The Past, the Present and the Now

In every species, be it physical, like an organism, or abstract, like a state, the primary goal of existence is survival. This goal is apparent throughout the theory of realism as explained in Measrsheimer’s article “Anarchy and the Struggle for Power.” As it is every state's goal to survive, this theory can be applied to explain the world of international relations. In the following paragraphs, I will argue, using Measrsheimer’s article and the foreign policies of states, that all governments, in the past, present and future, compete ruthlessly for power in the anarchic system and use any means to obtain and keep the status of regional hegemony.

            The foreign policies of the United States within the past seventy years have generally included maintaining a global peace and spreading democracy throughout the world. Though these goals can be linked to aspects of realism’s rivaling theory, liberalism, the sole reason for these pursuits is to defend the state in order to protect its title of a great power. When our foreign policy is stripped down to the bare bones, it is clear that, though it may seem the main goals are peace and democracy, these are only covers for the true ambition of survival. Measrsheimer explains, “Survival dominates other motives because, once conquered, it is unlikely to be in a position to pursue other aims,” (Measrsheimer). If states fight for lesser goals such as peace, it will become increasingly hard to maintain their survival. Therefore, any and all states will choose to survive over lesser pursuits that simply help maintain survival. An example of this policy in use is the Vietnam War. On the surface, this war was seen as a defense of democracy; however, the United Sates faced clear threats to their survival. Vietnam was in a state of turmoil and the government that was beginning to emerge was communist. Communism was seen as a threat to the United States as a global power, as its rival power at the time, the Soviet Union, was also a communist state. Because of the stand off between these two powers, the Soviet Union had the ability to jeopardize the United State’s status of regional hegemony, and they therefore needed to enter a war to keep communism from becoming a dominant form of government.  This struggle for power is a prime example of how states follow the aspects of realism to survive. Even now, the United States is still fighting other states, such as Afghanistan and Syria, in the pursuit to maintain their power.

            Realism has been driving the intentions of states throughout history because of its basic principle of the need to survive and, while doing so, achieve and maintain absolute power. All global struggles, including anything from small stand-offs to global wars, can be attributed to the need to survive. We will continue to see these ideologies define the foreign policies of all states throughout the world because in the struggle to survive, those who fight the hardest will be successful. 

Survival is the Goal

In his article, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John Mearsheimer displays a realist and fairly accurate portrayal of the international system. Mearsheimer argues that states within an anarchic system tend to act with intentions of self-help while maintaining a primary focus on survival. I agree with Mearsheimer’s five assumptions about the international system and his theory that hegemony is the ultimate goal of states in an anarchic system. I also find his opinions on state’s intentions in regards to the ‘security dilemma’ and alliances to be true as well. Mearsheimer’s analysis on the mentality of great powers within an anarchic system is highly accurate and portrays their intentions and goals justly.

While some liberals might find Mearsheimer’s opinion that no states within an anarchic system are to be trusted to be a bit extreme and claim that Mearsheimer is simply paranoid, I agree with the realists and find that there is indeed truth behind it. Given that there is no one power that rules over all the states in the international system, it is not realistic for states to view themselves as part of a community and thus take part in actions of self-help. Mearsheimer states, “From the perspective of any one great power, all other great powers are potential enemies” (Mearsheimer 32). Because Mearsheimer views the international system in terms of an ‘every man for himself’ scenario, I agree with his statement and understand the need for suspicion among other states for a means of survival. In this type of ‘survival of the fittest’ situation, I can attest to the fact that one state’s loss is another’s gain. Another valid point of Mearsheimer’s argument is his claim that the best way for states to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony. Naturally the best way to be safe from outside attacks is to be the most powerful force. Therefore it is quite logical that hegemony would be the ultimate goal of states within an anarchic system.

In addition to Mearsheimer’s opinion on state’s intentions in terms of security and hegemony, I also agree with his logic that the anarchic system is purely competitive at its core. Mearsheimer states, “Genuine peace, or a world in which states do not compete for power, is not likely as long as the state system remains anarchic” (53). The balance of power is highly important in the international system and all states are constantly fighting to gain power, weather regionally or globally. A state’s power and the potential to gain power is a highly influential factor when making decisions including the decision to form alliances. A state would not choose to enter an alliance if there was any possibility that its power would be threatened. Similarly, the potential to gain power may cause many alliances to form. For example, having peace agreements with Israel is crucial to the United States as it allows us to have gains in the Middle East. In this way, the security of Israel then becomes a priority to the United States as well.

Lastly, Mearsheimer makes the claim that states in the international system are rational thinkers. He suggests that states do not simply “charge headlong into losing wars or pursue Pyrrhic victories” (37). In a system where survival is the primary goal, it is only logical that states think carefully about each decision and how it will be perceived by other states in the system. Considering how important factors such as power and strategic gains are to actors in this type of system, rationality is key for success.

            Mearsheimer offers a realist and accurate portrayal of how states in an anarchic international system act and think. He makes several valid points in his argument including that the primary goal is survival and achieving survival leads to the ultimate competition among states. His theory that states within the international system operate mainly with intentions of self help is accurate. States within the anarchic international system are on their own, their power, gains and survival is not guaranteed and must be worked for every day.

Hans Morgenthau's, 6 Principles of Political Realism

Hans Morgenthau’s “Six Principles of Political Realism” outlines the basis for the international relations theory of Realism. In the reading, Morgenthau puts forward that states that adopt the principles of Realism put aside morals as they pertain to foreign policy and tend to put power as a the sole driving condition for decision making. I agree with Morgenthau’s Principles of Realism and in the theory of Realism as a whole for situations brought up in the reading hold true in events that have taken place and are still taking place to this day.

            An opening statement of Morgenthau’s explanation of Realism explains how the primary decision makers for states make their decisions based on power. “Statesman act of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out.” History does portray that statement to be true. Analyzing the years of The Cold War the United States and The Soviet Union made the majority of their decisions based on gaining power over the other. By 1975 the U.S and the U.S.S.R had over 20,000 nuclear weapons and at the time the number continued to grow. This occurred out of speculation of what the competitor was doing and a drive to be the most powerful actor on the international stage, and that drive was inspired by Realism. While these events occurred at the height of The Cold War, competition to be the most powerful state continues.

            Morgenthau also puts forward that Realists will put aside morality in order to make decision that are in the best interest of the state, and that interest will always be for power. “Realism maintains that moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, …” I agree with this statement for Realists tend to think without factoring in morality but rather using power for their respective state as the basis for decision-making. “The individual may say, “Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (Let justice be done, even if the world perish).” History shows again why I believe Realism is the theory that many of the most powerful states in the world follow this idealism. North Korea is a state that is determined to maintain hegemony over its respective competitors. The United Nations has placed numerous sanctions on North Korea for its nuclear program but continues to place funds into a project deemed illegal instead of helping its starving population. The North ignoring the moral option and continuing with a project that they believe will give them more power shows how states have adopted Realism.

            Morgenthau’s principles on Realism portray a nation in which power is the dominant driving force and states are willing to put aside morality in order to attain dominance over their respective rivals. I agree with this idealism primarily because history has shown Realism at work both in the past and the present.  

Morgenthau, Hans. “Six Principles of Political Realism” in International Politics:

Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. edited by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis. 8th ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2007

Feminists, It Is Time To Get Real(ist)

In the field of international relations, one can easily uphold or condemn any given ideology, be it realism, liberalism, constructivism, or any of their variations.  However, regardless of one’s philosophical leanings, in order to maintain a sense of perspective, it is important to acknowledge the existence and functionality of other theories. Unfortunately, in her article  "A Critique of Morgenthau's Principles of Realism," author J. Ann Tickner fails to acknowledge the utility of theories other than her own.  While Tickner is correct in her assertion that the concept of political realism lacks any notion of femininity, she fails to address the fact that opposing political theories in foreign affairs and international relations, including liberalism and constructivism, embody characteristics that are more traditionally considered feminine. To her credit, Tickner thoroughly addresses the shortcomings of Morgenthau’s theory, including its lack of insight and drive towards cooperation (traditionally perceived as “feminine” qualities).  However, she also turns a blind eye to the overwhelmingly feminine underpinnings presented in opposing theories of international relations and foreign affairs.  
It is this tunnel vision on the part of Tickner that weakens her argument. She claims that, “the exclusion of women (from international relations) has operated…through a process of self selection which begins with the way in which we are taught international relations” (Tickner). Tickner goes on to focus primarily on the teachings of the theory of realism, the notion that a state is only concerned with its own success.  In Tickner’s view, realism casts states as power hungry and consumed with control, aiming only to be objective and bereft of moral influence. It is these qualities, so commonly perceived as masculine in Western culture, which Tickner claims to be off-putting to women interested in the field of foreign affairs and international relations. However, scholars exposed to even the fundamentals of international relations are privy to theories that Tickner regards as feminine. More specifically, it is clear that realism is a stark contrast to the more forgiving theories of liberalism and constructivism. Liberal theories of international politics, economics, and culture all aspire towards the mutual benefit of states, in addition to the exchanges of cultural customs and trade, while constructivist theorists are proponents of communities and the preservation of cultural norms and rules. Both of these theories embody the feminine qualities of communication, mutual benefit, and dynamic objectivity necessary for a state’s success. And yet, Tickner seems to ignore these two other commonplace theories of international relations in favor of an unwavering and uncomplicated condemnation of realism.
In any social science, it is difficult to differentiate between fact and opinion; objectivity is rare.  Given this fact, an open mind is imperative in order to pursue equality in any given field. International relations are no different, and while J. Ann Tickner may relay the fact that realist theories are relentless in their masochistic pursuits, one theory does not negate the possibilities of an entire field. Though evidence exists that feminine qualities are strongly absent from realist theories, Tickner fails to acknowledge another the reality of international relations: feminine qualities are abundant in a variety of alternate views.