While the theory of realism has distinct branches (neorealism and classical realism), there are certain things that all realists can come together and agree upon: the importance of states as central actors in the political realm, the international system is anarchic as there is no superior body governing over it, all states want power, and finally states will act in their own self-interest. This post will focus on the last point: the tenet that states will act in a self-interest manner to accomplish their own national interests above all. First I will discuss both classical and neorealist thinkers and their positions on the matter. Secondly, I will discuss present-day case studies that show the theories in action.

The Classical Realists that I am focusing on are Hans Morgenthau and E.H. Carr.  Morgenthau describes national interest as “interests in terms of power,” meaning the primary goal of a nation was to acquire, maintain, and increase power (Navari 53). In his 1960 novel The Purpose of American Politics, Morgenthau asserts that “a nation must pursue its interests for the sake of a transcendent purpose that gives meaning to the day-by-day operations of its foreign policy” (7). He elaborates on this say that national purpose “resides in the political and social history of a nation-that is, in a continuum of actions that reveal a common and unique pattern pointing to a common and unique purpose” (10). It appears that he is suggesting that a state should carefully select their purpose and interests and orient their actions to achieve this goal. In the book, he declares the purpose of American politics to be freedom. Following the World War II, it became clear to Morgenthau that if the Soviet Union did not stop expanding its power, American freedom would be threatened or even lost (Pham 188). It was therefore in the national interest of the United States (US) to ensure that the Soviet Union’s power did not surpass its own. Morgenthau’s most famous work, Politics Among Nations, stressed that “interest was at the heart of all politics and thus on the international stage it behooved each state to pursue its national interest, generally defined as power” (188).  Morgenthau describes interest and power as being results of human nature, a concept that shows where classical realists deviate from neorealists. In summary, Morgenthau claims that national interests must be strategically chosen, in the interest of accumulating more power.

E.H. Carr’s The Twenty Year’s Crisis emphasizes the significance of power as the goal for the state. I would argue that the most significant concept of the novel is the discussion of morality and its place in politics. Carr suggests that a state’s national interests supersede any potential moral obligations one might assume a state should uphold. The book repeatedly refers to the wrongness of “utopian thinkers” and their optimistic view of how states should act. Carr claims that “the fact is that most people, while believing that states ought to act morally, do not expect of them the same kind of moral behaviour which they expect of themselves and one another” (Carr and Cox 143).  He insists that we must not expect the same values of states that we would expect of people. He gives the example that following the first world war, many people expected the US to remit the debts of European states, on the basis of generosity and compassion. Carr highlights that this is too idealistic a measure of thinking, as it would not be in the US’ interests to miss out on that money, not to mention the power it gives the US to be in the position of having other states owe them. He claims that “the accepted standard of international morality in regard to the altruistic virtues appears to be that a state should indulge in them in so far as this is not seriously incompatible with its more important interests” (144). While this may be a cynical perspective, it aligns with the overall view of realism as a theory that prioritizes a states’ own well-being over others. Carr’s view is that while morality is important, a state will not sacrifice its own interests on the basis of moral actions.

Moving onto neorealist thinkers, I will examine Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer. In “Structural Realism After the Cold War,” Waltz discusses how “a dominant power acts internationally only when the spirit moves it” (29). He gives the example of how the US failed to act when genocide occurred following the collapse of the Yugoslavia, but responded when it become a political issue in the next presidential election. It was not in the American interest to care about or intervene in Yugoslavia simply because a genocide was occurring and one might think moral obligation would fuel the decision to send aid. Waltz notes that after Senator Robert Dole introduced the topic of discussion during elections, it became of interest to the US to act to maintain its leadership role in Europe. He uses this as an example of American foreign policy being generated as a result of national ambition. Waltz’s neorealist views differ from those of classical realism, as neorealism sees power as means for security. If a state has power, it can maintain security in its own state, as well as prevent others from attacking. It is in the national interest to acquire power, as given the anarchic nature of the international system, one cannot rely on some higher sovereign body to intervene in cases of war or conflict.

John Mearsheimer developed the concept of offensive realism which argues that states are power-maximizing. It holds “that states are disposed to competition and conflict because they are self-interested, power maximizing, and fearful of other states” (Johnson et. al 1).  Remembering the anarchic nature of the international statement, “there is no night watchman in the international system, which means that states have to rely mainly on themselves to ensure their survival (Mearsheimer 387). Mearsheimer states that the best way for any state to survive “is to be much more powerful than all the other states in the system, because the weaker states are unlikely to attack it for fear they will be soundly defeated” (387).  He gives the example of the US, which, as a global hegemon, need not fear attack from its neighbours. Mearsheimer advocates for great powers to strive for “regional hegemony” as “the main obstacle to world domination is the difficulty of projecting power over huge distances, especially across enormous bodies of water like the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans” (388). It follows then that states should seek power, until the quest for power stretches too geographically far, weakening the state instead of strengthening it.

Now that I have introduced the basics of Realist theory through Morgenthau, Carr, Waltz and Mearsheimer, it begs the question: why does it matter? I have ascertained that while neorealism and classical realism are two distinct theories, they agree that states will act in their own national interests, which generally means they will seek to increase power. As Carr argues, states will often act in the interest of power over morality, and cannot be expected to be held to the same standards as the individual. Where this information becomes important, is its accuracy in theorizing international relations in the real world. To illustrate the validity of realism as a theory, I will explore the present day examples in the US and in the United Kingdom (UK).

As explained through Waltz’s ideals above, a state will interact with the international community when it benefits its own national interests. This becomes clear with the American withdrawals from international agreements that they have determined no longer serve American interests. In June 2017, President Trump announced the American withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Agreement (Zhang et. al 221). This decision affects the rest of the world negatively, as the US is a leader in its harmful greenhouse gas emissions which speed up global warming. What makes the withdrawal in American interest is the fact that this removes previous constraints on fossil fuel industries, allowing for further American economic growth. While the Paris Agreement would have cost the US financially and helped the world as a whole, the withdrawal allows American economic growth at the potential expense of other states’ long term health. Similarly, the US withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in early 2017, with President Trump wanting to “maximize American power at the expense of other states, including allies” (Narine 51). The US is sending the message that it will negotiate with other states only when the treaty or agreement favours American interests.

Expanding on Carr’s idea that self-interest overpowers morality as reasoning, one can look to the US’ humanitarian assistance across the globe. One might argue that the moral reason for humanitarian aid or intervention is to help those in need, regardless of what state they are in or the financial cost. It is my contention, that states become involved in humanitarian capacities when it suits their own national interests. The US, along with many other developed, wealthy countries did little to nothing to prevent or stop the Rwandan genocide. Little is being done to prevent the current genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar. Contrarily, the US is pouring its finances into Syria. The difference in these cases is the importance of each state in terms of international power politics. Rwanda and Myanmar did not and do not hold political importance to the US, whereas in Syria the US faces Russia and Iran as competitors. If the cold war taught the US anything, it was that an increase in Russian power is a threat to American security. It is in the national interest of the US to prevent the strengthening of the Russia-Iran relationship, therefore making their intervention in Syria a strategic move rather than a moral decision.

Another example of the national interests outweighing those of the international system, is the UK’s Brexit decision. The UK has decided to leave the European Union (EU), a significant international institution, on the basis of self-interest. Whether this will benefit the UK in the long run is of course currently being debated, but the motives themselves for the departure from the EU demonstrate the UK’s willingness to put itself before the rest of Europe. A primary reason for wanting Brexit was to see a reduction in immigration, as immigrants are perceived to be a burden on the UK rather than a benefit. Additionally, “unencumbered by the other 27 members, the UK can get on with things and start adopting a much more independent, self-confident, assertive role on the world stage” (Wheeler). The UK is among other large economies contributing to the net welfare of all EU members. Why should the UK give more money to the EU to even the playing field when it could keep the money for its own purposes? The UK’s decision to leave the EU stems from their own national interests and unwillingness to continue supporting other countries when it could be increasing its own power.

While neorealists and classical realists may continue to vie for the dominance in the sphere of international relations theories, they can agree on one thing: states will act in their own interest to obtain power. American withdrawal from international agreements and their strategic humanitarian actions along with the UK’s Brexit are just some examples of how Realism proves accurate in describing the political world today.

Bibliography

Carr, Edward H., Michael Cox, and Springer LINK eBooks – Political Science and International Studies. The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939. Palgrave Macmillan, London, United Kingdom, 2016.

 Johnson, Dominic D. P., D. Phil, and Bradley A. Thayer. “The Evolution of Offensive Realism. “Politics and the Life Sciences: The Journal of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, vol. 35, no. 1, 2016, pp. 1-26.

 Kevlihan, Rob, Karl DeRouen, and Glen Biglaiser. “Is US Humanitarian Aid Based Primarily on Need or Self‐Interest?” International Studies Quarterly, vol. 58, no. 4, 2014, pp. 839-854.

 Morgenthau, Hans J., 1904-1980. The Purpose of American Politics., United States, 1960.

Narine, Shaun. “US Domestic Politics and America’s Withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Implications for Southeast Asia.” Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs, vol. 40, no. 1, 2018, pp. 50-76.

Navari, Cornelia. “Hans Morgenthau and the National Interest.” Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 30, no. 1, 2016, pp. 47-54.

Pham, J. P. “What is in the National Interest? Hans Morgenthau’s Realist Vision and American Foreign Policy.” American Foreign Policy Interests, vol. 37, no. 4, 2015, pp. 187-193.

Waltz, Kenneth N. “Structural Realism After the Cold War.” International Security, vol. 25, no. 1, 2000, pp. 5-41.

Wheeler, Brian. “Brexit: All You Need to Know about the UK Leaving the EU.” BBC News, BBC, 26 Nov. 2018, www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887.

ZHANG Hai-Bin, et al. “U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Reasons, Impacts, and China’s Response.” 气候变化研究进展：英文版, vol. 8, no. 4, 2017, pp. 220-225.

For my final blog post, I am proposing that I use the following essay prompt as a guideline “take an IR perspective of your choice and explore the role of national interests, values, and location in shaping theoretical output”. I want to take the theory of realism and explore the important of national interest, or more specifically, self-interest, and examine different case studies to illustrate how realism is relevant in present day politics. My intention is to begin by describing the relevance of national interest within the theory of realism and then use the following examples of this theory playing out in real life: Britain’s exit from the European Union, the United States’ withdrawals from international agreements in recent years and Russia’s strategic alliances to increase its own power.

The first part of my post will explain the core tenet of self-interest under the theory of realism. I have listed several sources in my bibliography regarding the theory of realism, and will most likely use some articles for the course reading list. I’m not sure yet if I will narrow in on classical realism or neo-realism, but will examine key thinkers like Waltz and Morgenthau to make a decision that would best suit my argument. Basically in this introduction I will seek to explain how self-interest and nationalism are central to the theory of realism, and then argue my belief that these concepts best account for the actions of states in present day international politics.

For my Brexit portion I will discuss how Britain chose to leave the EU on a basis of self-interest, to avoid being tied the interests of the collective institution of the EU (and perhaps illustration this as failed example of idealistic institutionalism). Another main reason that voters chose to the leave the EU was to reduce immigration thereby focusing on national needs. To gather my info on Brexit, I will use the Birkinshaw European Public Law journal, as well as the following BBC article https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887. I wanted a European perspective, as well as a British perspective and I think by using these two sources, and perhaps more, I will be able to illustrate Britain’s self-interested motives in exiting the EU, which will support my argument that realism best explains the self-interested nature of states.

The next portion will focus on the United States and situations in which it acted in its own self-interest and/or to gain more power. Certainly, under Donald Trump, the US has pulled out of climate change agreements, humanitarian aid promises, and international trade deals. He has done so claiming that these agreements or commitments did not in any way benefit the US, or even led to large financial cost for the United States. He has therefore demonstrated that the US will act in its own interests, and has also been repeatedly using the specific term of “nationalism” to establish US dominance at political rallies and in speeches.  I will use the Kevlihan et. al article to discuss motives for “humanitarian intervention,” the Narine article on the withdrawal from the TPP, and the International Organizations Research Journal to explore the withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords.

In terms of Russia, I want to examine their involvement in the Syrian Civil War. I find it interesting that they are the only relatively major world power fighting on the side of the Assad Regime, and especially considering they remain a permanent member of the UNSC where most of the other permanent member’s side with the US. It is my contention that Russia’s involvement in Syria stems from self-interest. Russia’s refusal to demand Assad step down stems from their claims of the importance of respecting the Sovereign state. I think that it is better argued that Russia is most focused on its strategic alliance with Iran, and acts in Syria to show loyalty to Iran. I will use the Strategic Comments journal article to support this argument. Depending on how I get with that point, I may also explore Russia’s extreme support of Trump and their motivations behind this using the Zweynert article. I think there the case could be made that Russia is setting itself apart from the rest of political leaders by embracing Trump to serve as a way to gain political power.

The main argument of my paper will be that the international relations theory of realism centers around the belief that states will act in a self-interested matter, cooperating with the international community only when it advances their own national interests. By giving the examples mentioned above involving Britain, the US, and the UK, I will support this argument by providing recent accounts of political interactions that align with the theory of realism.

Bibliography

Bell, Duncan. 2017. Political realism and international relations. Philosophy Compass 12 (2): e12403.

Birkinshaw, Patrick J. 2018. brexit. European Public Law 24 (1): 1.

Firoozabadi, Jalal Dehghani, and Mojtaba Zare Ashkezari. 2016. Neo-classical realism in international relations. Asian Social Science 12 (6): 95.

Kevlihan, Rob, Karl DeRouen, and Glen Biglaiser. 2014. Is US humanitarian aid based primarily on need or Self‐Interest? International Studies Quarterly 58 (4): 839-54.

Narine, Shaun. 2018. US domestic politics and america’s withdrawal from the trans-pacific partnership: Implications for southeast asia. Contemporary Southeast Asia: A Journal of International and Strategic Affairs 40 (1): 50-76.

Russia’s syrian stance: Principled self-interest. 2012. Strategic Comments 18 (7): 1-3.

USA withdrawal from paris agreement – what next? 2017. International Organisations Research Journal.

Zweynert, Joachim. 2018. Contextualizing critical junctures: What post-soviet russia tells us about ideas and institutions. Theory and Society 47 (3): 409-35.

Online News Sources

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887

The reading that I want to discuss, is the fourth chapter of the Dunne textbook, on Liberalism. I picked this one because I felt it really expanded my knowledge of liberalism from POLI 260. It was useful for the course in that liberalism is one of the main theories of IR, and therefore a fairly important concept to understand.

The chapter focuses quite a bit on the thoughts of Immanuel Kant, who believed that natural self-interest could allow individuals to take action to bring peace. More specifically, Kant suggests that in order to overcome the security dilemma, the following is needed: democracy, economic interdependence, and international law and organizations. Under the democratic peace theory, democracies will refrain from using force against other democracies. Therefore, the more democracies that exist in the world, the more peace there will be. Economically important trade serves as an incentive to maintain peaceful relations amongst countries. The international organizations serve as peace promoters under this philosophy. The text uses the creation of the European Union as a case study. Following World War II, the European leaders felt it was the failure of democracy that caused the war, hence the need to re-establish democracy. They understood that in order to thrive economically, they needed a market bigger than just one country, hence the economic integration. This increase of free trade needed regulations and international institutions. I thought this case study was interesting, as previous to reading this chapter I struggled to find an example of liberalist IR actually happening in the world.  It seems easier, or that more examples are available for realist theory.

The text also describes the difference between the dyadic perspective and the monadic perspective, two terms of which I had not been aware. The dyadic perspective describes the relationship between two actors, usually states. For example, if these two actors share the same democratic values they will not go to war. The monadic perspective refers to republican states’ aversion to war. The text seems to favour the dyadic perspective, stating that it includes domestic political interactions as well as the interactions between two states, whereas the monadic perspective ignores the interactions with other states.

The final thing I found interesting and useful about this chapter with the notion of the democratic peace theory being a self-perpetuating system. I think this is where I find that liberalism loses credibility as a good theory. As the text points out, states that are already at peace tend to need fewer restraints on democracy. So if its easier to have democracy in a peaceful state, and the theory is that democracy creates peace ends up in an endless cycle. Personally, I think that it is hard to actually prove the validity of the democratic peace theory, because democracy is too narrow a factor. Democracy and peace could occur simultaneously without one causing the other.

All in all, I began reading this chapter as a sceptic of the potential of liberalism, and emerged more informed, but still not convinced that the democratic peace theory is not self-perpetuating.

Ever since taking POLI 260 last year, I have been so interested in and curious about international relations. The field of IR strikes me as so insanely relevant and important that I am eager to learn more about it, which is what led me to this class. I transferred from Environmental Science to Political Science and as a result have taken classes in a weird order, with POLI 260 being my first Political Science class. I was taken aback by how much knowledge my classmates possessed regarding theories and issues in International Relations before the professor introduced the topics, and found myself having to do a lot of catch up. In all the reading I did I became so interested in the different theories that suggest the way states/countries interact the way they do.

More specifically, I think the theory of realism explains the world well. I do not necessarily want realism to dominate, but I personally think it best explains the way states interact in the world today. Chapters 2 and 3 in the textbook cover both classical and structural realism, and I found both to make more sense than any other IR theory. The self-interested nature of states and their quest for power accurately describes how most first-world countries navigate the international system. Big powers only get involved in world crisis when it could benefit them. I think the Rwandan genocide is a good example, in which the rest of the world did very little to prevent the genocide from occurring or halting, as Rwanda holds no real political or financial interest for them. Contrastingly, many big powers are involved in the Syrian Civil War, as holds more importance and interest to them. Looking at the issue from an American lens, they could be interested in Syria because they want to increase their influence in the Middle East, as well as prevent their enemy, Russia, from gaining further influence there. I think the theory of Liberalism is more hopeful and paints a better picture for the world, but at this moment, Realism offers the best explanation and description of the way states behave. I of course realize that no theory is perfect, and that realism is flawed. Perhaps in this class I will change my mind as we discuss different theories.

So far in class we have discussed the question of whether International Relations is actually a science and whether or not there is an agreement about what IR should or should not be considered. This is an aspect of the IR that I had not even thought to consider prior to the class but I think its important to define IR before you study it. Overall I took this class (and decided not to drop it) because I am curious about international politics and want to deepen my understanding on the subject.