Name : Patience Chihota

Reg. Number : R143046K

Program : BAA

Course : Contemporary Strategy 1

Course Code : WAR 3010

Lecturer : MR E. Ndawana

Question : Discuss the relevance of realism as a contemporary strategic

theory.

Due Date : 26 September 2016

Realism is a theory of international that addresses how states achieve security. Realism attempts to
explain the security strategy a state should choose. It provides the basis whether a state should
choose a competitive or a cooperative strategy. Realism is widely accepted as the emphasizes the
constraints on politics imposed by human nature and the absence of international government.
Realism is relevant in the contemporary world as a strategic theorybecause of its emphasise on
power and the significance of the state in international politics. Thus realism will continue to remain
relevant as long as the states persue power and remain the pivotal actors in world politics.

After the Second World War realism emerged as accepted wisdom in International Relations
because of the clear lessons that the conflict appeared to reiterate. Realists argued that the long
history of world politics demonstrated that it was not an exercise in writing laws and treaties or in
creating international organisations.1 Instead it was a struggle for power and security carried out
under conditions of every country for itself. By way of reference, they called themselves realists
and labelled the previously dominant approach idealism. Realists argued that the focus of research
in world politics should be on discovering the important forces that drive the relations between
states.2 Realists believed that the pursuit of power and national interest were the major forces
driving world politics. Focusing on these important forces they argued that, revealed leaders had
far less freedom to organise the world and solve its problems. This is contrary to what the
proponents of idealism had originally suggested. Although realists accepted that laws and morality
were a part of the workings of world politics, respect for law would only be achieved if it were
backed by the threat of force. Realists also insisted that a states primary obligation was to its own
citizens, not to a rather abstract international community.3

According to Snyder, realism can be seen in two basic ways. First, it is a general philosophical
tradition, in this case realism connotes a general pessimism about the human condition, scepticism
about the prospects for human progress, a belief that humans are likely to come into violent conflict
and the conviction that human conflicts generally will be resolved by the application of superior
power not by appeals to notations of justice. The realist worldview sees much evil in human nature
and finds recurrent patterns of tragedy in human existence. Second,realism can be regarded as an
academic approach to understanding international politics. Scholars who see themselves as realist

1Harry R. Yarger, Strategic Theory of for the 21st Century: The Little Book on Big Strategy
(Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 2006), p. 2.
2 Ibid, p.40.
3 John Baylis and Gray Collin, Strategy in the Contemporary World (UK: Oxford University Press,
2013) p. 110.
may share the same basic pessimism of the first type of realist but they go beyond it in their attempt
to elucidate theoretical concepts about how independent state interact with one other. Thus, most
realist scholars attempt to build social-scientific theories that explain and predict international
behaviour.4 Realists believe that power is the currency of international politics. Great powers, the
main actors in the realists account, pay careful attention to how much economic and military power
they have relative to each other. It is important not only to have a substantial amount of power, but
also to make sure that no other state sharply shifts the balance of power in its favour. For realists,
international politics is synonymous with power politics.5

Realists have traditionally held that the major problem of international relations was one of anarchy.
In this instance, anarchy is a condition in which there exists no centralised sovereign authority that
enforces the rule of law. Anarchy prevailed because in international relations there was no sovereign
authority that could enforce the rule of law and ensure that wrongdoers were punished. The League
of Nations was a poor substitute for a truly sovereign power possessing a system of law and a
military under the control of a single, sovereign government. 6 However, realists went on to argue
that it was impossible to set up a genuine world government because states would not give up their
sovereignty to an international body. Accordingly, realists argued that war could not be avoided
completely. It is necessary, therefore, to accept the inevitability of war and pursue the necessary
preparations for conflict. Only in this way can war be properly deterred, or at least managed. Thus
realists are concerned with anarchy at the international level where there is no authority higher than
the state.7

Furthermore, realists argued that, rather than concentrating on disarmament as a root to peace and
security which is a central objective of the League of Nations, states must paradoxically prepare for
war. Realists believed that conflict was inevitable and so the best chance of avoiding war was to be
strong in the face of real or potential aggression. They also claimed that relying on reason to
resolve the problem of war was utopian and ignored certain objective truths about world politics.
Although still in its infancy, even at this stage, International Relations theory was showing signs of
what was to become a central characteristic that it evolved through a series of debates. 8 It can be
argued that realism is still relevant as a contemporary strategic theory because, Gilpin, author of an
influential textbook on international political economy, is a prominent realist. He argued that the

4 Craig A. Snyder, Contemporary Security and Strategy (UK: Palgrave Macmilan, 2012) p.17
5Davies C. Copeland, The Origins of Major War (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000) p.40
6 Ibid.
7 Annek Chatterjee, International relations Today: Concepts and Application (India: Porling
Kindersley, 2010) p.23
8 Chatterjee, P.25
globalization of the world economy and the increased role of multinational corporations have not
eroded the primacy of the state international politics. Also realist are often portrayed as denying that
cooperation of any kind is possible in international politics.9

While there are different variants of realism and indeed some subtle and intriguing differences
between them, the perspective has some central assumptions which provide a common link. In
summary the assumptions of realism are that, States are the key actors in international relations.
Realism also hold the notion that sovereignty or independence and self-control, is the defining
characteristic of the state. States are motivated by a drive for power, security and pursuit of the
national interest. Thus states like men, behave in a self-interested manner.10

It can be argued that, the central problem in international relations is the condition of anarchy,
which means the lack of a central sovereign authority at the global level to regulate relations
between states. Jones noted that, the aggressive intent of states, combined with the lack of world
government means that conflict is an unavoidable and ever-present reality of international relations.
A semblance of order and security can be maintained by shifting alliances among states so
preventing any one state from becoming overwhelmingly powerful and thus, constituting a threat to
the peace and security of others. International institutions and law play a role in international
relations, but are only effective if backed by force or effective sanction. Power is the key to
understanding international behaviour and state motivation. For realists the main form of power is
military or physical power. Human nature can be said to be inherently selfish and constant. As a
result, humans will act to further their own interests even to the detriment of others, which can often
lead to conflict. Because human nature is unchanging, there is little prospect that this kind of
behaviour will change.11

Moreover, realism is often seen as a theory that only applies to issues involving the use of military
force. Realism usually claim that the possibility of the use of force is always in the background of
international politics. Realist theories however, often have been used to shade light on international
economic interactions. Several prominent scholars in the subfield of international political economy
are realist. Krasner for instance, has employed realist theory to urge that the relative power of the
countries involved is often the key to understanding international economic negotiations. He
suggested that countries do not corporate because of reciprocity but because one has superior power

9 Ibid, p.28.
10 Benjamin Frankel, Realism: Restatements and Renewal (London: Portland Oregon, 1996) p.358.
11 Richard W. Jones, Security, Strategy and Critical Theory (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers,
1999) p. 101
and can use it to persuade the other to accept an agreement. Frankel urged that, states are concerned
about relative gains that is those that increase a states power compared with other states in the
economic realm because gaps in gains can be translated into advantages in power. Thus states
engage in negotiations on international trade may not seek to maximise their absolute gains (that is,
those that increase a states capabilities or warfare). Regardless of the gains of other states, as
economists would assume, but instead seek outcomes in which they maximize their relative gains
compared to other states.12

It should be noted that, different countries want different things, sometimes those desires conflict
the question is how then do those conflicts get worked out? The basic insight that lies at the heart of
the realist approach to international politics is that the way those conflicts run their course is heavily
conditioned by power realities. In a world where war cannot be ruled out if conflicts are not settled
peacefully, rational states are bound to be concerned with the structure of power in the sense not just
of the distribution of military capabilities both actual and potential, but also of the whole web of
relationships that would affect what would happen if war actually broke out. But rational states not
only adjust their policies to such power realities. If the structure of power is of such fundamental
importance, it stands to reason that states might well try to alter it to their advantage. That striving
for power political advantage in turn might well come to dominate the system. The fact that states
live in an anarchic system that is, a system not governed by supranational authority can therefore
have a profound impact on state behavior, and some of the most central problems of international
relations theory thus have to do with the importance of such systemic or structural effects in
international political life.13

Having said the origins and characteristics of realism, it is important to discuss its relevance as a
contemporary strategic theory. In this regard,many Americans and Europeans believe that realism
has a dim future.14 This implys that with the end of the cold war, so the argument goes, international
politics has changed its fundamental ways. The world has not simply moved from bipolarity to
multipolarity, but instead have entered an era where there is little prospect of security competition
among the great powers, not to mention war, and where concepts such as polarity and balance of
power matter little for understanding international relations. Most states now view each other as
members of emerging in the international community and not as potential military rivals.

12 Benjamin Frankel, Realism: Restatements and Renewal (London: Portland Oregon, 1996) p.358.
13Alexander Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, England, and New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 26266.

14 Ibid.
Opportunities for cooperation are abundant in the contemporary world and the result is likely to be
increased prosperity and peace for almost all the states in the system.15

Realism occupies a paradoxical place in the study of international politics. It is commonly regarded
as the dominant paradigm in the field particularly in the subfield of international security studies. At
the same time realism is criticized frequently. Scholars such as Vasquez questioned the viability of
the entire realist research program and claimed realism failed to explain key features of
international politics. Proponents of this optimistic perspective argue that realism is old thinking,
and largely irrelevant to the new realities of world politics. Thus realists can be said to have gone
the way of the dinosaurs, they just do not realize it. The best that might be said for realism is that it
was helpful for understanding how states interacted with each other before 1990, but it is largely
useless now that the cold war is over. Therefore, there is need for theories that helps make sense of
international politics in the twenty-first century.16

Kane and Lonsdale noted that one of the most important challenges to realism is the democratic
peace hypothesis. This argument rests on the empirical observation that democracies have never
gone to war with one another. Statistical evidence yields an impressive correlation between shared
democracy and peace. Numerous studies have found that there have been no wars between
democracies and that this finding is statistically significant. Levy observed that the absence of wars
between democracies is the closest thing we have to an empirical law in the study of international
relations. Proponents of the democratic peace proposition agree that democracies have not fought
wars, but they have no reached a consensus on why this is so. They further argue that domestic
institutional constraints prevent leaders in democracies from launching wars against other
democracies. For example, leaders that share power with legislatures are constrained from hasty
aggressive action. Moreso they argue that democratic and/or liberal norms and values prevent wars
between democracies. This is reinforced by the fact that democracies have domestic norms of
peaceful conflict resolution that they apply in their relations with other democracies, or that shared
liberal values especially respect for individual rights and the rule of law make it impossible for
democracies to fight one another. 17

15 Thomas M. Kane and David J. Lonsdale, Understanding Contemporary Strategy (London and
New York: Routledge, 2012) p.104
16 Rick E. Ingram, Contemporary Psychological Approaches to Depression: A theory, Research
and Treatment (New York and London: Plenum Press, 1990) p.80
17 Thomas M. Kane and David J. Lonsdale, Understanding Contemporary Strategy (London and
New York: Routledge, 2012) p.104.
Various questions are central in the continuing debate over the realist approach to international
politics. For instance, does realism have a future? Is realist theory still relevant? Can realism
explain significant aspects of contemporary international politics? Critics have urged that realist
theories are undermined by their failure to explain the end of the Cold War and their inability to
shade light on important contemporary issues such as the potential obsolescence of major war,
internal war and ethnic conflict and terrorism. 18

Furthermore, the emergence of the United States( US ) as the sole super power in a unipolar world
presented an important challenge to realist theory. Most realist urge that stares tend to balance
against the most powerful state in the international system. Realist urged that other states could
balance against the US and that the era of US primacy could not last and also suggest that unipolar
would be stable and durable because other countries lacked the means to challenge the US. Shortly
after the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, Walt consistent with his view that states balance
against threats, not power, predicted that if US leaders assume that the current surge in international
support will enable them to ignore the interest of other states in the future, they will squander the
diplomatic capital that the United States now enjoyed and increase the risk of a backlash when the
immediate challenge recedes. The events in the years since 2011 terrorist attacks provide some
confirmation of the realist perspective on whether countries will balance against the US. Countries
have reacted to the US pursuit of unilateral advantages by distancing themselves and engaging in
soft balancing rather than forming traditional military alliances to balance US power. 19

Critics of realism have claimed that realist theories failed to predict the end of the Cold War, the
collapse of the Soviet empire and the sudden transformation of the US and Soviet rivalry from
enmity into amity. Such critics have urged that realist theories are not useful for understanding key
issues of contemporary international politics, including ethnic conflict, terrorism and global
responses to new problems such as climate change and emerging infectious diseases. They have
also questioned the foundations of realist theory and called for substituting a focus on the security
of individual humans for realisms traditional emphases on the security of state. It has been urged
that the apparent absence of war between democracies- the democratic peace and the tendency of
democracies to win most of their wars is convincing evidence that realist theories failed to explain
many important aspects of international politics.20

18 Ibid, p.107.
19 Sam M. Walt, Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy (New York: W.
Norton, 2005).
20 Sam M. Walt, The Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition (New York: W. Norton, 2002)
p.147.
However, after the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, terrorism became a much more prominent
issue in international relations. For most observers the emergence of terrorist groups as powerful
transnational actors who could threaten states probably seemed to be a major anomaly for realist
theory.21 Although realism does not have much to say about the causes of terrorism, realist theories,
however, shade light on several aspects of contemporary international terrorism. The most
important contemporary terrorist groups including al-Qaeda and Boko Haram use violence
strategically. Their attacks are not random attacks or irrational, but calculated efforts to achieve a
goal. Thus, realist theories that focus on strategic action and the use of violence for political
purposes may be relevant. Also the targets of most contemporary terrorist attacks are states.
Terrorist groups are attempting to influence the policies of states and the response to terrorism will
often taken by states acting individually or collectively. Given that realist theories analyse the
policies that states pursue to achieve security, realism may contribute to the understanding of how
states respond to terrorist attacks and threats in the contemporary world.22

In conclusion realism will continue to be an important source of theories of international politics.

Despite a continuing barrage of criticisms directed against it, realism remains a vibrant of
theoretical innovations and insights into world politics. There are two reasons why realism
continues to survive. First, no other single paradigm offers a richer set of theories and hypothesis
about international politics. Realism offers a worldview that can be used to generate deductive
theories that can claim to explain recurrent patterns of international politics from ancient times to
the present. Secondly, realism will continue to endure because its pessimistic emphases on self
interest, conflict and power seems to capture important elements of the human condition. We may
not like realism emphases on tragedy and evil but we have yet to find a way to escape it.

21 Ingram,,46.
22 Ibid.
Bibliography

Baylis J and Collin G, Strategy in the Contemporary World (UK: Oxford University Press, 2013).

Chatterjee A, International Relations Today: Concepts and Application (India: Porling Kindersley,
2010).

Copeland D.C, The Origins of Major War (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000).

Frankel B, Realism: Restatements and Renewal (London: Portland Oregon, 1996).

Ingram R.E, Contemporary Psychological Approaches to Depression: A theory, Research and

Treatment (New York and London: Plenum Press, 1990).

Jones R.W, Security, Strategy and Critical Theory (London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1999).

Kane T.M and Lonsdale D.J, Understanding Contemporary Strategy (London and New York:
Routledge, 2012).

Snyder C.A, Contemporary Security and Strategy (UK: Palgrave Macmilan, 2012).

Walt S.M, The Enduring Relevance of the Realist Tradition (New York: W. Norton, 2002).

Walt S.M, Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy (New York: W. Norton,
2005).

Wendt A, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge, England, and New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1999).

Yarger H.R, Strategic Theory of for the 21st Century: The Little Book on Big Strategy (Carlisle, PA:
Strategic Studies Institute, 2006).