International Relations - Essay Example

International relations International Relations Theory in any given situation must be evaluated according to the purpose it performs, it can be to bring order and meaning to the mass phenomena and without it, it would remain unintelligible and disconnected. Therefore we see Morgenthau to seek to develop a most comprehensive theory of international politics which is popularly known as the theory of realism. In his theory, realism is seen to assume that the world is composed of opposing conflict and interests, this being a contrast of the idealism theory which assumes the essential of human goodness and infinite malleability of the nature of human and the ability of politics to live up moral standards (Wivel, 2005). This principle of realism is mostly concerned with the power rather than morality or the material interests. Morgenthau gave his strongest assumption about the human nature which said the humans beings’ conflict results naturally from the search for power and not merely misunderstanding. In addition, they are not naturally good. It is fact that international relations realists only emphasize on the constraints which are imposed by the nature of human beings, whom are seen as egoistic and by the absence of the international government which an international control of the human nature. This has created conflict based paradigm of the international relations and the key actors in this being the state. The state values and ventures more in the power and security issues and has little concern about the morality (Glaser, 2010). Hence this made the Morgenthau to come up with the six basic principles of realisms as he seen them to be unambiguous; and the laws governing the politics being objective because they have a human nature which is attached on them. They are not considered as political law or historical law but they are natural law, and this drives the power that defines the concept of interest in specific to the study of politics and an outline in the second principle. According to this principle in order to improve the society it is our responsibility to understand the laws which govern the society and which the society lives. The operations of these laws are known to be impervious and any struggle by men to change them won’t be effective as it is difficult to change them (Morgenthau, Princeton University Press, 1948). Realism being believes it as it does in the objectivity of the given political law and must believe in the possibility of developing a rational theory which reflects the Imperfections of the objectivity of the law. Realism also believes in the possibility of distinguishing in politics between truth and the opinion between what is true rationally and objectively. These are supported by evidence and crown with reasons to the facts, and that what is subjective judgment divorced from the given facts as they are. Human nature which is not known to have transformed from the classical philosophies of India, china, and Greece, who endeavored to discover this law. Novelty is not only a necessary virtue in the political theory, or is old age a defect. The fact that the theory of politics was developed and formed in hundreds or thousands of years ago as it was for the theory of balance of power it does not mean the theory has outmoded or obsolete (Schweller, 2006). The theory of politics must be subjected to dual test of reasons and experience. So as to dispose of the revival of such a theory as fashion is tantamount to assume that in the matters of politics we can have opinion of individuals but no truth of the matter. Realism theory is concern with the ascertaining facts and giving them meanings through reasons. It also assumes that a character of foreign policy can only be ascertained through the examination of political acts performed and the foreseeable consequences of the act. Examination is not enough fact to give meaning to foreign policy; we also need to approach the political reality with the kind of rational outline which is a map that suggests the possible meaning of the foreign policy. We must put ourselves in the position of the statesman who must meet the certain problems of the foreign policy under certain circumstances. We should ask ourselves what the rational alternatives are formed by statesman who has to choose who must meet these problems under what circumstances (Morgenthau, The Struggle for Power and Peace, 2005). This is the testing of the rational hypothesis against actual facts and their consequences they are accompanied with. Also we have the main signpost that helps political realism to find its ways through the international politics is the given concept of interest which is defined in terms of power. This principle tries to link the reason for making attempts to master politics from the international front. It has set the politics to be autonomous sphere of actions and also understanding part from the other spheres such as economics, religion or ethics. Without this concept other theory would be impossible such as politics, international, or domestic for without it we can’t distinguish between the political facts and the nonpolitical facts and we couldn’t bring the systematic measure of political sphere (Jervis, 2012). It is assumed that the statesman acts and thinks in term of interest defined as power of which the evidence of history bears those assumptions. This concept of interest which is defined as the power of the given intellectual discipline upon the observer that infuses rational orders into the subject matter of the politics. The two popular fallacies which are guarded by the realist international politics are the concern with motives and the concern with ideological preferences. The access to the real motives statesman the knowledge is of little help in the foreign policies history does not show the exert specifications and necessary correlation between the quality of motive and the quality of foreign policy. From good intentions of the statesman we cannot conclude that the foreign policies will be either politically successful or morally praiseworthy, and morally wrong policies will not be pursued intentionally but the extent or probability of success can’t be measure (Glaser, 2010). The key interest concept of realism is assumed to be power, an objective category which is said to be universally valid, but it does not attach the concept with meanings that are fixed once and for all. This idea of interest is an essential of politics but it is unaffected by circumstances of place and time. It was erected to the general principle of government by Washington: small knowledge of the human nature will convince us, that with far greatest of interest is the principles governing every man are more or less under the influence. Very few men are making of continual sacrifices of all the views of the private interest, or merits to common good. It is in vain to bellow against the human nature’s depravity on his account, it is the experience of every age and notion has proved it and we must change the constitution of man. It was also echoed and enlarged by the observation of Max weber, who said interest, not ideas, dominates man’s actions directly. Yet the image of the world created by this ideas have very often served as the switches determining the truck on which dynamism of interest were changing with (Wivel, 2005). On the other hand, political realism does not back the idea that the contemporary directives under the foreign policies operate with extreme instability and ever present large-scale violence. What is seen to be true of the general character of international relation is also true of the given nation state of the ultimate point of reference of contemporary foreign policy. The given realist cannot be persuaded that there can be transformation by confronting a political reality that has its laws with abstract ideal that refuses to take those laws into account (Weber, 2001). Political realism is aware of moral significance of political action. There is ineluctable tension between the moral command and the stated requirements of political action. And it s unwilling to gloss over and the obliterate that tension and thus to obfuscate both the moral and political issues by making it appear that the moral laws are less exacting than how it actually is, and the stark facts of politics are more satisfying morally than expected (Schweller, 2006). The realism still maintains that the universal moral principle can’t be applied to the action of the state in the abstract of the universal formulation. In realism the individual may say to themselves that even if the world perishes, let justice be done. However, for the state it cannot assert so on behalf of people who it cares about. Liberty is a mean by which both the individual and state should be used to judge the political action by the universal moral principles (Morgenthau, The Struggle for Power and Peace, 2005). Ethics is an abstract judge’s action by its conformity with the moral law and it’s seen that political ethics judges its actions as political consequences. Classical and Medieval philosophy knew this and it’s so with the Lincoln when he asserted that he does the very best he can, and he is to keep doing the same up to the end. If the end brings him out all right, what is said against him wont amount to anything. If the end brings him out the wrong way, ten angels who would swear that he was right will not make any difference (Lebow, 2007). The political realism refuses to identify the moral aspiration of a particular nation with the moral rights that governs the universe. Realism was seen to distinguish truth and opinion in the early principle, also now it is seen to differentiate truth and idolatry (Korab-Karpowicz, 2013). To identify that nations are subject to moral laws is one thing, while the essence to pretend knowing certainty what is good and what is bad in relations to nations is another thing all together. It is the interest concept defined in the terms of the powers that serves us from both the moral excess and political folly. There is moderation which is a policy cannot fail to reflect moderation of moral judgment (Korab-Karpowicz, 2013). We have the capability of judging other nations as we judge our own and seeing them judged in fashion, we are then capable of pursuing policies that respects the interests of other nations, as we protect and promote those of ours. The distinction between the political realism and other school of thoughts is real, and it is profound. This theory of realism might have been misunderstood and misinterpreted as there is no gainsaying its distinctive intellectual and moral attitudes towards the matter concerning political (Jervis, 2012). The autonomy of the political sphere is maintained by the realist, as the economists, lawyers, moralist maintains theirs. Political realist thinks interests inform of power, as the economists thinks inform of interest which defines wealth, the lawyer thinks of the conformity of the actions with legal rules and lastly the moralist who take it inform of conformity of the action of the moral principles. The political realist is seen not to be unaware of the existence and the relevant of standards of thought other than political once (Henrik Bliddal, 2013). The policy of the France and the Great Britain were classical examples of the legalism in that they allowed the answer of the legal questions, legitimate within its sphere to determine their political actions. They ask one questions of the two given that of law and that of power and they only ask that of law and receives answers which could not be bearing issue that their very existence might have depended upon. It sounds obvious that Morgenthau had warned that the policy has been repeatedly guided by the legal and moral guidelines rather than strictly on political considerations. Realism advocate for the fact that policy must arise purely out of political analysis that is the analysis of the politics of power. Waltz criticizes the political realism in that he sees it to have human nature as the source of seeking power which was the greatest assumptions. Waltz turns the focus onto the structure as necessitating power hungry states for security reasons (Glaser, 2010). This concept of power is broadly defined but it does not clearly state the sources that are assumed to give the state power and also the act one state seen to exert power on one another. Bibliography Glaser, C. L. (2010). Rational Theory of International Politics: The Logic of Competition and Cooperation. washington: Princeton University Press. Henrik Bliddal, C. S. (2013). Classics of International Relations: Essays in Criticism and Appreciatio. New york: Routledge. Jervis, R. (2012). International Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. New york: Pearson Education. Korab-Karpowicz, W. J. (2013). Political Realism in International Relations. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 56-112. Lebow, R. N. (2007). Coercion, Cooperation, and Ethics in International Relations. Taylor & Francis. Morgenthau, H. (1948). Princeton University Press. New york: Knopf. Morgenthau, H. (2005). The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. Schweller, R. L. (2006). Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Powe. Princeton University Press. Weber, M. (2001). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Taylor & Francis. Wivel, A. (2005). International Relations and Development. 355-380. Read More