The Realism Approach to Politics

1 The Realism Approach to Politics Outline 1. Introduction Realism is a philosophy of politics that advances a pragmatic approach to politics.

2. Body The main ideas of realism are:  National Interest Interaction between states in the international system is guided by national interests.

Tension between China and the U.S. are driven by national interests of either state.  States as Major Actors Sovereign states are the dominant actor in international relations. International rules and regulations are largely formulated and enforced by states.  Anarchy The international systemic is characterized by chaos, which make self-help an important principle. The war in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan underpins the anarchic nature of the international system, where rules and norms can be easily breached.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

2

 The universality of moral principles There are no universally accepted moral values in the international system; quite often, states determine what is moral and immoral according to their convenience. Cases of human rights violation in Palestine, Afghanistan, and Iraq by state actors illustrate this.  National interests disguised as moral concerns.

States often disguise their national interests as moral concerns as seen in the U.S. war on Iraq.

3. Conclusion Realism is still a relevant theory in today’s international politics.

Realism Introduction Realism is a political theory that is founded on a pragmatic approach to politics. The philosophy of realism is advanced by theorists such as Machiavelli, Aristotle, and Hans Morgenthau. Realists look at the world as a stage where actors are in constant competition for power and influence, and national interest influences the acts and behaviors of states (Neacsu, 2010). Regardless of the dynamism that the international system has undergone, realists’ thoughts remain relevant to understanding foreign relations in today’s world.

National Interest Power politics are dominated by realists' philosophy, as seen in wars and aggressive pursuit of influence. Realists hold that power is the guiding principle of politics, whether at an international or national level. Realism is relevant in today's world due to its pragmatic approach to power politics. According to Hans Morgenthau, nation-states act and behave to acquire and maintain power (Neacsu, 2010). No country would want to lose power, hence the preoccupation

3 of states with acquiring more power overseas and within. State power can be defined from political, economic, technological, and or security perspectives. Interests and power influence competition of any nature between countries. For example, China and the U.S. have had endless economic wars because each country is trying to acquire more power or maintain it against the other. Whether through diplomacy or military force, each country is concerned about securing its influence on global politics (Booth, 2010). Therefore, states tend to use any chance available to pursue national interests in their international relations.

State power is central to securing national interests. Realism holds that powerful states can pursue their interests abroad than weaker states successfully. This can be seen in how powerful countries such as the U.S. and China advance their interests in other countries. The U.S. has been able to impose its will in Iraq using its military and economic power. Weaker countries such as Greece have no such capacity; hence they can either stay aloof or work with dominant powers to pursue their interests in a country such as Iraq. Military power is essential where political and economic power is limited (Neacsu, 2010). A state should have all forms of power to advance its interests in the international system effectively. Consequently, realists' thought about using state power to advance national interests is still relevant in today's international politics.

States as Major Actors Realism as an approach to international politics holds that nation-states are major actors at the global stage and are principally motivated by the pursuit of national interests in their interaction with other states. According to Neacsu (2010), national interests are usually disguised as moral concerns in foreign relations. States are still principal actors in global politics, regardless of the growing influence of non-state actors such as multinational corporations.

4 Norms that guide global politics are formulated and implemented by states. Even though multinationals such as Facebook and Twitter exercise some significant influence on global politics, they are not autonomous of state controls, while the reverse is not true. When a multinational commits an offense, it is likely to be punished by state authorities, using rules and regulations established by the government. However, this does not mean that non-state actors have no place in international politics. Multinational corporations, revolutionary groups, and territories organizations are non-state actors that can influence international politics.

Nevertheless, their influence cannot overshadow the authority and influence of state actors (Booth, 2010). For instance, it is stated that determine rules that govern international relations and manage issues such as climate change. Thus, to date, international politics are still dominated by interactions and activities between state actors.

Anarchy The international system is anarchic, with states competing to meet their national interests. Anarchy is still present in the international system, which makes military power a vital tool to ensure self-defense. In anarchy, one's strength is important to survive. Cases of anarchy can be seen in how the U.S. has conducted its affairs in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. The relationship between Israel and Palestinians can also be understood in terms of anarchy. Life is brutish in a state of anarchy, emphasizing the need for strong security forces to survive. It is important to note that the survival of a state comes before anything else (Neacsu, 2010). On this ground, independent states seek to maintain strong militaries by creating military alliances to secure their territories and sovereignty.

Realists such as Machiavelli held that the end justifies the means, a maxim still relevant in today’s power politics. The unique relationship between the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Iran, and ISIL

5 in Iraq and Syria underpins how the end determines the means to attain particular goals. In Iraq, the U.S. found it okay to work with Iran against ISIL, while in Syria, it worked with ISIL against the Iran-backed regime of President Assad (Schuett & Hollingworth, 2018). All these unique arrangements were made in pursuit of the U.S. interests in the region, which comes before norms or rules that broadly define Washington's foreign policy.

The universality of moral values Realism holds that there are no universally accepted moral values, implying that countries or players choose moral, ostensibly based on convenience. In today's power, states have proved time and again that moral values are not universally applicable (Booth, K2010). The violations of human rights by Israel and the U.S. in Palestine and Afghanistan, respectively, have gone unpunished. States choose when to behave morally or not based on the situation and their political influence. What is evil can be justified to meet particular ends, as seen in the case of the American war in Iraq. The U.S. had no moral authority to attack Iraq over fears that the Saddam Hussein regime owned weapons of mass destruction. In any case, the U.S. possesses more deadly weapons than what was allegedly held by Iraq. It is also important to note that the U.S. overlooked Pakistan, India, and Israel's nuclear technology and weapons acquisition but chose to deny Iraq a chance to own deadly weapons. Nevertheless, this does not mean a total lack of political morality in a realist world (Williams, 2007). On the contrary, there exist moral values that states sometimes subscribe to when the situation favors. For instance, general norms govern diplomatic immunity, human rights, and war. However, these norms can be disregarded any time they put national interests at risk.

In a realist’s world, power comes before norms, a factor that can be seen in how states conduct their activities to pursue national interests. For instance, the U.S. attacks on Aljazeera

6 media stations in Iraq and Afghanistan during its invasion of the two countries trampled on the freedom of the press. Still, it saw no value in observing such a norm when its power interests were at stake (Schuett & Hollingworth, 2018). The U.S. has abused human rights any time it has engaged in warfare in the Middle East, but the violations are justified on the premise of pursuing the country's best interest. Indeed, if morality were to be given priority before power, powerful countries would become weak because international norms would tie them to avoid behaviors and activities that breach established norms. The pursuit of power remains the biggest challenge to establishing orderliness in the international system (Schuett & Hollingworth, 2018). The U.S. war in Iraq removed Saddam Hussein from power and installed a puppet regime in violation of the principle of self-determination.

An arms race is another factor that highlights realism in global politics. Each state is persuaded to vie for more power through the development or acquisition of more deadly weapons. North Korea is the best example of a country that is trying to advance its military technology for security reasons. In an anarchic international system, a state cannot rely on another for protection and feel sufficiently secure. Despite the assurance of protection from the U.S. against North Korea, South Korea has made efforts to improve its weapons and general security system (Cooper et al., 2015). Anarchy makes it impossible for countries to overlook arms race, underpinning endless suspicion between countries.

National interests disguised as moral concerns.

National interests are often disguised as a moral concern when countries interfere with the sovereignty of other countries, as seen in the case of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in the early 2000s. The principle of humanitarian intervention is another factor leveraged on moral grounds to advance national interests (Schuett & Hollingworth, 2018). The U.S. and other major powers

7 have invoked morality to intervene in conflict-stricken areas like Darfur, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.

However, behind the moral talk, there are national interests that are pursued in the letter. The regime's choice to be accused of dictatorship and human rights abuse is also influenced by national interest, underpinning the dominance of national interest in power politics (Booth, 2010). Whereas a country like Saudi Arabia is known for human rights violations, the U.S. and the West have done little to condemn this and enforce sanctions against Riyadh. This is mainly because of their political and economic interests in Saudi Arabia that would be jeopardized if they chose an aggressive approach. As a consequence, the West has to massage human rights violations in Saudi Arabia.

Conclusion Realism is still a relevant political philosophy in today's international relations. Realists espoused main ideas, including states being the main actors in global politics and are always concerned with furthering national interests, apply to current politics. The lack of universal norms is also evident in how states choose to obey or disregard international norms. When states raise moral concerns to justify their interference with other states' affairs, the motivating factor is usually national interests. Powers remain a key factor in pursuing national interests abroad, which explains why countries increase their political, economic, and military power. Realism, regardless of changes in political systems, remains effective in studying international politics because it answers the question of why states behave in a particular manner and why they dominate global affairs.

8 References Booth, K. (2010). Realism and world politics. London: Routledge.

Cooper, A.F., Heine, J., & Thakur, R.C. (2015). The Oxford handbook of modern diplomacy.

Oxford University Press.

Neacsu, M. (2010). Hans J. Morgenthau's theory of international relations: Disenchantment and re-enchantment. Palgrave Macmillan.

Schuett, R., & Hollingworth, M. (2018). Edinburgh companion to political realism. Edinburgh University Press.

Williams, M.C. (2007). Realism Reconsidered: The Legacy of Hans Morgenthau in international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.