine’s decision to give up its nuclear weapons and predicted, in the end correctly, that without them as a deterrent Ukraine would suffer Russian aggression. Which we now see in the Crimea. Although Mearsheimer generally agreed with deterrence and recognised war as a, sometimes essential, way in which states further there own gains and interests, he did not believe war was always justified.
6. Human Nature
Many people do believe in the idea of realism because they understand the inherent flaws of mankind. Philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, have tackled the issue of whether man is inherently selfish or altruistic.
Hobbes begins his work by declaring the need for a strong government to keep people orderly as otherwise, people would always be vying for power. Hobbes’ view of state of human nature is directly analogous to the current and historic international system: he believed that countries seek to maximise their power using whatever means are necessary. Even back then, interdependence was seen as a problem for many countries. Thomas Hobbes states that “where there is no common power, there is no law” – this hints at the inherent state of non-perpetual peace that our society is always in as we need to be governed or we will seek to gain power for ourselves (this idea of basic human nature and desire to use power to attain all wants is similar to economic idea of scarcity).
People do try to contest this idea that Hobbes has laid out but his vision of society is reflected in the society we have today. Individuals work independently to gain as much power for themselves as possible, whilst in the international system, nation-states are driven to maintain or gain power and independence. Everyone is vying to attain as much power as possible as this is due to mankind’s inherent selfishness.
This idea of selfishness has even been proven through studies of human behaviour. Pygmy tribesmen are very similar to our ancestral hunter-gatherer society and Ayn Rand, an American philosopher, wanted to prove that humans are inherently selfish and they have been since the dawn of time. This experiment followed a tribe who followed the ideas of sharing prey captured with everyone in the tribe but there was one member of the tribe who attempted to steal the prey when no one was watching in order to take more than others. This study shows that man is inherently selfish and selfishness was not caused by our modernisation nor globalisation, we have always been taught to prioritise our own interests over others.
Humans are selfish, this makes realism very accurate in terms of predicting the way that international affairs play out as the majority of nations strive for independence and will always put their own interests above interdependent interests.
7. Evaluation of the Predictive Power of Realism
As a common perception of human nature is that we are inherently selfish, realism is a perfect perspective for our future. This claim is substantiated with facts and evidence. There have been many instances where state actors and non-state actors have acted selfishly with self-interest as a priority.
For instance, the model and premise of realism perfectly embodied the initiation of the Afghanistan war. The USA was acting selfishly by invading Afghanistan to get rid off Al Qaeda and the Taliban, this instance had many unintended damage to the civilians in Afghanistan (many got caught in crossfire) but the USA was working towards a sole objective as they also believed that the Taliban would not cooperate with them.
Another example of realism in history can be found dotted throughout the entirety of the Cold War between the USSR and the USA. Morgenthau’s ideas of realism really were prevalent in all stages of the Cold War between the USA and the USSR. Goerge Kennan, the USA Moscow ambassador who created the Long Telegram, was the architect of the containment policy which essentially meant that the US would work to stop communism spreading in Eastern Europe. This idea was an effect of Stalin spreading communism in the Eastern Bloc. Another example of how Morgenthau (realism)’s ideas had an effect on war and relations is through the Kissinger shuttle diplomacy between the USA and the PRC (along with the other examples of diplomacy between Israel, Syria and Egypt); this procedure was based off of realist thinking as the USA wanted to keep tabs on the growing power and conflict in the other nations so they could be prepared for inevitable conflict (they also wanted to ensure that power was balanced).
Even government officials who currently represent the USA (data recorded from 2018) have explicitly stated that their foreign aid policies resulted due to realist thinking and wanting to hold power to ensure security. The Trump Administration may not be rational nor strategic but they are also realists. This can be seen through their beliefs that “they are the only ones who matter”. In many other nations, such as Nicaragua and China, leaders also believe in this statement.
Analysing the world through a realist’s lens, we can begin to see and understand how our world’s affairs do occur through a realist fashion. We can begin to understand as to why the power transition from West to East (to China) concerns the USA so much and we can begin to understand why the USA has repeatedly used military force in foreign nations over the past 25 years (especially after 9/11).
However, there have been cases in history where realist thinking is not the predominant theory. When NATO was formed in April 1949, this coalition of nations worked together and were interdependent to protect each other. But, this still has elements of realism in it as the core cause for the formation of NATO was because the Western powers did not trust the USSR from causing conflict again (this was after the Berlin Crisis of 1948-49). This shows that nations did not believe in perpetual peace and this was the core reason for establishing a liberal coalition of nations (this follows the idea that was proposed earlier, dictating that all other theories stem off of realism).
To conclude, the predictive power of Realism is quite strong as the concepts explored can be applied to all situations and the majority of international affairs play out in accordance to Realist thinking. The majority of modern day politics reflects the ideals and ideas explored in Realist thinking. Realism is still seen as the most straight-forward theory as it shows the world the way it is, not the way it ought to be and this is why it is the most powerful theory to use when predicting the outcome of the world’s affairs.
------
Works Cited
defensive realism Search. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.google.com/search?q=defensive+realism&safe=active&ssui=on
Ehost2. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=1&sid=ba31e6d7-ecb7-4aca-9fc1-7d8d9f884bc0%40sdc-v-sessmgr02
Ehost2. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=74d5c7d8-4538-4972-8fdb-c5a58b4465ee%40sessionmgr102&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHNoaWImc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=9412141631&db=bth
Hans Morgenthau. (2004, May 30). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Morgenthau
Is Human Nature Fundamentally Selfish or Altruistic? (2012, October 8). Retrieved from http://healthland.time.com/2012/10/08/is-human-nature-fundamentally-selfish-or-altruistic/
John J. Mearsheimer. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Mearsheimer#ref1206062
Kenneth Waltz. (2004, November 8). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Waltz#Levels_of_analysis
Legro, J. W., & Moravcsik, A. (n.d.). Is Anybody Still a Realist? Princeton Library.
Machiavelli's Realism. (2014, June 24). Retrieved from https://nationalinterest.org/article/machiavellis-realism-604
Morgenthau’s Realist Theory (6 Principles). (2015, April 7). Retrieved from http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/international-politics/morgenthaus-realist-theory-6-principles/48472
Niccolò Machiavelli. (2001, June 9). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli#Empiricism_and_realism_versus_idealism
OpenAthens / Sign in. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/centralk12/docview/1530129622?accountid=7440
Structural Realism - International Relations (1/7) [Video file]. (2014, October 3). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXllDh6rD18
Thomas Hobbes. (2001, August 10). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes#Political_thought
What's Wrong With Realism? What's Right With It? Part 1. (2018, April 5). Retrieved from https://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/whats_wrong_wit_11.html
‘Introduction To International Relations: Theory and Practice’ Joyce P. Kaufman (p.46-47)
‘Introduction To International Relations: Theory and Practice’ Joyce P. Kaufman (p.47-49)
‘Introduction To International Relations: Theory and Practice’ Joyce P. Kaufman (p.49-51)
Stephen M. Walt. (2018, May 30). The World Wants You to Think Like a Realist. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/30/the-world-wants-you-to-think-like-a-realist/
The Case For and Against a "Realist" Strategy in Syria. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/case-and-against-realist-strategy-syria
Realism in Afghanistan: Rethinking an Uncertain Case for the War. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/realism-afghanistan-rethinking-uncertain-case-war
