Cores of Realism in Contemporary World - Essay Example

Are the core ideas of realism still relevant for the contemporary world This essay examines the relevance of the core ideas of Realism in a contemporary world. It explores the roots of the theory, from Machiavelli, Hobbes and Rousseau to Morgenthau, Beitz and Doyle. The core assumptions are that states are inherently self interested, unitary actors performing on an anarchic global stage. It looks at modern problems of Realism presented by a re-emergence of liberalism, the emergence of globalisation and its apparent incompatibility with democracy. The discussion ultimately rejects many of the criticisms, as they do not serve to refute these core assumptions. Are the core ideas of Realism still relevant in a contemporary world Realism is a term we commonly use to define a motivation for behaving in accordance with truths and facts which exist independently of sentiment, emotive persuasions or overtly ideological tendencies. Within politics and more specifically, international relations, Realism has come to mean to mean a rejection of moralistic or ethical concerns in favour of a more pragmatic approach to policy and diplomacy. Realism places emphasis on the national security of a state rather than focusing on the application of moral concepts such as justice. Are these ideas still relevant in today's society or is there significant evidence to suggest states are primarily motivated by concepts of what is right, rather than what is necessary These issues will be explored throughout this essay, beginning with an investigation into the history of Realism. Classical Realism The roots of Realism can be traced back centuries to Machiavelli (1513) and Hobbes (1651) who were both concerned with the security of the state, rather than the preservation of abstract notions of morality and ethics. Both have had and continue to have a major influence on the shaping of political theory, particularly with their most celebrated works, The Prince and Leviathan. The latter claims that "in the nature of man, we find three principle causes of quarrel. First, competition; secondly, diffidence; thirdly, glory. The first, maketh men invade for gain; the second for safety; and the third, for reputation" (Hobbes 1651/1996, p. 83). Because of Man's natural tendency to be driven by competition and aggression, he will find himself in a perpetual state of war. Though the implementation of a sovereign will, in some way, offer salvation from the immediate state of war between individuals, it will not prevent conflict between states, which have their own interests to protect. It is therefore "the office of the sovereign for which he was trusted with the sovereign power, namely the procuration of the safety of the people; to which he is obliged by the law of nature." (Hobbes 1651/1996, p.175). This overriding aim of national security takes precedence over the individual concerns of those within the state. Indeed, Hobbes argues that the sovereign "can be no injury to any of his subjects" (p.117) which essentially gives the sovereign carte blanche to act upon their own decision without appeal to the general public. In particular, "is annexed to the sovereign the right of making war, and peace with other nations and commonwealths." (Hobbes 1651/1996 p.119). Machiavelli takes a similar and arguably, more radical view with regards to the implementation of policy (1513/1999). The thrust of his book, The Prince is in how to maintain the most powerful state. His view of man is that they "are ungrateful, fickle, liars and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours" (Machiavelli 1513/1999, p. 54). The thrust of the book is in how to maintain the most powerful state. It offers an early form of utilitarianism, which is an important aspect within the core ideas of Realism. He argues that, "By making an example or two he will prove more compassionate than those who, being too compassionate allow disorders while lead to murder and rapine. These nearly always harm a community, whereas executions ordered by a prince only affect individuals" (Machiavelli 1513/1999 p.53). Similarly, nations should act only in a way which considers the maintenance of that state. Individual liberties and rights should not be put before the overall preservation of power for the sovereign in charge. In such circumstances, the future of the entire nation is jeopardized and the Prince or ruler must opt for being "feared than loved if you cannot be both" (Machiavelli 1513/1999 p. 54). If nations are constantly battling for political supremacy in order to maintain security, international relations will fluctuate between states of suspicious co-operation and out-and-out war. As Rousseau sums up: "Every people to which its situation gives no choice save that between commerce and war, is weak in itself. It depends on its neighbours and circumstancesit either conquers others and changes its situation or it is conquered and becomes nothing" (Rousseau 1762/1993 p.222). From Classical Realism to Neo-Realism Though initially these claims seem to be the foundations of a dictatorial regime which democratic governments throughout history have strived to overturn, they nevertheless are at the core of Realist ideas, which still have influence in modern political theory. Morgenthau espouses deriving normative principles from these descriptive claims; "politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature" (Morgenthau 1978 p. 4). He advocates that the interest of international relations is "defined in terms of power" (Morgenthau 1978 p. 5), a belief which is empirically evident throughout history. This is very close to the Machiavellian approach to politics. According to Morgenthau, to talk of motives is a hollow pursuit within politics as they are not only distorted by the subjective nature of those who speak them, but they give no assurance of outcome either politically or morally (Morgenthau 1978 p.5). To illustrate, Morgenthau turns to Chamberlain's policy of appeasement. The statesman who is primarily concerned with what is morally advisable may well be prompted to follow a course of action which leads to political suicide or even policies of even greater immoral consequence (Morgenthau 1978 p.6). Had Chamberlain continued to govern according to good motives, i.e. the avoidance of war, it may well have been the case that Hitler's regime would have been allowed to commit even greater atrocities than it did. From this description, we can make several assumptions about the nature of political realism. Firstly, that human nature is inherently self-centred and nation states, as a result of being governed by humans are inherently motivated by self interest. Furthermore, as it is meaningless to talk of good motives, it must be that the world's stage is essentially anarchic, as there is no universal arbiter to whom other countries or individuals may appeal if they object to a nation's behaviour. Thirdly, Morgenthau talks only of statesmen, assuming then, that states are the only actors upon the world stage. Additionally, in defining interest in terms of power, Morgenthau is purporting to a form of descriptive realism, which is considered by some as troublesome. Problems facing Realism An immediate concern with Realism in the contemporary world is that "one cannot consistently maintain that there are moral restrictions on individual action, but no such restriction on actions of the states" (Beitz 1979 p.15). In the modern world, citizens tend not to accept, as Hobbes did, that the Sovereign can do no injury to its subjects. Countries are called to account for their actions, and there are in operation bodies to enforce this. Organisations such as the United Nations and Amnesty International not only provide guidelines to which nations must adhere, but can impose punishment upon them if they refuse. Political leaders can and are put on trial to face charges of war crimes. Thus, the roots that fed the core ideas of Realism are no longer relevant in many modern nations. It can no longer provide a framework for analysing international politics, as "it was developed in an undemocratic environment" (Rolfsen 2002 p.115). Furthermore, the existence of bodies such as the European Union shows that co-operation is possible between states and that nations are not single units of rational actors, solely motivated by rational self-interest. However, this is one of the weaker arguments against Realism, as the real power of these bodies is questionable. Attempts to agree on a European constitution, for example, have failed and the refusal of the UN to recognise the legality of the American invasion of Iraq did not prevent them from pursuing that goal. "In modern International Relations, the state is generally accepted as the dominant form of political order able to pursue a unitary foreign policy" (Legro and Moravcisk p.10). A further problem facing Realism in a contemporary world is that of globalisation. It effectively undermines the argument that the state is a unitary actor. The truth is that in today's world there are more units and actors to take into consideration. There are multi-national corporations who have an economic prowess greater than many states, thus undermining the power of the state actors whom they are supposedly a part. Furthermore, the influence of popular culture, which has been able to reach global proportions thanks to the explosion of the internet and improvements in transport, has made its mark on the world's stage. This has lead to a "resurgence of its historical main competitor, Liberalism" (Smith and Owens 2004 p.272), which has served to undermine the dominance of Realism in political theory: "In the liberal world, a rock star like Bono can have just as much impact as a politician like Russian President Vladimir Putin. As a result, poverty in Africa might receive as much attention as arms control in Central Europe" (Klarevas, 2004.) It is reasonable to assert therefore, that globalisation rocks a foundational assumption for Realism, "whatever the explanatory power of Realism, it did not seem very good at dealing with issues such as the rise of non-state actors, transnational social movements, and information technology" (Smith and Owens 2004 p.272). The problem it seems is that Realism is stripped of the very empirical evidence it relies on, thus rendering it vague and essentially meaningless. "It no longer helps to signal the analyst's adherence to specific deeper assumptions implicated in any empirical explanation of concrete events in world politics." (Legro and Moravcisk p.8). The Relevance of Realism It may well seem that Realism must reject its core ideas in order to survive in a contemporary world. However, there are still supporters of the theory who claim it still has relevance in spite of the criticisms. One such way of rescuing Realists is by arguing that "they are the theorists of the state of war" (Doyle 1997 p.43). Empirical evidence does indeed show that the international stage is an aggressive one. Barely a year has gone by throughout history where a conflict has not been fought and that is as true today as it has always been, particularly since the attacks on New York in 2001; "All states face in varying degrees, a security dilemma" (Doyle 1997 p.43). The failure of any organisation such as the UN to prevent a state of war lies in the selfish motivation of the members who make it up. The nature of politics and the role of the statesman are "to avoid cataclysm and to place limits on the brutality to which humankind is prone" (Bacevich 2005, p.1). The argument that realism is borne out of an historical context which is not only irrelevant within but is incompatible with a democratic society is rebutted in that "it is a school of thought overwhelmingly preoccupied by how to protect these values" ("The Value of Political Realism" 2003). As democracy is a fundamental aspect of the nature of many developed nations, the power struggle lies in protecting that ideal from nations who are undemocratic. The role of Realism is not to defend or promote the ethics of democracy, indeed one of its core ideas is in detaching itself from ethical concerns. Instead it is concerned with developing a normative theory on the action to take when the security of those ideals are threatened. That Realism was borne out of an undemocratic society does not mean it cannot apply to a democratic one, as it is fundamentally concerned with human nature and the behaviour of nation states in an anarchic setting. Globalisation, though giving power to non-state organisations does not necessarily give them the status as actors on the world's stage. A wealthy multi-national corporation may be able to lobby governments and bribe statesmen, but they are still answerable to that state. What's more, trade between nations can be used as ammunition in order to gain power. Wealthy American corporations serve even wealthier American governments in their quest to maintain their status within global politics. In addition, a celebrity may gain attention from a fickle media, but attention is not power. Media are used by governments as much as wealthy corporations as a tool within the power balance. In times of crises, the media is a potent weapon for propaganda purposes, which is certainly important to the success of a war effort. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether the core aspects of Realism are still relevant in a contemporary world. The empirical evidence suggests that it is. The failure of the EU to agree on fundamentally important matters such as a common currency and constitution, imply that the nation states involved are inherently motivated by selfish interests. The controversy over acceptance of Turkey, a predominantly Muslim country, into the "club" also shows a suspicion of its government's ideologies, which historically have been in conflict with those of the majority of the existing members'. Though there does exist a declaration of Human Rights, applicable throughout the globe, it does not prevent or guarantee their implementation or protection. Human Rights violations occur every day the world over, even within so-called civilised societies such as Britain and America. The controversy over Guantanamo Bay is a case in point. The motivations for America's invasion of Iraq and ignorance of the human rights abuses in, for example, China and Russia are not through a concern of ethics or justice, rather a concern for maintaining a stable position within the world's stage in the name of power and National Security; a story which is echoed by governments throughout the world and in national histories for generations. References Bacevich, A. (2005, November 6). The Realist Persuasion Boston.com News, Retrieved December 1 2005 from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2005/11/06/the_realist_persuasion/page=1. Beitz, R. (1979). Political Theory and International Relations New Jersey: Princeton University Press Doyle, M. (1997). Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism and Socialism New York: WW Norton & Company Inc. Hobbes, T. (1996) The Leviathan New York: Oxford University Press Inc. (Original Work Published 1651) Klarevas, L (2004) Political Realism A Culprit for the 9/11 Attacks Harvard International Review Retrieved December 1 2005 at http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_go1744/is_200409/ai_n9744081 Legro, J & Moravcsik (1999). Is Anybody Still a Realist in International Security, 24, 5-55 Retrieved December 1 2005 from http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.aspttype=6&tid=3328. Macchiavelli, N (1999). The Prince London: Penguin Group. (Original Work Published 1513) Morgenthau, H (1978) Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace New York: Alfred A. Knopf Rolfsen, Raag (2002) "Political Realism and the Ethics of Vulnerability: The Need for a New Understanding of Security after September 11", in PACEM, 5:2 115-136. Rousseau, J (1993) The Social Contract and Discourse London: Orion Publishing Group (Originally Published 1762) Smith, S & Owens, P (2004) Alternative Approaches to International Theory in The Globalization of World Politics Ed. Baylis & Smith 272-293 New York: Oxford University Press Inc. The Value of Realism (2003) The PACEM 1 Retrieved December 1 2005 from http://www.pacem.no/2003/1/debatt/stensli/ Read More