ROYAL UNIVERSITY OF PHNOM PENH Institute of Foreign Languages IS203 International Relation I Lecturer: Nguyen Tuan Kanh Class: M2.2 Mid-term Paper Is Realism outdated in IR Studies? Student: Siem Pichnorak Academic Year: 2011-2012
Is Realism Outdated in IR Study? Realism has been a well-known theory in International Relations (IR) not only in the modern time, but also in the pre-modern time. Realism presents the pessimism of international politics and international relations, while the other theories focus on the optimistic ones. However, the perspective of realism is based on states power and reality rather than international norms, interdependence among states, and international cooperation. In general, realism considers people as selfish, uncooperative, and naturally evil. In IR studies, likewise, realists view the world politics as the stage for competition of selfinterests, power politics; and consider states as the only important actor in international arena, for other international actors are just the instruments of states in international politics. For example, realists regard IGOs: UN, EU, NATO or ASEAN as the collection of states because those IGOs are too much dominated and cannot operate without the participation and commitment of the member states. Regarding this argument, in contrast, the role of realism in IR studies has been put into debate since globalization, regionalism, integration, economic interdependence, and international trade have revealed the importance of non-state actors in international cooperation; and these phenomenon have proved that states are not war-like and uncooperative, like what realists argued. So, is realism an out-dated theory in IR study? To my stance, I still believe that realism is not the old-fashioned concept in IR study, and it still plays major roles in explaining the states behaviors and many other international events. The following parts of this paper will discover how realism is still important and practical along with some noteworthy evidences. Realism and International Relations 1
Realists explain the human history as the repetition of war and peace. This means peace is not sustainable, and thus war is inevitable. Thucydides, in the book of Peloponnesian War, explained the nature of conflict between Athens and Sparta in the war that Athens furthered its national interest, regardless the morality. In his book I, Thucydides stated that, the independent states survive [only] when they are powerful 1. Consistently, Machiavelli emphasized that human are insatiable, arrogant, crafty and shifting and above all malignant, iniquitous, violent and savage. 2 In his view, political leaders should rule through the use of cunning, cruelty, and selfish way in order to grant power with no regard of morality and ethics. Machiavelli also focused on the reality and truth of human nature as well as in politics. He, in his book The Prince, sought it appears to me more appropriate to follow up the real truth of a matter than the imagination of it. 3 Likewise, Thomas Hobbes explained this condition as the state of nature. On this state of nature basis, people are naturally selfish, competitive (egoism) and power seeking, Hobbes explained. Hobbes, in Leviathan, said a perpetual and restless desire of power after power [and] that ceases only in death. 4 Later realist scholars apply these perspectives to international relations, explaining that state, as humans and its rulers are selfish, competitive, self-help and power seeking. Realists explain that this state of nature posts the endless conflicts in international politics, so the hopes for international cooperation are impossible. Morgenthau argues that international politics, like all politics, is always the power struggle since interest and the passion for power is the nature of human. This perspective has been regarded as continuity of conflicts in 1 (Korab-Karpowicz 2011) 2 (Heywood 2011) 3 (Machiavelli 1515) 4 (Korab-Karpowicz 2011) Realism and International Relations 2
international politics (IP) by Waltz, a neorealist. Waltz, in his book Theory of International Politics, stated that: The texture of international politics remains highly constant, patterns recur, and events repeat themselves endlessly. The relations that prevail internationally seldom shift rapidly in type or in quality. They are marked instead by dismaying persistence, a persistence that one must expect so long as none of the competing units is able to convert the anarchic international realm into a hierarchic one. 5 With no above government which can control state, state has free rights to do what it wants to pursue its own power or safety, and thus anarchy is unavoidable. The anarchy state system is another realism concept which is consistent to state of war initiated by Hobbes. In explaining Hobbes concept of anarchy, Korab-Karpowicz mentioned: Since in the state of nature there is no government and everyone enjoys equal status, every individual has a right to everything; that is, there are no constraints on an individual's behavior. Anyone may at any time use force, and all must constantly be ready to counter such force with force. Hence, driven by acquisitiveness, having no moral restraints, and motivated to compete for scarce goods, individuals are apt to invade one another for gain. 6 The theory of statism and survivalism interpreting the behavior of states in international anarchism is theory of neorealism, particularly led by Kenneth Waltz. In statism, neorealism explains that states are the unitary units and states sovereignty is always at the top; no other authority or supra-national institutions are above the states sovereignty. Therefore, the relation between state and state is the basic and prominent element in international relations. For survivalism, states need to struggle for power in order to survive it is so called power politics. This explains that states need to pursue self-defense and self-sufficiency in order 5 (Waltz 1979) 6 (Korab-Karpowicz 2011) Realism and International Relations 3
not to be vulnerable in anarchic world. In addition, state must eschew cooperation in favor of self-interest. In this sense, cooperation is harmful since state, in lowering their guards, will be vulnerable to predators. Regarding this, states need to compete in the anarchic international politics. As Waltz maintained, Among men as among states, anarchy, or the absence of government, is associated with the occurrence of violence. 7 Cooperation, according to realists, can occur only if there is a higher coercive authority, but this will never exist. Korab-Karpowicz, in the explaination of Thucydides s work, mentioned that, Since such an authority above states does not exist, the Athenians argue that in this lawless condition of international anarchy, the only right is the right of the stronger to dominate the weaker. 8 States are free to maintain their national interests, but since war is sensitive and is easily provoked, states are always insecure. This condition leads to security dilemma. Uncertainty and suspicious in relations between and among states characterized the security dilemma. States have always attempted to build up their military capacity to ensure their security and survival, and states likely to launch out the preemptive attacks on one another to guarantee their safety and to weaken the enemies before those enemies get stronger to challenge them. This perspective leads a states to regard each others as enemies because the more security a state build, the more insecure it will be, meaning that states are forced to go to war. Korab-Karpowicz maintained that, To attain security, states try to increase their power and engage in power-balancing for the purpose of deterring potential aggressors. Wars are fought to prevent competing nations from becoming militarily stronger 9. To realist, nation strength in comparison to others can only be measured by going to war, for a 7 (Waltz 1979) 8 (Korab-Karpowicz 2011) 9 (Korab-Karpowicz 2011) Realism and International Relations 4
state might not realize what another state is doing to ensure its own security and survival. To illustrate, the two superpowers, US and USSR, furthered their efforts to build up their military capacity or arm race, for they did not trust one another. With regard to anarchy state system, Waltz has initiated the passive-adaptive state. In order to survive in anarchic international system, states have to imitate the successful model of leading states, for if they fail to do so, they will be in danger. Weaker or smaller states, likewise, have to adapt to the anarchism and submit to the stronger to counterweight with their enemies in order to survive under protection of the stronger. Waltz said, The national realm is variously described as being hierarchic, vertical, centralized, heterogeneous, directed, and contrived; the international realm, as being anarchic, horizontal, decentralized, homogeneous, undirected, and mutually adaptive. 10 Morgenthau, likewise, focused on the systemic theory and intelligent state 11. For intelligent state, a state needs to evaluate the national power bases of its opponent and imitate it. Therefore, it is vital for state to analytically interpret the foreign policies of others when adopting its own foreign policies 12. In addition, neorealism argues that cooperation is not possible under the system of anarchy because states have always wanted to pursue relative gain (self-help) rather than absolute gain (international cooperation) 13. Yet, Hegemonic Stability Theory argues that cooperation is possible only if there is a unique distribution of capabilities (power distribution) or hegemonic unipolarity 14. However, it is just for short term because the cooperation will cease when the hegemon declines. HST explains the rise and fall of great 10 (Waltz 1979) 11 (Morgethau 2006) 12 (Morgethau 2006) 13 (Hobson 2000) 14 (Hobson 2000) Realism and International Relations 5
power. International stability can be ensured under the hegemonic power, and other states enjoy this stability since hegemon makes short-term sacrifices. Great powers tolerate international trade, flow of investment and technology and act as the world policeman. This allows the newly emerging states to proper on the great powers sacrifices. When great powers declines, they eschew the self-sacrifice policies and stick to their national interest, and thus lead to conflicts 15. To realists, IGOs are just the collection of states and are strongly dominated by the great powers. The cooperation, in addition, can reach only there is a balance of power among great powers. The cooperation and harmonic doctrine provoke by privileged group are only to justify and maintain their dominant position. 16 As in UN, Security Council is the major power of this IGO, and this council is dominated by superpowers, all of which act only for their benefits and national interests. For example, US invaded Iraq in 2003 although there was no consent from UN. Yet, UN could not take any actions against US aggression, and this exposed the weakness of IGO under the power of superpowers. Therefore, international cooperation, collective security can only be applied to the weaker, but not the stronger as US. In the pursuance of its interests and foreign policy, US did whatever it could to achieve its goals power. Moreover, IGOs are just the instrument of state foreign policy. Here to say, the creation of IGOs or Regional IGOs are just the tool of states in balancing power. Weaker or smaller states tend to gather to together to gain power in bargaining with great powers. IGOs are constructed under the perspective and expectation of international norm and harmony of 15 (Kennedy 1988) 16 (Korab-Karpowicz 2011) Realism and International Relations 6
interest. In contrast, Carr argued it with the concept of conflict interest, for the world is dominated by many interests of individuals as well as groups. Korab-Karpowicz emphasised that, International moral norms are imposed on other countries by dominant nations or groups of nations that present themselves as the international community as a whole. 17 They are created to perpetuate those nations' dominance. As in the case of South China Sea conflict, ASEAN members whose interests involve in the conflict seek to talk and negotiate with China multilaterally in the purpose that they can balance with China if they are together interest is hiding behind cooperation. EU, similarly, was created to counterbalance in conducting trade with US and Japan whose economic power cannot be competed if EU members remained separated. Additionally, the state sovereignty is still regarded as prominent element of state s power in world politics as the protection of its interests. Recently, England parliament refused to ratify to new European tax policy led by France and Germany regarding the debt crisis in Euro-zone. This revealed that cooperation will never exist if it is the matter of state sovereignty and interest. As illustrated in these cases, I can assume that cooperation is just for balancing in order survive; and national interest is still at high level compared to cooperation. With regard to emulation and security dilemma, I would raise the case of China to argue. As states are selfish and self-help, national interest is important. In anarchy state system, states need to adapt so as to survive. China imitates the successful model of US, for China knows that its power would decline if it failed to do so. Challenging in energy resource is a practical case. China has been strengthening its in presence in Africa, Arab world and alike in middle-east where the domination of US and European great powers is also quite 17 (Korab-Karpowicz 2011) Realism and International Relations 7
strong. The failure to compete for energy resources will lead to the threat of China s economic development and severely the national security, for China is the second largest oil consumption country in the world just below the US. Another case is the increase in military budget expenditure of China. US military power creates security dilemma for China particularly in Asia Pacific as well as in the world. In response, China has maximized and strengthened its military capability from time to time in order to counterbalance possible attack and to seek for power in world politics to survive in anarchic system and struggle for power. Regarding the HST (Hegemonic Stability Theory), after World War II the world was relatively stable although Cold War was at heat; Japan and Germany prospered and were able to build up their economic power under the umbrella of US who provides trade sacrifices and protection. However, after 1973 there emerged the new challenges for US since Japan and Germany became economically strong and demanded for more power. This situation threatened the domination of US in world politics, and in response, US ceased the sacrifices and turned against to put pressure on those two states as US national interest was at the stake. China, likewise, enjoyed the stability and public goods under hegemon and thus prospers from stability and international trade. When China becomes more and more dominant, it posts direct threat to the US and predominant superpowers. As a result, US in cooperation with its alliance have been seeking for ways to hinder the domination of China in the Asia Pacific region as well as in the world. More importantly, this case can also explained the rise and fall of superpower as we can see that middle powers have been becoming more and more powerful and demanding for more roles. The acts of hegemon such as US are the exercise that Realism and International Relations 8
is necessarily self-destructive and self-liquidating 18. To illustrate, newly industrialized states such as China, Brazil, India or Russia are demanding their power in international politics and are challenging the old powers. When interests of those states are on the stake, conflicts are unavoidable. International institutions alike are dominated by great powers and are used as the instruments of those countries foreign policies. For example, World Bank is dominated and considered as the area of US influence, while IMF is the dominant sphere of European powers as we can see in the leadership position of those international institutions. Smaller states were invited to join those institutions, for the participation of weaker states helps decorating the system and make the great powers prosperous, not for goodwill cooperation. As Carr noted, Those who profit most by [international] order can in the longer run only hope to maintain it by making sufficient concessions to make it tolerable to those who profit by it least. 19 The conflicts or even wars will occur if the other great powers that are not satisfied with the system because they cannot gain any benefits. In particular, newly industrialized countries such as China, Brazil or India demanded more power and leadership position in IMF. In struggle for power and survival in world politics, states pursue it power by using all available means to demand for power. In the case of nuclear weapon, the declared nuclear states have always tried to ban the proliferation and attempt of other states to create such the weapons. Those superpowers own nuclear weapons, but why can t others? Nuclear weapon is also the instrument in balancing power in world politics. The NPT 18 (Keohane 1989) 19 (Korab-Karpowicz 2011) Realism and International Relations 9
(Non-proliferation Treaty) which was supported by declared nuclear states could be reached under the balance, not willingness those major countries try to dominantly control the globe. However, it failed to ban the pursuance of countries such as France, China, India, Pakistan and Israel to own the nuclear weapons. Why? According to realism, the act of privileged groups may upset the others who are also strong, so unsatisfied states also to want to do the same as what privileged group do. North Korea and Iran, for the power struggle and survival, have attempted to build up their own nuclear weapon as the deterrence as well as the demand for power. In conclusion, realism is not outdated as I argued above. Outdated realism means that it cannot be used any longer; however, it is still logic in explaining state s behavior and international events. The wars are still happening around the globe because of power struggle and self-interest, so realism is obviously practical. Although some new schools of thought are seeking to critic the realism as illogic in today world, realism is still influential in IR studies as what Korab-Karpowicz concluded, Whatever its weakness may be the realist tradition in international relations continues to perform a useful role. Realism warns us against progressivism, moralism, legalism, and other orientations that lose touch with the reality of self-interest and power. 20 Last but not least, my final stance would be that realism is still practical and influential in IR and IP. 20 (Korab-Karpowicz 2011) Realism and International Relations 10
Bibliography 1. Heywood, Andrew. "Theories of Global Pilitics." In Global Politics, by Andrew Heywood, 53-76. Hampshire: Palgrave mcmillan, 2011. 2. Hobson, John M. The State and International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. 3. Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers: Economic changes and military conflict from 1500 t0 2000. Sydney: Allen & Unwin Australia Pty Ltd, 1988. 4. Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian. "Political Realism in International Relations." In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, by W. Julian Korab-Karpowicz, edited by Edward N. Zalta, 20. Alto Polo, California: Standford University, 2011. 5. Lobell, Steven E., Norrin M. Ripsman, and Jefferey W. Taliaferro,. Neoclassical Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. 6. Machiavelli, Nicolo. The Prince. Translated by W. K. Marriott. Florence: Constitution Society, 1515. 7. Morgethau, Hans J. Politics Among Nations: The struggle for power and peace. 7th. Edited by Kenneth W. Thompson and W. David Cliton. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2006. 8. Waltz, Kenneth N. Theory of International Politics. Berkley: University of California, 1979. Realism and International Relations 11