Realism in international relations

The term realism comes from the German compound word "Realpolitik", from the words "real" (meaning "realistic", "practical", or "actual") and "Politik" (meaning "politics"). It focuses on the balance of power among nation-states. Realpolitik is foreign policy based on practical concerns (political expediency) rather than ideals or ethics.

Bismarck coined the term after following Metternich's lead in finding ways to balance the power of European empires. Balancing power was the means for keeping the peace, and careful realpolitik practioners tried to avoid arms races. However, during the early-20th Century, arms races and alliances occurred anyway, culminating in World War I.

Various political science schools of thought rely on an analysis of political actions as realpolitik, most notably the Realist and Marxian schools. In the "realist school" of Anglo-Saxon Political Science of the late 20th century this term is mostly used as a synonym for power politics. The policy of Realpolitik was formally introduced to the Nixon White House by Henry Kissinger. In this context, the policy meant dealing with other powerful nations in a practical manner rather than on the basis of political doctrine or ethics for instance, Nixon's diplomacy with the People's Republic of China, despite the U.S.'s purported opposition to communism and the previous doctrine of containment. Another example is Kissinger's 'green lighting' of dictator Suharto's invasion of East Timor.

In Germany, the term Realpolitik is more often used to distinguish modest (realistic) politics from overzealeous (unrealistic) politics. That Prussia didn't demand territory from defeated Austria-Hungary provided the impetus for coining this term, as was the sometimes very slow or indirect steps towards German unification under Prussia. Realistic compromises are reached instead of clinging to values like justice or nationalism.

Basic theory

Fundamental principles common to realist theories:
• The international system is anarchical.
• Sovereign states are the principal actors in the international system.
o Dismissal of the independent influence of international organizations, sub-state, or trans-state actors.
o Focus on the primary importance of nationalism, as opposed to sub-national groupings, or transnational ideological of cultural groupings.
• States are rational actors, acting in their national interest.
o Distrust of long-term cooperation or alliance.
• The overriding goal of each state is its own security and survival.
o Fundamental nature of the security dilemma.
• State survival is guaranteed best by power, principally military in character.
o Focus on relative power (i.e. "zero sum") versus absolute power.
Realism makes several key assumptions. Primarily, it assumes that mankind is not inherently benevolent and kind but self centered and competitive, in contrast to other theories of international relations such as liberalism. It also fundamentally assumes that the international system is anarchic, in the sense that there is no authority above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity (that is, no true authoritative world government exists). It also assumes that sovereign states, rather than international institutions, non-governmental organizations, or multinational corporations, are the primary actors in international affairs. According to realism, each state is a rational actor that always acts towards its own self-interest, and the primary goal of each state is to ensure its own security. Realism holds that in pursuit of that security, states will attempt to amass resources, and that relations between states are determined by their relative level of power. That level of power is in turn determined by the state's capabilities, both military and economic.


Moreover, Realists believe that states are inherently aggressive (offensive realism), and that territorial expansion is only constrained by opposing power(s). This aggressive build-up, however, leads to a security dilemma where increasing one's own security can bring along greater instability as the opponent(s) builds up its own arms. Thus, security is a zero-sum game where only relative gains can be made.

There are two sub-schools of realism: maximal realism and minimal realism:
The theory of maximal realism holds that the world order centers on the hegemon, the most powerful entity in the world, and that smaller entities will align themselves with the hegemon out of political self-interests. Under maximal realism, the position where there are simultaneously two equally powerful co-hegemons (such as was the case during the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union) is an inherently unstable one and that situation will inevitably collapse into a more stable state where one nation is more powerful and one is less powerful.

The theory of minimal realism holds that non-hegemonic states will ally against the hegemon in order to prevent their own interests from being subsumed by the hegemon's interests. Under the minimal-realism theory it is possible to have two equally powerful co-hegemons with whom a smaller entity may ally in turn depending on which hegemon better fits with the smaller entity's policies at the moment (playing both sides against the middle).
Thus, maximal realism predicts that the most common state of world politics is a hegemonic order, and minimal realism predicts a carefully maintained balance of power. The difference in application can be seen, for instance, in the post-Cold War period. Many minimal realists predicted that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, Europe and Japan would move away from the remaining superpower, the United States. Maximal realists tended to predict that most countries would seek stronger ties with the U.S.

There is also a distinction between structural realism and liberal realism (also known as "Neoliberal Institutionalism"):
The former emphasize the permanent condition of conflict. Thus, to ensure state security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up.
The latter holds that while the system is anarchical, through diplomacy, international law and society, order can be promoted. (English School) This gives credence to establish IGOs such as the United Nations.


Source: answers.com, wikipedia and msn encarta

Structural or Neo-realism

Neo-Realism resembles Classical Realism on most accounts. However, Neo-Realism predominantly focuses on the international system rather than human nature. While states remain the principal actors, greater attention is given to the forces above and below the states through a Levels of Analysis or Structure-Agency debate - with the international system as a structure acting on the state and individuals below the level of the state acting as agency on the state as a whole.

Criticisms of realism

Several critiques were raised against the realist school. One problem is that there are in fact authorities above states capable of regulating inter-state relations. There are organizations like the U.N., WTO, ISO as well as multitudes of multinational organizations and companies. While none of these organization has the powers of a full government, they do have a considerable influence over the actions of states. According to this view, American efforts to receive U.N. support for the invasion of Iraq illustrate the power of the U.N. Had the U.N. no power, as realists would claim, it would have never played any role in the run-up to the war. Further criticism of political realism says that realism has an incorrect concept of a state. States are not actors but rather large organizations. It is impossible, say the critics, to understand international relations without making this distinction. An illustration of this phenomenon can be found in the difficulties involving signing the CAFTA. In particular, the agreement was ratified by United States Senate only after a considerable delay and uncertainty about the outcome.
With increased globalization, some argue that the statist nature of realism has proven wrong, as states cannot be considered as unitary actors in pursuit of rational self-interest. Examples include the reality that many states have an economy smaller than many multinational corporations (MNCs) and some MNCs even employ their own quasi-military forces to protect their own installations and thus are more powerful than the state. Realists maintain that MNCs are legitimized by other states and thus cannot be considered as independent entities. Yet, this places doubt on the state as a unitary actor - as surely interaction between non-state actors (for example, between MNCs) is becoming increasingly commonplace.

Critics also argue that the success of the European Union (EU) shows that states are capable of cooperation and indeed the European Union is an example of a supranational government - above the level of the state. Realists respond that as the divisions within the EU on everything from agreeing on a constitution to agricultural policies, states may just be joining in pursuit of their own rational self-interest. Yet, laws of the European Parliament and court decisions of European Courts are applicable across all EU nations - suggesting that the EU is indeed a supranational government rather than an IGO.


Source: answers.com, wikipedia and msn encarta

__________________
||||||||||||||||||||50% Complete