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.