Hi sooz14!!
First of all excuse me for cannot finish this task in the time of your
preference. I am counting with your understanding about this.
Second I want to ask you for not consider this answer ended until your
entire satisfaction, if you find that is something wrong or imcomplete
and you think that such part must be completed or rewrote, or if you
need further assistance, please use the clarification feature to
contact me. I will gladly respond to your requests.
Thank you.
Here is the essay, it has (according with the MSWORD word counter)
about 2900 words.
------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction:
Despite the opinion of its critics, Realism is the dominant theory
used to explain the nature of the International Relations (IR)
throughout the whole history.
For example:
- Thucydides' analysis of the Peloponnesian War, 431 BC:
"the real reason? [for the war]? was the growth of Athenian power and
the fear this caused in Sparta", "the strong do what they can and the
weak do what they must"
- Machiavelli's work "The Prince", 1505:
"better feared than loved"
- Cardinal de Richelieu, who introduced through his policies the
Realism in european diplomacy under the name of "raison d?état". He
led France into the Thirty Years War to ensure that the states
controlled by the Habsburgs did not dominate Europe.
- Bismark's Realpolitik, Hobbes' "Leviatan", Carl von Clausewitz's "On war", etc.
From the Thirty Years War to the present times realist terms like
raison d?état, realpolitik, balance of power, and others have entered
the lexicon of diplomacy and rulers framed their actions in terms of
national interests.
----------------------------------------------------------
But what is Realism in IR?
The theory of the realism in IR has been developed throughout the
history by political philosophers such are Thucydides (History of the
Peloponessian War), Sun Tzu (Art of War), Machievelli (Prince), Hobbes
(Leviathan), Carl von Clausewitz (On War), Rousseau (State of War) and
closer to our times - in the late 1930s - E.H. Carr (The Twenty Years?
Crisis).
In 1948 Hans J. Morgenthau published "Politics Among Nations", where
he synthesized the classical realist´s works giving us a complete and
clear definition of realism.
- Morgenthau's definition of Realism:
Morgenthau claims that he is presenting a "theory of international
politics", a theory which bring "order and meaning" to the mass of
facts. He sees the Realism as a contrast to liberal-idealism.
Morgenthau?s theory is based on fixed premises that are synthetized in
six main principles. In summary, these principles are:
1· International relations "?is governed by objective laws that have
their roots in human nature":
The human nature is unchanging, then these objective laws are
unchanging over time and are not affected by human preference. The
first important consequence of this is that it is possible to develop
a rational theory based on these invariable laws. Thus, objective laws
of human nature, tied with an assumption that actors are rational,
would provide us a framework for explanation of International
Relations.
2· The main signpost of political realism "?is the concept of interest
defined in terms of power?:
In other words the international politics is characterized by the
struggle for national power between states. The concept of interest
defined in terms of power sets international politics as an autonomous
sphere of action and understanding apart from other spheres, such as
ethics, aesthetics, or religion, there is no room for moral concerns,
prejudice or individual preference in determination of foreign policy.
This concept provides us with firm knowledge about states behaviour,
making the theoretical understanding of politics possible.
3· "?Interest defined as power is an objective category which is
universally valid", although its exact meaning may change with time
and circumstance.
The form and nature of state power vary in time, place and context,
but the concept of interest defined as power remains consistent. The
political, cultural and strategic environment determine the forms of
state power. Then this objectivity of interest can serve as a
universal start point for understanding international politics events.
4· "Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political
action. It is also aware of the ineluctable tension between the moral
command and the requirements of successful political action."
Realism asumes that the universal moral principles do not guide state
behavior. The states are not moral agents because their actions will
be judged by the criterion of national survival. National interests
are permanent conditions which provide policy-makers with a rational
guide to action.
5· "The moral aspirations of a particular nation?" cannot be
identified with "the moral laws that govern the universe".
There is no set of moral principles that are universally agreed. Then
though states endeavor to cover their behavior in ethical terms, this
is intended to give advantage and legitimacy and to further the
state's national interests.
6· Realist politics is an autonomous sphere that needs to be analysed
as an entity, without being subordinated to any other sphere of human
concern.
In order to develop an autonomous theory of political behaviour,
'political man' must be abstracted from other aspects of human nature.
He thinks in terms of interest defined as power, as the economist
thinks in terms of interest defined as wealth. The political realist
asks: "How does this policy affect the power of the nation?" giving
primacy to political considerations by defining interest in terms of
power and all must be subordinate to a political analysis.
-----------------------------------------------------------
- Waltz' Neorealism:
A new theory emerged through the Kenneth Waltz?s book "Theory of
International Politics" published in 1979. Waltz believes that earlier
theories of international relations, including classical realism, have
defects that can be cured applying a more scientific approach. The
approach he took became known as Neorealism.
Waltz's objective is to explain why the anarchic international system
tends to reproduce itself. He believes that international system has a
precisely defined three dimensional structure:
1· Ordering principle of the system:
The ordering principle of the system is anarchical not hierarchical.
The absence of a central authority leads to a SELF-HELP SYSTEM where
the quest for survival requires to states to seek security through the
accretion of military power. The ordering principle of the system
forces states to perform exactly the same primary function regardless
of their capacity to do so.
2· The functional differentiation of units:
In this anarchic system each state is a separate, autonomous and
formally equal unit, and to realize its interests it must count only
on its own resources because "no one else can be counted on to do so".
Then, all the important functions must be performed by each and every
state.
3· The distribution of the capabilities of the units of the international system:
States cannot be differentiated by its functions but they differ
vastly in their capabilities. This distribution of capabilities, which
is unequal and shifting, defines the relative power of the states and
predicts variations in states? balance of power behaviour. This means
that one international system can be distinguished from another by the
distribution of capabilities between states, in other words
international orders vary according to the number of great powers.
Waltz argues that states in anarchy have two choices balance and
bandwagon, and always prefer balance to bandwagon. The power of others
is always a threat not a lure.
Weak states may be have no alternative than an early alignment with a
leading candidate or a recent victor...but when the system grows calm
it is the time when they start to move their pieces to balance the
power of the more powerful states.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Differences between Morgenthau's and Waltz's theories:
Classical realism typically starts with a pessimistic notion of human
nature. Selfinterested, competitive, and power-hungry behavior is
seen as rooted deeply in the human condition. Hans Morgenthau argues
that to preserve itself, each state must act selfishly. He conclude
that this behaviour trend normally leads to conflict: "What the one
wants for himself, the other already possesses or wants, too. Struggle
and competition ensue.... Man cannot [therefore] hope to be good, but
must be content with not being too evil."
Then to stablish their international strategy a prudent statesmen
should avoid optimism about others' goals and should limit their
objectives to those that they can sustain if things go badly.
In short, classical realism asumes that competition and conflict
between actors are inevitable, and the roots of the struggle for power
come from the human nature. Given this scenario of states behavior,
classical realists often emphasize the importance of organizing
individuals units into groups that can protect their members through a
focus on improving the group's relative power position over others.
Neorealism or structural realism takes a different approach to
explain the nature of the conflict between actors in international
relations. It considers interstate conflict rooted in the absence of a
central authority that can enforce rules and agreements, absence that
originates an insecure, self-help situation in which all policy makers
are pressured to act competitively, regardless of their individual
natures or personal preferences. This situation is called anarchy, not
in the sense of caos but in the sense of absence of world government
which can enforce rules in international relations.
In short, anarchy originates an insecure international system, and the
states must act to eliminate or reduce this insecurity.
All states have two choices to resist possible domination by others:
- Through a policy of balancing against others' power capabilities,
- Bandwagoning a coalition that supports an aggressive state, in
hopes of turning its aggression elsewhere.
But large states have also the capacity, and often the willingness, to
resist the strength of others, in other words they not need to
bandwagonig a coalition, they can lead a coalition. This results in a
competition for power among the major states regardless of their
leaders' views or the nature of their domestic political systems.
Now we can take account on the first great difference between these
two brands of realisms:
Both realisms expect policy makers to act competitively, but the
difference lies in the way that they arrive to this conclusion.
Classical realism considers that the behaviour of the states
originates poweroriented strategies because statesmen's desire of
power as an end in itself, whereas neorealism set the arise of such
strategies in the need to compete for security.
These two different roots of behaviour lead us to the second key
difference between neorealism and classical realism: the equilibrium
point.
What is the answer for the question about the effect of polarity on
war and peace. Which is safer (from major war and domination) a world
of two great powers or many medium powers?
The key is centered on the impact of uncertainty, and the effect that
it has on decisions to go to war.
Uncertainty increases when the number of main actor is higher in the
international system and diminish when that number decreases. This is
because with more actors playing a main role in the system, the number
of different future potential scenarios increases and viceversa.
For classical realists states strategies are rooted in the human
desire of power as an end in itself, then certainty leads to war
because certainty simplifies the aggressors? calculations for war, and
uncertainty leads to peace because action is deterred by the threat of
third party intervention.
Bipolarity gives more certainty than multipolarity, therefore
multipolarity leads to peace in the classical realist theory.
On the other hand neorealism submit strategies to the need to compete
for state security, and the insecurity is originated in the anarchic
condition of the international realm which imposes the accumulation of
power as a systemic requirement on states to give more security
themselves. When the number of main actors is increased the system is
more anarchic and therefore more insecure. Then the states tend to
take more drastical decisions to reduce insecurity, in other words
uncertaity gives more opportunities to aggresor to act and certainty
leads to peace because there are fewer wars that are caused by
miscalculation.
Bipolarity gives more certainty than multipolarity, therefore
bipolarity leads to peace in the neorealist theory.
So since the main statements appear to be similar, realism and
neorealism are very different theories, and each one gives us
different snapshots of the same international system.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion:
The conclusion of this work must be an attemp to identify which theory
fit better to the real world.
"Neorealism explain puzzling state behaviors better than previous
realist theories. For example it gives a proper answer to the question
of why do states resist the specialization which economic theory
demonstrates has comparative advantages?
Neorealism says that this is because while wealth may grow absolutely,
states must focus on security, which requires avoiding reliance on
others.
Neorealism also explains why both superpowers were obsessed with minor
allies such as Vietnam (the intrinsic stakes mattered far less than
the issue?s impact on others and the balance between superpowers -
?domino theory?), while France?s defection from NATO mattered little.
The answer to this puzzle is that in alliances among unequals, the
contributions of lesser members are at once wanted and of relatively
little importance.
Classical realism could not explain why the Cold War system had not
led to open warfare. . Morgenthau's theory stablishes that multipolar
systems are believed more stable (less ?war prone?) than a bipolar
one. But for neorealists a bipolar system is more stable, this explain
why the Cold War endured without direct conflict.
Waltz's theory provides answers to the Cold War?s basic questions and
gives statesmen both decision-making and strategical guides.
According to neorealism, the Cold War was the inevitable consequence
of the emergence of two superpowers as the result of World War II.
Each necessarily had to fear the other?s capabilities, regardless of
intentions, ideologies, etc. Further, since each superpower possessed
extensive resources and could be expected to take whatever action
necessary to preserve its relative status, the Cold War could be
expected to be enduring. The theory prescribes to statesmen to accept
bipolarity as the best of possible worlds, and to resist futile
efforts to change it.
According to Neorealism an increase in one state?s security decreases
the security of others. The term ?security dilemma? describes the
condition in which states, unsure of others? intentions, arm for the
sake of security, setting in motion a vicious circle of response and
counter-response. Security dilemmas result from situations, not
states? desires. U.S. and Soviet forces in Europe during the Cold War
met the conditions of a security dilemma.
Neorealism suggests that two bipolar great powers share interests in
acting to maintain the international system, rather than to transform
or transcend it. (According to Neorealism) Three possibilities are
available to restrain an unstable arms race, and each was used in part
during the Cold War. States may accept the risks of insecurity,
balancing it against the domestic risks associated with higher defense
costs. Tactical nuclear weapons may be deployed to link strategic
nuclear deterrence to theater forces. Cooperation in arms control can
limit the most threatening weaponry and help reduce suspicions by
making each side?s actions more visible to the other."
Text between quotes was summarized from "International Relations
Theory And The Process of Ending The Cold War" by Wally Z. Walters,
Major, U.S. Army.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1995/WWZ.htm
At this point we can conclude that the neorealist theory explains
better the states behaviour in international relations than the
classical realism. Waltz's theory answer questions that the classical
realism cannot face.
"By concentrating on the nature of the system-level structure, Waltz
avoided the need to make assumptions about human nature, morality,
power and interest. Neorealists were thus able to see power in a
different way. For the classical Realists power was both a means and
an end, and rational state behaviour was simply accumulating the most
power. Neorealists found that a better guide was provided by assuming
that the ultimate state interest was in security, and while gathering
power often ensured that, in some cases it merely provoked an arms
race. Yet while power was no longer the prime motivator, its
distribution was the major factor determining the nature of the
structure."
From "Realism in International Relations" by Martin Dunn.
http://www.geocities.com/virtualwarcollege/ir_realism.htm
Appendix:
Unipolarity challenge:
The (relatively) peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union ended the Cold
War and made the U.S. the largest economic and military power in the
world.
The end of the Cold War has challenged the predictions of the
neorealism deduced from Waltz's theory (two bipolar great powers share
interests in acting to maintain the international system).
But if we consider that we are too early in the process of
reacomodation after a major international event we can still use the
neorealist theory to predict the future behaviour of the states.
The strategy of the United States after the collapse of the Soviet
Union continue oriented on security issues.
The main problem with being the most powerful state in the world is
that according to the logic of the balance of power, it will provoke a
counter-coalition. This defy the sense of security of the United
States, and this state reacts with regard to the Eurasian continent in
the same way as England?s with regard to Europe: to oppose the
consolidation of the continent under any single power, whether German,
Japanese, Russian or Chinese.
We must wait to see if unipolarity will be temporary and other states
will balance it (arm and ally) or if the neorealism must be reformed
or reinterpreted or that the peaceful nature of democratic regimes has
overpowered the logic of the balance of power (in this case realisms
must be discarded).
-----------------------------------------------------------
References:
Stephen G. Brooks, "Dueling Realisms (Realism in International
Relations)," International Organization, Vol. 51, no. 3 (Summer 1997):
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/brooks.htm
"Approaches to the Study of International Politics: Realism,
Liberalism and Marxism":
http://homepages.stmartin.edu/Fac_Staff/rlangill/PLS%20300/Competing%20World%20Views-Lamborn.htm
"Realism and International Relations" by Jack Donnelly:
http://assets.cambridge.org/0521592291/sample/0521592291WSC00.PDF
Hans J. Morgenthau, "Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power
and Peace", Fifth Edition, Revised, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978,
pp. 4-15):
-SIX PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL REALISM-
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm
"Hans Morgenthau's "Fourteen Points"" by Daniel Whelan, Ph.D. Student,
Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver,
Denver, CO:
http://www.du.edu/~dwhelan/morgenthau.htm
"Is Political Realism a viable philosophy of military affairs?":
http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:3hfeouwfcocJ:www.warsoc.com/politicalrealism.doc+Morgenthau+realism+six&hl=es
-------------------------------------------------------------
Search strategy:
realism versus neorealism
Morgenthau Waltz realism
neorealism realism differences -cinema
"international relations" Realism Neorealism
--------------------------------------------------------------
I hope this helps you. Please remember to request for any
clarification needed before rate this answer.
Best regards.
livioflores-ga |
,
0 Comments
)