Has Realism got the big things right - Essay Example

? Has ‘Realism’ Got The Big Things Right? Introduction: In relation to international politics or international relations (IR), realists are of views that states are the main actors reflecting the actions of the world. The states are meant to be sovereign actors thus meaning that there would be no other actor or regulator above the decisions of the states. All other organizations are hence supposed to follow the rules and regulations set by the individual states. The activities of different states lead to inter-state relations. According to realism, the nature of humans tends to be selfish and thus when the concept of international politics is concerned, it represents a struggle between the different states, each trying to make the most of their own interests (Baylis, Smith & Owens, 2010, p.4). The concept of myth has been given by Cynthia Weber where an IR myth is considered to be an “apparent truth, usually expressed as a slogan, that an IR theory or tradition (like realism or idealism) relies upon in order to appear to be true” (Weber, 2009, p.6). Depending on such myths, the question arises: Has realism got the big things right? The present study argues in support of the fact that the statements made by realists on the struggles between states owing to the absence of a single authority on the states are myths. The study argues against that realism in relation to international relations creates a negative view of politics associating it with conflicts and war reflecting that states are self centric and hence more concerned with their power, security and wealth (Realism and US-Iran Relations, 2009). Thus the study argues that statements of realism reflecting examples like “international anarchy is the permissive cause of war” are myths. About Realism: Neo Realism and Classical Realism: Realism in relation to politics reflects the study and practice of international politics. Generally it discusses on the roles of the different states in a nation. It also assumes and makes statements on the states being concerned with their national interests and hence are carried away by these interests towards their individual actions. Thus according to realism, all states are concerned about their individual status in the world politics as well as their territorial reliability. Besides these, according to realists, the interests of the states may vary depending on their needs and circumstances (Political Realism, n.d.). As far as neorealism and classical realism is concerned, there are certain differences between the two concepts. While classical realists are of the view that the reasons for international conflicts and wars are the imperfect behaviors and nature of the societies or the individual states, on the other hand, the neorealists have their belief in the anarchic system of international relations. According to the belief of classical realists, the state is considered to be more advanced against the entire system, while the neorealists believe that agencies hold greater space in the system than the states. Neorealists are of the view that the individual states act as unitary actors, on the other hand, classical realists make a distinction between powers of the status-quo and revisionist powers. Another difference between the neorealists and classical realists is that neo-realists make efforts to put up a more thorough and methodical advancement to the study of international relations, profoundly predisposed by the “behaviourist revolution of the 1960’s while classical realism confine its analyses to subjective valuations of international relations” (Pashakhanlou, 2009). Realism and International Relations: Considering the relation of realism and international relations, there are four fundamental assumptions that realists have made for the international relations. Firstly, they assume that “the state is the most important actor in international relations” (Realism, n.d.). This reflects that the most important role in these states is that of the individual governments, when decisions regarding international politics are concerned. The second assumption states that “the state is a unitary and rational actor” (Realism, n.d.). This means that there is a single voice of the state. There may be varying views of the members of the states but the decision taken is always a single decision considered by the state as a whole. This reflects the unitary nature of the states. When the states are called as rational by the realists, it means that they are sensitive to decide on their necessities and importance such that they can identify their goals and measures (Realism, n.d.). The third assumption made by the realists is that the “international relations are essential conflictual because of anarchy” (Realism, n.d.). Anarchy in this regard refers to the absence of any higher authority on the states that can prevent aggression or any disputes among the states. Thus nations are capable of attacking one another without the fear of any higher authority to punish them. Also, owing to anarchy, the states feel the necessity to protect and secure themselves from the attacks of other states, and individually plan their strategies for self achievements. The chances of violence are hence very high. Hence according to the realists, the cause of conflicts among the anarchic states is this view of the realists reflecting the absence of a government or higher authority on all the states (Realism, n.d.). The fourth assumption of the realists on international relations is that “security and strategic issues, known as high politics, dominate the international agenda” (Realism, n.d.). This assumption is focused on the fact that the individual states are more concerned with their maximization of power and other necessities in the world of international politics and hence more concerned with their gain of military power and security. An example in this regard can also be discussed in this regard: “An example of a nation operating according to this maxim is North Korea in the early 90s--the downfall of the Soviet Union left them without Communist allies, so they began a nuclear weapons development program and threw out UN observers. They believed that if their government gained nuclear power, it would survive in the international community because other countries would fear them. As a February 1996 edition of "Economist" put it, ‘if you're alone and you have no friends, cultivating an image of yourself as a wild gun-toting maniac is not the worst you can do for yourself’” (Realism, n.d.). There are certain other issues like the rights of humans or the surroundings that are not of principal significance. Several realists, however, consider economics to be equally significant. According to them, states need to build up governing, uneven relationships with other states and maneuver then such that they can prove to be advantageous for their own interests. “An example of this would be for one country to make another dependent upon its exports. This philosophy was practiced by the imperialists before WWI--their colonies had few independent means of production, and they deliberately left the natives uneducated, thus forcing the colonies to buy their sovereign country's goods” (Realism, n.d.). Thus these assumptions of the realists on the international relations reflect on the fact states are more concerned with the relative gains in power than absolute gains, since these gains are more advantageous for the states. Such states give more importance to their own positions in the international politics as against the other states. Thus they maintain strong military forces and try to make advancements in their statuses relative to the other states present in the politics. It can also be said from the above assumptions that the distribution of power tends to occur in a balanced manner. The power being balanced, one state tries not to allow the other states to become more powerful than it. According to the realists, the states that do not intend their distribution of power would be removed from the system by means of conflict and war by the other states (Realism, n.d.). Also, the assumptions reflect that the system tends to be more stable in nature when there are evenly matched powers between the states, than when the powers are scattered among different states or countries. This can also be understood by a review of the current situation in the Middle East. “No two nations in the Middle East are a great deal more powerful than all of the rest (though some disparities in power do exist), and the nations are not organized into two competing groups. Instead, each country has a tangled web of rivalries and friendships. The political situation there is perpetually tense because each nation must be alert for threats from many potential adversaries, and there is great possibility for misunderstanding or misjudgments of the situation. In contrast, during the Cold War, the United States knew that its enemies were Communists and its allies were anyone who was not a Communist. Much less intelligence-gathering and guesswork was involved recognizing potential threats, and the US did not have to fear hostilities from multiple fronts” (Realism, n.d.). Another factor that may be analyzed from the assumptions of the realists is that it is improbable as well as difficult to achieve cooperation among the states in the system of international relations. This is primarily because the individual states are more concerned with their own position and power in the international politics and there is no trust in between these states or countries. An example of this situation is: “For instance, during the Cold War (and even today to some extent), the U.S. and Russia did not want to create an arms control treaty. The United States feared that Russia would continue to develop weapons while the US abided by the terms of the treaty and reduced its arms production. This logically follows from the realists' belief that states will seek to maximize their power so long as it will not jeopardize its security. If your partner has promised not to make any weapons to counter the ones that you develop, you can only gain power by defecting from the treaty. In such an environment, every state has an incentive to break agreements, and consequently cooperation is unlikely” (Realism, n.d.). Myth of the Realism in International Relations: In association with the assumptions made by the realists in relation to international politics, it is of significant importance to learn that the major cause of conflicts among different states and countries in the world is the international anarchy. Thus according to the neorealists, the permissive cause of war is the anarchy. However the question in this regard arises as to how much this is true. This study argues that in fact these are myths and that it is not always necessary that states would be in conflicts or wars owing to the absence of a higher authority over all the states or countries. However these assumptions and arguments of the neorealists cannot be held good as far as explanations are strong against such assumptions. Firstly, the economy of the world is a translucently adjusted and strictly incorporated mechanism considering several significant factors and depending on international collaboration among state agents, firms, as well as consumers that cannot be questioned.  The disruption of such collaboration is significantly a rare issue.  There are effective international laws that are followed in a similar frequency like the domestic laws in the individual states or countries.  The political groups and the members of the political affairs across the world are continuously involved in performing the supportive tasks on a regular basis that are “established by their leaders at unending rounds of summit meetings, multilateral conclaves, and meetings of international organizations.  Whether they meet for the Group of Seven (or Eight), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, the annual opening of the United Nations General Assembly, or OAU, Arab League or OSCE summits, national leaders always come with agendas on which issues of continuing and improving cooperation dominate” (Kaufman, 2001). Although there may be certain issues in relation to security among different countries, like between US and Canada, however, these problems are no more reflected in the present times. In fact there are certain realists too, like Robert Jervis who mentioned the presence of a security community in international politics where no dilemma or conflict may be visible among the states or countries in the world of politics. Other research conducted by different researchers also on the other hand prove that conflicts may occur between states due to causes that have no relation with international anarchy. Studies reveal that conflicts had arisen between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union owing to ethnic security reasons and that had no associations with international anarchy in the states. Even in some cases, it has been obtained that although security issues existed in certain states, it always did not lead to any war or conflicts among them (Kaufman, 2001). As Kaufman mentioned in his studies, based on research of Jack Levy, it has been obtained that “there was a war among great powers going on about 88-89% of the time in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but only 24-25% of the time in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (up to 1975).  The last great power war, the Korean War, ended 48 years ago–an unprecedented show of great power restraint” (Kaufman, 2001). It is not possible for an invariant cause like international anarchy to have such tremendous effects on the states or countries. The studies also reveal that the Second World War civil war has become more widespread in the world than the effects of the international war. “For the post-Cold War decade, the discrepancy is not merely significant but stunning: one count found 92 violent civil conflicts in the decade 1989-98, nine civil conflicts with foreign intervention, and only seven pure interstate violent conflicts” (Kaufman, 2001). Thus it is of prime significance in this regard to discuss that if international anarchy had been such a severe cause leading to war and conflicts, then the civil wars would not have been so widespread. The myth of the realism in relation to international relations has been primarily given by Kenneth Waltz. While according to Waltz’s statement the absence of a higher authority leads to war, it needs to be considered at this juncture that this statement may be proved true only if wars could be completely prevented with the presence of such a higher authority. If that cannot be the case, then wars cannot be associated only with the international anarchy. “The structure of the international system is not by itself an actual causal factor of war. It is rather a condition that permits and facilitates the occurrence of war. It may be a war-conducive catalyst, but it cannot be safely argued that it is the primordial force of bellicose behavior” (Pechlivanis, 2012). Moreover, according to Waltz, only a single situation is present where there might be an alteration in the character of international politics, the reason to which is a change in the entire system. This reflects a revolution from anarchic system to hierarchic system. However, it cannot be stated that such an alteration or conversion would be able to prevent war completely. It has been observed that there is a hierarchical order that is associated with civil wars; as a result, “even if a hierarchical world state was ever achieved, war would still be a possibility” (Pechlivanis, 2012). Thus, depending on such an argument, it can be said that anarchy cannot be called a fundamental cause. Rather it may be one of the facilitating conditions leading to wars that may be in combination with several other factors. This may not mean that the importance of anarchy lessens. However, it is also needed to be kept in focus that it “shapes the environment of the international arena” (Pechlivanis, 2012). Nevertheless, anarchy is not essentially exemplified by any programmed model. “It may facilitate war in some cases, but it does not make war inevitable. States do not always fight with each other, they cooperate as well, and this happens under anarchy” (Pechlivanis, 2012). Conclusion: From the above study, it can be realized that the realists are of the view that international anarchy is the only probable or permissive cause of war. To this Weber’s views have clearly reflected the fact of myth in such a statement. From the entire study and the several examples as discussed in the study, it can be concluded that anarchy, reflecting the absence of a single authority or power on all states or countries, may be a prime cause leading to the occurrence of wars and conflicts among the states or countries. This is primarily because the states are concerned about their own interests as well as security. Hence they would try to stay in a secured state of position as against other states in the international world of politics. However, in this regard it can be said that although this might be one of the supportive reasons leading to conflicts, yet it is not possible for international anarchy to be sole reason causing war. This is because the economy of the world is not in such a worse situation where every country would require bothering immensely on their security reasons and causing war to maintain their states. Rather there are lesser dilemmas in relation to security in the present times. Also, there is a security community in the international relations to consider these factors, hence diminishing the fact that international anarchy can be the only reason to war. Rather, studies have made it clear that wars and conflicts may occur due to several reasons and these might have no associations with international anarchy or the absence of a single power in international politics. The widespread effects of the civil war in comparison to the international conflicts are one of the most significant examples to prove this fact. Thus, in order to conclude the study, it can be said that although international anarchy, as according to realists, is a permissive cause of war; however, it can be called a myth and the fact is that although it may be one of the reasons to war yet it cannot be called the sole reason to war and conflicts in international relations. References 1) Baylis, J., Smith, S. & P. Owens (2010). The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2) Kaufman, S.J. (2001). The End of Anarchism: The Society of Nations, Institutions, and the Decline of War. CCIT. Retrieved on November 22, 2012 from: http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/archive/kaufman.html 3) Pashakhanlou, A.H. (2009). Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and Neorealism. E-ir. Retrieved on November 20, 2012 from: http://www.e-ir.info/2009/07/23/comparing-and-contrasting-classical-realism-and-neo-realism/ 4) Pechlivanis, P. (2012). Anarchy and War: A Critique of Waltz Third Image. E-ir. Retrieved on November 22, 2012 from: http://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/18/anarchy-and-war-a-critique-of-waltzs-third-image/ 5) Political Realism (n.d.). mtholyoke. Retrieved on November 20, 2012 from: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/realism.htm 6) Realism (n.d.). angelfire. Retrieved on November 21, 2012 from: http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/meredith/realism.html 7) Realism and US-Iran Relations (2009). us-iran-relations. Retrieved on November 20, 2012 from: http://www.us-iran-relations.com/index.php?p=1_12_realism-and-us-iran-relations 8) Weber, C. (2009). International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Read More