Realism: Conflict & Competition in International Politics - Essay Sample

Introduction

Realism is a theory of international politics that emphasizes the conflictual and competitive side of international relations (Collins, 2016). It is often juxtaposed against liberalism or idealism which stress on cooperation. Under the theory, states are considered to be the principal actors at the international stage. Each state is concerned with its own security and acts to protect its interests and enhance its power. Owing to these factors, international politics is characterized by conflict, both active and potential, among states (Donnelly, 2019). However, it is important to note that there exist different elements of realism. In this light, this paper seeks to discuss realism over the years, as well as its strengths and weaknesses. The film, Thirteen Days, will also be discussed to shed more light on the theory.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The Foundation of Realism

The roots of realism can be traced to as far as the Peloponnesian War of between 431 and 404 BCE (Antunes & Camisao, 2018). While the International Relations theory was advanced in the 20th century, there exists various similarities in both behavior and thought patterns and the modern-day realism (Antunes & Camisao, 2018). As mentioned above, realism assumes that state is the primary actor in international relations. The state is also seen as unitary actor. National interests are the major determinants of the voice and actions of the state during war. It is also assumed that decision-makers are usually rational actors since their decisions help pursue national interests, and not make the state weaker or more vulnerable (Glanville, 2016).

According to realism, this is the pursuit of all leaders regardless of their political affiliation. Also, realism holds that states exists in anarchy. Anarchy can be defined as a state where no one is in-charge at the international level (Lechner, 2017). While states have rules and well-defined authority nationally, there are no such measures and hierarchies internationally. As such, states rely only on themselves. Realism largely reflects the egoistic nature of human beings, as well as their insatiable appetite for power (Rho & Tomz, 2017). According to realists, human’s desire for power, as well as their selfishness and mistrust have often led to predictable outcomes throughout history. These elements have been blamed for the quite frequent occurrence of war in the history of humankind. Also, since the concept holds that individuals make up states, the state behavior is significantly influenced by human nature. To this end, Machiavelli in The Prince argued that power and deception were the primary attributes a leader required not only in the promotion of national security but also in their foreign policy (Antunes & Camisao, 2018).

Over the years, attempts have also been made to find a link between morality and interests in international politics. Hans Morgenthau, in his exploration of realism and international politics after the Second World War determined that power held more sway than morality (Antunes & Camisao, 2018). This was a contradiction of the opinion held by idealists who believed that open negotiations guided by goodwill could be used to resolve international conflicts. According to Morgenthau, morality is often overlooked while making policies and all political actions are aimed at demonstrating, maintaining, or increasing power (Antunes & Camisao, 2018). Similarly, he held that policies guided by idealism or morality can often lead to weakness, which in turn increases the vulnerability of the state to competing powers.

In later years, others theorists such as Kenneth Waltz sought to separate the assumptions of human nature from realism (Antunes & Camisao, 2018). This school of thought led to the birth of neorealism, also known as structural realism. He argued that the decisions and actions of a state are reached using a simple formula and not on the basis of human nature. He held that under the pressure of the international anarchic system, the actions and decisions made by states depend on the relative power they hold in the international arena. As such, he held that international systems, rather than flaws of human nature, hold the answers for realism (Jackson & Moore, 2016). Resultantly, theorists turned more to social scientific methods, instead of political theory methods, to shed more light on international relations theory. This approach is better than the previous ones since variables such as the power held by a state can be empirically measured. Previously, the assumptions on human nature could not quantified.

Due to its relevance to modern-day politics, realism is used in policymaking more than any other international relations theory. However, critics have pointed out that realism can lead to violence and conflicts in the world. It is also seen as an excessively pessimistic concept (Stevens & Michelsen, 2019). Realism also largely focuses on the idea of balance of power to explain management of international affairs. According to the idea, states consistently seek to increase their capabilities and undermine the power of other states at the same time. Resultantly, a balance, where no state gets too powerful at the international arena, is created. When a specific state garners too much power, a war is triggered and the other states form alliances to defeat the growing state and restore the balance. For instance, the increase of power of the Nazi Germany led to the Second World War (Antunes & Camisao, 2018). The need for this balance also contributes to the anarchic nature of international politics.

In its defense, realist have argued that argued that state leaders are under constant pressure and also have limited opportunities for cooperation. As such, power politics is inevitable. They also argue that facing the reality of a predicament should not be termed as pessimism. Following the end of the Cold War, the competition between states reduced and opportunities increased, leading to a drastic change in international relations (Antunes & Camisao, 2018).

In this new era, realism was seen as an old way of thinking and a more optimistic approach in international relations was adopted. Events that would occur in later years also exposed flaws within the realist concept. For instance, the collapse of the Soviet Union was driven by ordinary citizens, and not the existing power structures as advanced in realism (Mirza, 2018). However, regardless of the criticism, realism remains critical in the international relations theory. It also offers vital insight into policymaking in the modern world. For instance, deterrence and balance of power, which are realist strategies, can be used to address the growing threat of terrorism in the world and ensure national and global security (Antunes & Camisao, 2018).

Strengths of Realism

As intimated earlier, realism might sound irrelevant in a world where international relations theory is dominated by discussions of capitalism, interconnection, globalization, ecological crisis, as well as a changing world culture. This is a huge contrast to the 18th century world, where the roots of realism are traced, when states were lightly connected and competition among dynastic states was huge (Peterson, 2018). However, regardless of these claims, realism remains relevant in the contemporary world. The attention that the concept gives to process and structure of the international system is its main strength.

Resultantly, the concept is greatly helpful in the explanation of endemic wars within international communities. For instance, its explanation of the causes of the Second World War led to a rise in its popularity in the 20th century. Particularly, the concept deconstructed the long-held idea of the existence of international harmony of interests among states (Peterson, 2018). The conflicts and realignments witnessed during the war proved that there exists a huge conflict of interest at the international stage. The conflict also showed that states could go to any lengths to protect their interests.

The concept also holds that each country is a sovereign entity. Moreover, it recognizes the right of each state to act in a rational manner in the international arena. Just like in the real world, the concept also underpins the need for every state to make decisions that protect the needs of its citizens, as well as national interest. The justification of the actions of the rational state also leaves a window for the possibility of moral judgment (Peterson, 2018). The realism also deconstructs the notion of existence of good and bad countries. Instead, it holds that the protection of a state’s national security and interests, is its primary moral duty.

The considerations of the concept on international law is also another strength. The concept argues that ethics should be separated from the law. As such, even where treaties exist in the anarchic structure of international politics, sovereign states follow and respect them as far as their interests are protected. There are such elements in modern-day treaties (Peterson, 2018). For instance, the United States recently withdrew from the Paris Agreement, citing its national interests.

Weaknesses of Realism

Realism has several weaknesses, which form the basis of the criticism highlighted earlier. First, the concept excessively relies on human nature. While the elements of human nature were integral elements of realism in the past, modern realists strive to avoid them. As mentioned earlier, elements of human nature cannot be empirically quantified, hence casting doubts on the reliability of the concept (Peterson, 2018). Realism also makes several assumptions that cannot be necessarily proven scientifically. For instance, the generalization that states, just like man, seek to exert their power and dominion over others cannot be quantified.

While neorealism sought to correct some of these shortcomings, the creation of a scientific theory still does not explain international affairs sufficiently. The importance of institutions and norms on a global level, is often underemphasized by the concept. Regardless of this, shared values play a bigger role than structure in the shaping of units. For instance, the sovereignty of a state is not only based on their power but also on the acknowledgement of their right to exist (Waheed, 2017). The concept also takes a partial approach to international politics. For instance, the argument that politics is a power-struggle caused by conflict of interest, makes conflict of interests the primary determinant of international politics, which is one-sided. In doing so, the concept ignores the role played by values. Looking at history, conflict and cooperation are integral elements of international relations. Ignoring cooperation, therefore, is a weakness.

Realism can also be said to be sterile. While the concept considers the harsh conditions of the real world, it makes no attempt to change them. It also does not make any prescriptions on ways that could be used to improve the relations between states (Paul, 2017). Most realists use the c...