Realism Critiqued

Liberalism and Realism have been on opposite ends of International Relations in the world. However, after the fall of Wilsonian Liberalism, Realism has established itself as a theory which is more promising in a nuclear world post-World War II. Realism bases its theory on the conflictive and power hungry nature of man and applies that assumption to relations between states.  The theory holds that states are in a state of conflict and pursue a policy of self interest and power edge over other states. Thus creating an anarchical world order in which conflict is inevitable. Security is the main aim of all states and a global hegemony of one state is preferred or seen as outcome of a Realist defined system.Realist view proclaims that under self interest and security, states view survival as their main goal. The tools of survival are seen as defense and military arsenal. States strive for power above others just as humans ascend a social ladder to be above others. Equating state policy with human nature, Realists argue that self interest makes mutual cooperation an obscure reality in the world. With the absence of a central government, there is no shared interest or national policy to govern the actions of states hence making the world a competitive political arena. Evils of human nature and absence of an international government, together, make international relations a realm of power and interest.The Realist paradigm dates back to the Ancient Greek philosophy of Thucydides who recorded The Peloponnesian War and famed political thinkers such as Machiavelli, Morgenthau, and Waltz among others. According to Realism, human nature has not changed since the days of traditional antiquity. Morgenthau states that “the main sign post that helps political Realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.” He further notes that, “Universal moral principles cannot be applied the actions of states.” Thus ethics and values hold no grounds in the theory of Realism.  In the evolution of Realism rises neo-Realism, a faction of the previous thought which states that each state counts on its resources to realize its interests. In an anarchical international environment, each state must put itself in to a position to fend for itself since long term cooperation is not a trust worthy policy. States aspire to amass resources that will defend their national interest and secure their survival, thus the tasks of all states are common since the end goal is similar.  States don’t differ in their goals or aspirations but in their capabilities to perform the necessary actions.Another political theory applicable to Realism is the system of Balance of Power. The system of Balance of Power views states simply as pockets of power that compete against one and other in an anarchical international arena. Waltz argues that in a bi-polar world order, Balance of Power politics always prevails. Historically international political structures are defined by the change in the Balance of Power specifically the change in the fate of great powers.     The Realism model though of much importance in International Relations has its drawbacks as a theory. Firstly, the assumption of human nature being conflictive specie is contested. Humans are a social animal by sociological perspective, they crave interaction and bonds. Thus cooperation and grouping is a by-product of their nature. They search to develop long lasting ties and relationships which go against the fundamental law of Realism.Militarism is an eventual point in a states policy according to Realism, however, Liberalist argue that states have a democratically elected government which is answerable to the citizens. Thus the government will spend on the people as well as its defense. Countries such as Japan and Sweden don’t have a large army. But they are part of a modern international arena; their existence proves a blow to Realism promoting state security as a main goal. Realism denies the existence of a central governing body and gives importance to international politics being in a state of anarchy. Though there is not a central form of government, the United Nation does act as a body to look over state aggression and prevent wars and other disastrous conflicts. Moreover the UN acts as a parent body to all states, linking then together on a forum. But, the UN has been criticized as being unable to stop US aggression in Iraq and has been dubbed as an imperialist tool.According to foreign policy experts, engaging in conflicts creates further conflicts for the aggressor. Realism advocates that the aggressor becomes a super power where as other states become subservient to its aggression. In modern day politics, aggression drains a nation and renders it in debt and with strong domestic opposition. In the USA, strong criticism helped defame the government and bring it down after the Iraq war. The war also put USA in debt to China. Another drawback of aggression is the blowback it creates in the near future. USA interfered in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion in 1971, due to that they have had to re-engage in conflict with Afghanistan to clear up what deployments they started then. Realism ignores the activity of NGO’s, IGO’s, other Human Rights and outer state actors. The power of NGO’s and human rights activists has increased in today’s day and age. The US pulled out of Vietnam since they faced strong public opposition throughout the world. Media has become an increasingly reliable medium for promoting public angst.  However, at times the public opinion can be over ruled in favor of a nation’s action. The Palestinian outcry serves as a reminder that sometimes aggression cannot be countered simply by international opposition.Conclusively, Realism has obtained a favorable position in the field of International Relations. Being the fore-runner of many theories, Realist ideology dominated history in many stages. However it has succumbed to its faults and much of its ideology is not applicable in today’s modern political arena. Even so, Realism continues to be employed in foreign policy due to its direct and simplistic theory. Neo-Realists have put forth a new form of Realism which is more in pace with today’s world. Though the theory continues to evolve, it cannot be perfected, just like other theories, due to the complex system of world politics.