Realism is a
school of thought in politics and international relations that focuses on the
realistic approach to matters concerning states and their relationships with
one another. This approach is one that seeks to promote the idea that security
and national interests are more important concerns over those involving
morality, ideology, and social reconstructions. It focuses more on power
politics, and this is in such a way that advances the need to make sure that
there is a study of the relationship between states based on their ability to
enforce their own interests. This school of thought is one that seeks to show
that all political actions are aimed at the attainment of power both at the
domestic and international levels. Therefore, the major aim of politicians and
states, according to this approach, is the pursuit of power and this ensures
that there is the promotion of the idea that when it comes to international
relations, power is the only thing that matters. In this paper, there will be a
discussion of two approaches of the realist school of thought to war; classical
liberalism and neo-realism. The major aim is to determine which approach best
describes war and its use in international relations.
Classical
realism states that the international system tends to be in a constant state of
war and this creates a situation where there is the promotion of the individual
interests of states. Despite the presence of some common principles with
neo-realism, classical realism is closer to the ideas that were promoted by the
Italian philosopher, Niccolo Machiavelli. The latter made popular the idea that
individuals tend to have a drive to not only obtain power, but also have the will
to dominated, which is an essential aspect of human nature (Brown, 2009).
A consequence of this situation is that there is a constant form of conflict
between states as each seeks to make sure that it achieves an advantage over
the others. A result of this situation is that the classical realist approach
is one that considers the international system as essentially being anarchical
and this is to such an extent that it can be considered an extension of human
nature. Conflict between states is unavoidable, especially in situations where
states share common interests yet only one of them can be able to pursue these
interests effectively. Under such circumstances, a conflict will inevitably
arise between these two states until such a time as one of them is able to
achieve its dominance over the other. There is a constant drive aimed at
promoting the continued seeking of power by states and this is to such an
extent that there is neither kindness nor benevolence in the relationship
between states because in the end, they are all in competition with one
another, and this can result in war at any time in a bid by one or another to
secure its interests and dominance within the international system.
The classical
realist approach is one that suggests that states are self-centered and
competitive, and this is represented in their approach to international
relations. Under such circumstances, war takes place because despite the
domestic political system being stable, the international one does not have a hierarchy,
meaning that there is not higher authority that can prevent the constant
turmoil that is constantly present (Kirchner, 2012). Instead, there is the
promotion of a situation where each state seeks to make sure that it protects
its own sovereignty at all costs. The classical realist approach, which focuses
more on great power politics, shows that great powers seek to bring about the
establishment of their dominance over the international system at the expense
of others at the same level. This situation creates an environment where there
is the constant promotion of war, or the threat of war, as a means of securing
themselves. Great powers can undertake to speed up their acquisition of weapons
for war in a bid to ensure that they have an edge over their rivals in the
international system. However, this process makes their rivals wary,
encouraging them to also stockpile weapons because of the mutual suspicion that
exists between these powers (Pashakhanlou, 2017). A consequence is that there
is an arms race which, if not stopped, can end up erupting into war between
powers because they have geared themselves towards an inevitable conflict.
States, as equal actors in the international stage, where they exercise their
influence based on their capabilities, end up being the major determinants of
when conflict is going to take place (Porter, 2016). They go to war because
there is not direct arbiter to conflict since non-governmental organizations,
according to the classical realist view, do not play a huge role on the
international relations stage.
One of the most
significant arguments made in support of classical realism is that war is an
inevitable aspect of states, and that conflicts take place because states seek
to expand their power and influence. This is furthered by Thucydides, who, in
his analysis of the Peloponnesian War promoted the idea that states often seek
to bring about their survival meaning that conflict between them is inevitable (Brown, 2009).
The war that took place between Athens and Sparta during the Peloponnesian War
was one that sought to establish the dominant power in Greece. It was aimed at
making sure that only one power in the whole of Greece was able to exercise its
influence effectively. Neither Athens nor Sparta would have been comfortable
with the other exercising power and influence over the whole of Greece because
it would have hindered their very survival. Therefore, it was inevitable that
these two cities ended up fighting one another for many years because it was a
means through which to ensure their undisputed mastery. Because these states
had the power to conduct war, they did so against one another because it is in
the nature of states to promote their own interests first over others. They
displayed the opportunistic aspects of human beings that promoted the selfish
idea that their interests came first. From the classical realist perspective,
war is inevitable and it comes about because of aggressiveness and opportunism
that is displayed by states on the international stage. Those that have the
power to conduct war do so and those that do not have the same power have to
submit to those that do or else face destruction.
Classical
realism promotes the idea that the national interest has to be put at the
foremost of international policy. Under such circumstances, states can decide
to renounce their obligations and treaties if the latter do not pursue their
interests. The ability of the state to pursue its interests, even when it comes
to going to war, has to be put at the forefront of policy, because it enables
the state to adapt to the ever changing international system (Deudney &
Ikenberry, 2017). Furthermore, war is necessary when the state is under threat
or when expansion is necessary to ensure that there is the achievement of more
security. Wars are undertaken as a means of promoting the interests of the
state in such a way that it is made more secure. The continuously changing
realities in international politics means that there are instances where war is
necessary, meaning that there is need to leaders to have the ability to not
only influence state policy, but also make use of the power of the state to
enforce its will over those states that have lesser power. It also becomes
necessary to keep adapting to the change that inevitably takes place in the
international system because it helps in the promotion of a situation where the
state is able to gain an advantage over others because of the highly
competitive and anarchical nature of international relations (Ferguson, 2015).
Through this approach, it is possible to see the way that classical realism
promotes the understanding of war as being an extension of the nature of man,
which is governed by competition and fear.
When it comes to
the definition of war, classical realism best describes it and it does so more
efficiently than neo-realism. This is because while neo-realists agree with
classical realists that all states are sovereign and that they exist within an
anarchic international system, they promote the idea that it is essential for
an international structure to be set up to ensure that there is the advancement
of effective relationships between states (Bell, 2017). Neo-realism is also
similar to classical realism because it considers the international system as
being anarchical in such a way that there is a constant potential for conflict
between the various states within it. Because states often seek to protect
their self-interests, it becomes impossible for them to sacrifice their own
needs in favor of others, and instead, these entities end up getting into
conflict with one another. This interpretation of the international system by
neo-realists essentially agrees with that of classical realists, because it
shows that the international system is one where there is need to ensure that
the security of the state is protected at all times because to do otherwise
could become a threat to survival. War is therefore a pertinent means of
promoting a situation where there is the advancement of initiatives aimed at making
sure that the security of the state is ensured against encroachment by rival
states that seek to expand their own power. A result is that the competition
between states in the international system leads to a disparity in power that
encourages even more conflict to take place within it; hence a constant state
of anarchy.
Some of the most
prominent neorealist thinkers, such as Kenneth Waltz, tend to veer away from
classical realism and instead promote the idea of a structured international
system. This idea is based on the belief that there is a need to ensure that
there is the incorporation of the evaluation of anarchy in a structured manner,
because states are only as sovereign as within the limits of what they are
capable of (Waltz, 2000). There is a constant security dilemma among states in
the international system which comes about because of the uncertainty in
relationships between states and this increases the distrust between them that
increases the chances of going to war. A consequence of such a situation is
that there is need to ensure that there is the establishment of structures
aimed at the reduction of instances of conflict. However, to attain this
objective requires that there is the establishment of cooperation between
states but this is difficult within such an anarchical international system
(Walt, 2018). This approach differs considerably from that of classical realism
because it fails to consider that it depends solely on the ability of the Great
Powers, which have the capability of exerting their influence across the
international system, to come to a compromise in order for conflicts to be
reduced.
The concept of
war is an integral aspect of classical realism because it essentially derives
from the anarchical nature of the international system. This is especially the
case where states seek to advance their own interests at the expense of others
(Buzan, 1996). This approach best describes wars because it allows for the
assessment of the manner through which states end up getting involved in
conflict in the first place. The ability of a state to conduct war against
another is dependent on its domestic situation; especially a desire to make
sure that there is the preservation of its security and way of life at the
international stage. Under such circumstances, it depends wholly on the status
that a state enjoys internationally because it is more common for the more
powerful states to conduct war rather than the weaker ones. As seen in the
example of the Peloponnesian War discussed above, the strongest powers within
the system will seek to expand their influence over all others not only to
serve their interests, but also to promote their own security. Athens and
Sparta went to war because they were the most powerful of the Greek states,
which meant that they sought to promote a situation where they would be able to
make use of their power to achieve complete dominance over all others.
Therefore, classical realism, which focuses mainly on the great powers, is a
more efficient approach when it comes to the explanation of war because it is
these powers which are most likely to undertake war than others, which do not
often have the same military capabilities.
In conclusion,
classical realism explains war as a result of the anarchical nature of the international
order. Because of this circumstance, there is often a high possibility of
conflict between states since all of them tend to seek to gain the most
advantage for themselves at the expense of their counterparts. Furthermore, war
can be considered to be a means through which the political objectives of
states at the international level can be obtained. Under such circumstances, it
is the anarchy within the international system that creates an environment
where war is possible. Without such anarchy, war would not take place as
frequently because the states within it would seek to sacrifice their own
interests for the sake of others so that there could be the promotion of a
situation where there is the advancement of peace. However, the selfish nature of
states, which is a manifestation of that of human beings, means that conflicts
is inevitable within the international system. The characteristics of these
states ensure that there is the creation of an incentive for greater use of
force in order to enhance their own interests, hence war.
References
Bell,
D. (2017). Political realism and international relations. Philosophy Compass,
12(2).
Brown, C. (2009). Structural realism,
classical realism and human nature. International
Relations, 23(2), 257-270.
Buzan,
B. (1996). The timeless wisdom of realism. International theory: positivism and
beyond, 47-65.
Deudney,
D., & Ikenberry, G. J. (2017). Realism, Liberalism and the Iraq War.
Survival, 59(4), 7-26.
Ferguson,
Y. H. (2015). Diversity in IR theory: Pluralism as an opportunity for
understanding global politics. International Studies Perspectives, 16(1), 3-12.
Kirshner,
J. (2012). The tragedy of offensive realism: Classical realism and the rise of
China. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 53-75.
Pashakhanlou,
A. H. (2017). Fear in Realism and Beyond. In Realism and Fear in International
Relations (pp. 117-141). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Porter,
P. (2016). Taking uncertainty seriously: Classical realism and national
security. European Journal of International Security, 1(2), 239-260.
Walt,
S. M. (2018). US grand strategy after the Cold War: Can realism explain it?
Should realism guide it?. International Relations, 0047117817753272.
Waltz,
K. N. (2000). Structural realism after the Cold War. International security,
25(1), 5-41.
