Introduction to Realism

Classical Realism

“Civil war brought many hardships to the cities, such as happen and will always happen as long as
human nature is the same, although they may be more or less violent or take different forms,
depending on the circumstances in each case.” – Thucydides (‘The History of the
Peloponnesian war’ 431- 404 BC)

“it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation
which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear
preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.” – Machiavelli (‘The Prince’ – 1469-
1527)

“The struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience. It
cannot be denied that throughout historic time, regardless of social, economic and political
conditions, states have met each other in contests for power. Even though anthropologists have
shown that certain primitive peoples seem to be free from the desire for power, nobody has yet
shown how their state of mind can be re-created on a worldwide scale so as to eliminate the
struggle for power from the international scene. … International politics, like all politics, is a
struggle for power. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the
immediate aim.” – Hans J. Morgenthau (‘Politics Among Nations’ – 1948)

1. Bullet point the key ideas of the classical realists from the extracts above:

- The struggle for power is universal in time and space.

2. To what extent do you agree with the Realist premise that human beings are
fundamentally motivated by their own self-interest and desire for power?

I do agree, people tend to focus on their own survival and goals. Which can lead to conflicts and
competition among countries, as they strive to achieve their personal objectives. But I do not
agree that this is the only drive force in human behaviour.

3. How do you explain the existence of war over the course of human history?

The existence of war over the course of human history has left a lasting impact on societies—as
they were caused due to ideological differences between countries, territorial disputes, and
resource scarcity.

The logic of realism?

The Balance of power theory – The balance of power theory in international relations suggests
that national security is enhanced when power is distributed so that no one state is strong enough
to dominate all others. In order to prevent this states ‘balance’ with each other in order to prevent
the rise of a hegemon.

4. In your opinion, is the balance of power theory an effective strategy for states in order to
prevent domination by more powerful neighbours? Does it maintain an equilibrium?

I disagree with this theory, as it doe not only overlook the complexities of international
law but also assumes that countrie would naturally

‘Realism is Back’ – Politico Magazine (2017)

In its purest distillation, realism depicts states as operating in a nasty and brutish Hobbesian world
that prompts them to vie for power and influence at the expense of other nations. This very
struggle, however, helps to promote a balance of power that rests on coalitions of states emerging
to thwart any attempts at hegemony. The result is an equilibrium in which states subordinate moral
concerns to respecting one another’s spheres of influence. During the 2016 presidential campaign,
Trump appeared to embrace glimmerings of realism 101. We were told, among other things, that
the era of America as Mr. Big, intervening to set wrong aright abroad, was over. Free trade and
human rights, Trump suggested, were bunk. Raw national interest was in. Regime change and
nation-building were out. Just take the oil, “bomb the shit out of” the bad guys, and be done with it.
For good measure, wave goodbye to the namby-pamby milksops at the State Department, the
United Nations and elsewhere. “The nation-state,” Trump declared, “remains the true foundation
for happiness and harmony.”

5. In what ways is Donald Trump a Realist?

A counter-argument? (Though realists believe that states are self-interested, does this
always lead to conflict and war?)

Why Realists don't go for bombs and bullets? – Stephen Walt (Foreign Policy)

There is a common perception in the field of political science that realists are war-mongering
Neanderthals anxious to use military force at the drop of a hat. Attend any meeting (if you must) of
the American Political Science Association or the International Studies Association, and one will
find realists derided as the "bombs and bullets guys" as if we were all direct descendants of Curtis
LeMay. What is notable about this — and what has been notable about Steve’s blog — is just how
infrequently realists have supported the use of American military force. Take the U.S. interventions
of the post-Cold War period: Panama, the Gulf War, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan,
and Iraq. Of those interventions, Afghanistan was the only one that received anything close to
strong support from most realists. Others, most notably the Iraq War, received vehement
opposition from the vast majority of realists. Even in the case of Afghanistan, realists
expressed trepidation about the prospects for ultimate success despite early victories.
From one perspective, this opposition is surprising. It is realists, after all, who so
value material power, in particular military capabilities. It is not difficult to understand why so many
would assume that realists are anxious to use military force because realists are anxious to focus
on military capabilities as a primary explanatory variable for international politics. But it is
precisely because realists have spent so much time studying military force that they are
also so reluctant to use military force. Realists understand that the most potent use of military
force is the threat of the use of military force. So this is why realists today are typically anything but
warmongers. They are prudential in the use of force and more eager to try to coerce without
employing military force than to overwhelm by using it. At its core, realism proclaims that states act
to maximize (often ill-defined) national interests. If military force promises the best way to achieve
some, if not all, of those interests, then why do realists remain so gun shy, and under what
conditions might realists again endorse the use of abundant American military force overseas?

6. Do you accept the argument that applying realist principles actually leads to a reduction
in war? Why/why not?

Structural Realism

Key Words
Anarchy – a state of disorder due to the absence or non-recognition of a higher authority.
The Security Dilemma – when a state tries to increase its own security, but instead this leads to
other states adopting similar measures which only makes conflict more likely (even if both states
don’t desire it).
Hegemony – leadership or dominance by one state over others.

Kenneth N. Waltz:
Waltz, Kenneth. "Man, the state and war [1954]." Nova Iorque: Columbia UP(2001). 159-160

“With many sovereign states, with no system of law enforceable among them, with each state
judging its grievances and ambitions according to the dictates of its own reason or desire-
conflict, sometimes leading to war, is bound to occur. To achieve a favorable outcome from such
conflict a state has to rely on its own devices, the relative efficiency of which must be its constant
concern. This… is not a new idea. Thucydides implied it when he wrote that it was “the growth of
Athenian power, which terrified the Lacedaemonians and forced them into war.” There is an
obvious concern over relative power position expressed by Thucydides...[This] is made explicit in
Frederick Dunn’s statement that “so long as the notion of self-help persists, the aim of
maintaining the power position of the nation is paramount to all other considerations”.
In anarchy there is no automatic harmony... A state will use force to attain its goals if, after
assessing the prospects for success, it values those goals more than it values the pleasures of
peace. Because each state is the final judge of its own cause, any state may at any time use
force to implement its policies. Because any state may at any time use force, all states must
constantly be ready either to counter force with force or to pay the cost of weakness. The
requirements of state action are, in this view, imposed by the circumstances in which all states
exist.”

1. Bullet point the key ideas of the structural realists from the extract above, the key words
and the lesson Powerpoint: