Important Concepts in the Realist Approach PDF

Preview

Summary

Covers the concept of National Interest, National Security and National Power....

Description

Important Concepts in the Realist Approach The very core of the Realist school, these key concepts are frequently used in the study of international relations.

These are: national interest, national power, and national security.

National Interest From the perspective of the Realist framework, the concept of national interest, notwithstanding its ambiguity, is considered to be the most important analytic category in explaining and predicting the course of international behaviour. Pursuance of national interest as a foreign policy goal in the Realist perspective is treated as the primary justification for all kinds of state actions. Almost all Realists are unanimous on this.

However, the real problem arises when one asks conceptual or substantive questions about the national interest. For example: Can there be a universally acceptable definition of national interest? Does national interest keep changing per time and space? Who decides what constitutes national interest at any given point of time? Does national interest always represent the genuine interests of the nationals of a country? Or, is national interest, merely an expression of the values of the political elite of a country? History reveals that different statesmen have justified their foreign policies in the name of the national interest. For example, Napoleon argued that he was acting in France's interest when lie initiated the Russian campaign. Similarly. Hitler justified his expansionist policies, including a multi-front war in the name of Germany's national interest. In each of these and many

other instances. we find statesmen justifying their diplomatic strategies in the name of national interest. # Hans Morgenthau has been a systematic and consistent supporter of the premise that diplomatic strategy or foreign policy should be motivated by national interest rather than by ideological considerations. 

He equates national interest with the pursuit of state power, where power stands

for anything that establishes and maintains control by one state over another. He further adds that this power-control relationship can be achieved by coercive as well as cooperative techniques.

Morgenthau has been criticised for constructing an abstract and imprecise concepts 1. Power 2. Interest Which he uses as the ends and means of international politics. He however, has remained firmly in support of his position that great abstractions such as power and interest cannot and should not be quantified. As he believes that political action is not finite, precise, and clearly observable.

Further, the concept of national interest is intricately intertwined with the question of national survival. As Morgenthau puts it, "the minimum requirement of nation-states is to protect their physical, political and cultural identity against possible encroachments by other nation-states." 

It is this sole objective of survival, argues Morgenthau, which justifies a whole range of

cooperative and conflict policies such as competitive armaments, balance of power, foreign aid alliances, subversion and economic and propaganda "warfare."

However, the Realist understanding of the concept of national interest is not free from problems. It is, as critics argue, defined in a rather loose fashion with the consequence that pursuance of national interest does at times become a license for the countenance of atrocities

on the weaker nations. As a result, national interest, more often than not, is merely assumed rather than rigorously defined.

National Power The concept of power has conceptually proved to be an elusive category lacking unanimity among scholars over its precise meaning.

# The concept of power has been identified with political action. Morgenthau for example, defines politics as the struggle for power. In other words, power for Morgenthau, symbolises a relationship between two political actors where actor A has the ability to control the mind and actions of actor B.

The Realists make two important points about the concept of power. First, power is a relational concept in the sense that one does not exercise power in a vacuum but always in relation to another entity.

Second, power is seen as a relative concept. What it means is that in the international system it may not be enough to calculate one's own power capabilities, but also the power of other states.

However, the task of accurately assessing the power of states presents a serious challenge. The challenge gets further aggravated as it is merely calculated in terms of the number of troops, tanks, aircraft, and naval ships that a particular country possesses. Calculation of power in this purely physical sense leads to further build op of physical force with a view to outstripping the power of the perceived enemy country. This is done with the belief that it might enhance the ability of one actor to get other actors do

something they would not otherwise do. This one-dimensional view of power, as understood by the Realists, has been criticised on a number of grounds.

Contemporary structural Realists have in recent years sought to bring more conceptual clarity to bear on the meaning of power in the Realist discourse. Kenneth Waltz, for example tries to shift the focus from power to capabilities. He suggests that capabilities call be ranked according to their strength in the following areas: size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence.

However resource strength need not always lead to military victory. For example, in the 1967 Six-Day War between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, the distribution of resources clearly favoured the Arab coalition and yet the supposedly weaker side annihilated its enemies' forces and seized their territory. The definition of power as capabilities has proved even less successful at explaining the relative economic success of Japan over China. Yet another problem with the Realist treatment of power relates to its exclusive focus upon state power. For Realists, states are the only actors that really matter. As a result, transnational corporations, international organisations, and religious denominations are rarely taken seriously in the Realist framework. Moreover it is not clear that these non-state actors are autonomous from state power, whether this be Italy in case of the papacy or the US in case of corporations like Microsoft. The extent to which non-state actors bear the imprint of a statist identity is further endorsed by the fact that these actors have to make their way in international system whose rules are made by states.

National Security From the Realist viewpoint, the concept of national security or national survival is treated as a fundamental value in the foreign policy of all states. Particularly. classical Realists like Machiavelli, Meinecke, and Weber attach top priority to national security or survival.

They stress that the task of ensuring national security/survival must be considered as the supreme national interest to which all political leaders must adhere. In other words, national security is viewed as a precondition for attaining all other goals whether these involve conquest or merely independence. In the words of Henry Kissinger, "a nation's survival is its first and ultimate responsibility; it cannot be compromised or put to risk". As also noted by Waltz. "beyond the survival motive, the aim of states may be endlessly varied". All other goals such as economic prosperity belong to the domain of what is called "low politics" and hence are considered of secondary importance.

The primary concern of the Realists is unambiguously the High Politics -the security of the state. Given the obsession of the Realists with the preservation of security they emphatically recommend the leaders of their state to adopt all ethical code which would help them judge an action according to the outcome rather than in terms of a judgement about whether the individual act is right or wrong.

Despite the near unanimity among Realists on the centrality of the issue of national security, recent developments in the Realist thinking indicate a raging controversy over the question of whether sates are in fact principally security or power maximisers. This controversy, which primarily takes place between the defensive and offensive Realists, has significant implications for the prospects of international peace and co-operation.

Defensive Realists such as Waltz argue that it is security which is the principal interest of the states and that they seek to obtain only as much power as it is sufficient to ensure their own survival. According to this view: states are primarily defensive actors and will not seek to gain greater amount of powers if that means jeopardizing their own security.

Offensive Realists like Mearsheimer on the other hand, argue that the ultimate goal of all states is to achieve a hegemonic position in the international system. States, according to this view, always desire more power and are willing, if the opportunity arises, to alter the existing distribution of power even if such an action may jeopardise their own security....