1

A Project Work In POLITICAL SCIENCE

REALISM AND AMERICAS UNDERSTANDING OF POLITICAL REALISM

SUBMITTED TO: Dr. B.K. MAHAKUL

FACULTY: - POLITICAL SCIENCE

SUBMITTED BY: PRANAV KHANDELWAL

SEMESTER 5
SECTION A
ROLL NO. 94

SUBMITTED ON:
2nd SEPTEMBER, 2014

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Raipur, Chhattisgarh
 2

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with sheer hard
work and honesty.
I would sincerely like to thank my faculty of Political Science Dr. B.K. Mahakul Sir for
giving me this topic and guiding me throughout the project. Through this project I have
learned a lot about the aforesaid topic and this in turn has helped me grow as a student.

My heartfelt gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the
infrastructure in the form of our library and IT lab that was a source of great help in the
completion of this project.

PRANAV KHANDELWAL
 3

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2
Introduction 4
Objectives 5
Research Methodology 5
Chapter 1: Basic Concept of Realism 6
Chapter 2: Anglo- American realist Assumptions 8
Chapter 3:Invasion of Iraq: A Reflection of Realism and
Americas Justification 11
Conclusion 15
References 16

Introduction
 4

Political realism has traditionally been regarded as the dominant paradigm of international
relations. Not surprisingly, most criticisms voiced in the field are directed against this school
of thought. One of the most justified of these stresses the uncertainty of the status of its
central concept power within realist theories, and the neglect of values. For the most
prominent realists, Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz, power and survival are the core
ideas used in their account of international relations. Even though there are some differences
the ideas of the scholars, all of them agree on the role played by power and survival in the
theory of Realism. If survival is seen as the end, the struggle for power should be treated as
essence of state relations. A theory of international relations therefore aims at stressing the
most effective use that can be made, by states, of means or capabilities at their disposal in
order to achieve this end.

This project argues that realism is too often only conceived as an Anglo-American school of
thought. Morgenthau and Waltz are certainly the most quoted scholars in the tradition, As
Stanley Hoffmann rightly stressed, international relations has always been an American social
science.1 The Americas understanding of political realism stands on two pillars- Power &
Survival. Morgenthau & Waltz, both agree on the role played by power and survival in their
theory of realism.

Realism as a school of thought in international relations should certainly be conceived in

broader terms, as this would allow realism to provide a more subtle view of international
relations, which would in turn counter some prominent criticisms. This project focuses on the
relationship between means and ends in order to highlight the necessity to rediscover the
works of these two among many others realists, and to show how they can affect the
potential reformulation of some of the most well-known realist principles in international
relations.

Objectives

1 Stanley Hoffmann, An American Social Science: International Relations, Daedalus, CVI

(Summer 1977)
 5

To understand the basic concept of Realism.

To discuss the Anglo-American Realist Assumptions.
To study Americas realist actions- a case study on Americas action in Iraq.
To analyze the justifications by America upon its realist actions.

Research Methodology

This research is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary and Electronic resources
have been largely used to gather information about the topic.
Websites, books, journals and articles have been primarily helpful in giving this project a
firm structure.
Footnotes have been provided wherever needed to acknowledge the source.

Chapter 1: Basic Concept of Realism

 6

Realism is the dominant theory of International Relations. It provides the most powerful
explanation for the state of war which is regular condition of life in the international system. 2
Realism is the view that world politics is driven by competitive self-interest. 3Political realism
beginnings can be found in the Melian Dialogues from Thucydides History of the
Peloponnesian War (410 BC) and, even further back, in The Art of War by Sun Tzu (610 BC).
Works such as these anticipated Machiavellis The Prince (1532) what might be termed the
Bible of political realism and Thomas Hobbes Leviathan (1651). Reflecting the rise of
the modern absolutist state, these classics evince a fear of democracy, chaos, privilege,
authority and stability. They introduce the ideas of raisondetat and balance of power,
sovereignty and leadership, national interest and geopolitical advantage, as well as a modern
understanding of the claim that might make right. 4 The perspective now associated with
human rights, by contrast, were always employed to mitigate the exercise of arbitrary power
on the part of states guided by little more than political realism. Thus, human rights and
political realism have traditionally been seen as political opposites.

It takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action,
whether in the domestic or international arena. In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that
politicians do, or should, strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage
nation states are seen as the primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power.
The theory is therefore to be examined as either a prescription of what ought to be the case,
that is, nations and politicians ought to pursue power or their own interests, or as a
description of the ruling state of affairs-that nations and politicians only pursue (and perhaps
only can pursue) power or self-interest.5

Descriptive political realism commonly holds that the international community is

characterized by anarchy, since there is no overriding world government that enforces a
common code of rules. Whilst this anarchy need not be chaotic, for various member states of

2Dunne, Tim and Schimdt, Brian. Realism, The Globalization of World Politics, fourth ed,
.p.91, Oxford University Press.
3Rourke, John (30) [2010]. Michael, Ryan. ed (in English). International Politics On The
World Stage. Boyer, Mark A,. New York, New York: McGraw Hill. p. 16
4http://logosjournal.com/ last visited on 24th August, 2014
5 Political Realism, Internet Encyclopidia of Philosophy,http://www.iep.utm.edu/polreal/
 7

the international community may engage in treaties or in trading patterns that generate an
order of sorts, most theorists conclude that law or morality does not apply beyond the nations
boundaries. Arguably political realism supports Hobbess view of the state of nature, namely
that the relations between self-seeking political entities are necessarily a-moral.

Hobbes asserts that without a presiding government to legislate codes of conduct, no morality
or justice can exist: Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no
Injustice if there be no Power erected, or not great enough for our security; every man will
and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art, for caution against all other men. 6
Accordingly, without a supreme international power or tribunal, states view each other with
fear and hostility, and conflict, or the threat thereof, is prevalent in the system.

Chapter 2: Anglo-American Realist Assumptions

6 Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I, Ch.13 Of Man, and Part II, Ch.17, Of Commonwealth
 8

Political realism is mostly conceived of as a predominantly Anglo-American school of

thought, whose main proponents, Morgenthau and Waltz, share some basic assumptions about
the nature of international relations. One of them is that the struggle for power is the main,
defining characteristic of relations among states, stemming from the initial premise that they
take place in a world of anarchy for Waltz, or that human nature is necessarily driven by the
lust for power for Morgenthau. The strict Hobbesian account of international relations
explains why survival is in any case the chief and only concern of states on the international
scene: as no supreme authority can regulate their mutual relations, states can and will use
force whenever they decide that their national interest is at stake. The loss or acquisition of
power is central in this analysis, as it contains the concept of balance of power, so dear to
realists when it comes to explain patterns of international relations. This almost obsessive
concern with power can, however, be questioned, as it stems from a very narrow
understanding of international politics in the first place

The various definitions provided by Morgenthau of the concept of power all stress the same,
basic idea of domination or control of men over men, characteristic of all politics. 7This
narrow understanding of international politics as being uniquely a ruthless struggle for power
requires further explanation.

To support the definition of international politics as being uniquely power politics,

Morgenthau draws a strict Hobbesian analogy between the domestic and the international
realms. His views on human nature help understand why he naturally refers to the domestic
sphere as exemplifying his assumptions: man being primarily driven by the lust for power,
and man being the primary actor who, within a state, takes decisions, it logically follows that
the essence of international politics is identical with its domestic counterpart. Both domestic
and international politics are a struggle for power, modified only by the different conditions
under which this struggle takes place in the domestic and international spheres8

7 Morgenthau, quoted in Coffey (note 8) p.131: A universal force inherent in human nature
and necessarily seeking power over other men ; Hans Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations
The Struggle for Power and Peace (NY: Alfred A. Knopf 1985) p.32
8 Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (note 10) p.39.
 9

So certain is Morgenthau of the veracity of his account of human nature in politics that he
considers this parallel as the decisive argument against sceptics who could put his definition
of international politics as a struggle for power into doubt.9

Waltz on the other hand precisely tried to remedy this problem by finding a distinctive feature
of the international realm. Unlike Morgenthau, he draws a radical distinction between the
domestic and the international spheres that lies in the structures of the two realms: anarchy
becomes the central, defining feature of the international structure. It is noticeable that this
very much resembles Morgenthaus phrasing when he mentions different conditions of
actions at the domestic and international levels. In sum, Waltz simply turned this rather vague
and scientifically unsatisfactory expression into a highly scientific concept, that of structure.

Both Morgenthau and Waltz regard power and survival as the essence of international
politics, the elements for which states permanently strive. For Morgenthau, power is the
primary goal of politics. Not only is it a primary goal, it is also often presented as the unique
one. Herein lays one of the most strikingly unrealistic aspects of realism.

Morgenthau says politics is a struggle for power over men, and whatever its ultimate aim
may be, power is its immediate goal10 by saying so Morgenthau implicitly admits that power
is not always the ultimate end, and can be regarded as a means in order to achieve other ends.

Waltz adopts the same attitude: he retains the idea that there is one end in international
politics survival and that power is a means to this end. What remains constant is the type
of account he provides of international relations: there is one rational goal to achieve, and
states possess different means in order to do so. Like Morgenthau, however, Waltz understood
the limits of such a scheme 11: while stating that survival is the only goal of international
politics, he nevertheless ends up admitting that the assumption allows for the fact that no

9 Murielle Cozette (2004): Realistic Realism? American Political Realism, Clausewitz and
Raymond Aron on the Problem of Means and Ends in International Politics,The Journal of
Strategic Studies, Vol.27, No.3, September 2004, p. 432
10 Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations (note 10) p. 31
11 Murielle Cozette (2004): Realistic Realism? American Political Realism, Clausewitz and
Raymond Aron on the Problem of Means and Ends in International Politics, The Journal of
Strategic Studies, Vol.27, No.3, September 2004, p. 432
 10

states always act exclusively to ensure its survival. 12 Again, Waltz implicitly recognises that
survival can be considered as a means to an end.

Hence, for Morgenthau and Waltz then, the scheme remains the same: states have a given end
survival and the maximisation or management of power and international relations is
about finding the best ways of adapting means or capacities to this end.

Chapter 3: Invasion of Iraq: A Reflection of Realism and Americas Justification

12Waltz Theory of International Politics (note 15) p.92.

 11

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 has been one of the most important events in the recent history.
The causes given for it have been proved to be inadequate: the claims of Iraqs possession of
weapons of mass destruction, Saddams support for terrorism, and so on.

However, this action of America can be better understood from the perspective of Realism.
Since realism has been very effective in American politics through its history and American
leaders learned from realism to focus on interests rather than anything else, as discussed
earlier, it describes the main characteristics of the war.

For the theoretical framework on which the understanding of the war in Iraq will be based
upon, it is more than a necessity to mention Morgenthaus six principles of political realism, 13
all of which are possible to be seen in the process of the issue:

1. There are objective laws that have roots in human nature and they govern the politics.
As the human nature has not changed since the early history of humankind, these laws
do not change.

2. The concept of interest that is defined in terms of power is the main signpost that
helps understand the international politics. Statesmen (should) always behave in a
way that is necessitated by the benefit of their country, not by their motives or
ideological preferences. What is more, they (should) take the power relations into
account which means there is no place for moral concerns and they choose the
possible alternative, not the desirable one.

3. The concept of interest that is defined as power is objective and universally valid but
the meaning is not fixed, which indicates the power of states may change in time in a
way that is determined by the environment. Thus, the contemporary world politics can
be transformed into a different context.

4. There are universal moral principles but they cannot be applied to state actions.
Individuals may insist that justice comes first even if the outcome is in disadvantage
of them; however, states do not have the right to say it as they are responsible for

13Morgenthau, Hans J., 1954. Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace,
2nd ed., New York: Alfred A. Knopf. P 4-14)
 12

those inhabiting in their territories and the moral principle of survival has utmost
significance for them.

5. It is not true for states to identify their moral aspirations with the moral laws
governing the universe. If they are to obey the universal moral principles, these
principles should be in their own advantage, which means they should make use of
these principles to rationalize their actions and give the message that they are taking
morally right steps.

6. International domain is different from any other field of human concern and has its
own standards such as interest defined in terms of power. The decision makers should
first answer whether the alternative policies on the way of being implemented will
increase the state power or not.

It is possible to see the traces of these principles in the American decision of invading Iraq.

First of all, mankind has constantly been in pursuit of power throughout the history and the
struggle for power is a part of human nature. Today, the United States is and has been
enjoying the hegemony since the collapse of the USSR and, very understandably, it doesnt
want to lose its status. In 2003, when it felt that the continuing American hegemony was
under threat because of the attacks on American heartland, the USA didnt hesitate to invade
Iraq.14

Secondly, American decision makers believed that the US interests necessitated the
invasion15. They were aware of the fact that it was feasible to occupy Iraq rather than Iran or
North Korea in terms of military power capabilities and it wouldnt be appropriate to take the
moral concerns, namely whether there were really weapons of mass destruction or not, into
account in the decision making process. An attack in Iran or North Korea could have cost
more for the USA in respect to casualties and military expenses, so they must have found it
more possible to attack Iraq when they took the power relations into account.

14BBC. 2003. Global Protests against Iraq War. Last Accessed August 15, 2014.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2672809.stm

15CNN. 2003. Bush: Leave Iraq within 48 Hours. Last Accessed August 17,
2014http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/
 13

Therefore, we can say that they did what the national interest asked them to do from the
perspective of realism.

Thirdly, American decision makers were also aware that balance of power was not permanent
and if they hadnt taken action just after the attacks on twin towers and Pentagon, the image
of the USA would have been damaged. In the example of America after 9/11, the image of a
vulnerable USA unable to retaliate the assaults on its symbolic centres could have given rise
to attempts to challenge American power, and what is more, these attempts could have led to
a new world order, a risk which realist American decision makers could not dare to take.

Next, from the viewpoint of realism, American administrative staff could not have behaved in
a way that justice required even if they had wished to do so, as states have to put the
survival of the state in the first place in the hierarchy of needs and the attacks on9/11
threatened this number one need and called for revenge, taking the plunge at the expense of
justice was a must for the USA.

For the fifth one, universal moral principles of democracy and advocacy of human rights
were the ones to be obeyed by every actor in the international society for the USA just before
the combat against Iraq, a country which was administered by a dictator capable of doing
whatever he wished in an authoritarian regime.

Saddam was violating the very basic human rights even against his own people; cast aside
those belonging to other states such as the USA who had the bitter experience on 9/11. He
was the one who used chemical weapons on his people just a few years ago and it would be
very usual for him to attack recklessly any other nation.

Finally, the question for the decision maker to be answered is: Will this policy affect the
power of the state in a positive or a negative way? the American decision makers must have
thought that the war would demonstrate the American military power to the world and deter
any probable rival state from challenging the USA. Moreover, it would increase the self
esteem of American citizens; give them the necessary motivation to unite together, and which
would increase the national security excluding all the others from the society.
The war in Iraq still remains as one of the most important events in the world with massive
consequences for those living in the region and realism provides a broad perspective to
 14

understand it, though not enough when taken alone 16. It is true that realism has a pessimistic
stance in world politics and it takes the evil nature of human beings as a starting point but it
has many convincing arguments, such as statism, national security, self help, selfish interests,
unilateralism, anti-appeasement strategies rationality-irrationality, geostrategic, importance of
having allies, the correlation between needs and abilities. Although there were many other
irrational governments in the world,17 from the American perspective, Iraq was the most
appropriate one in terms of military strength, geostrategic position, natural resources, and so
on to reach American aims of hegemony.

Conclusion

16Dunne, Tim and Schmidt, Brian C. 2004.Realism.In The Globalization of World Politics,
Edited by John Baylis and Steve Smith, 162-179. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17Kras, James D. 2004. Terrorism and Globalization.In The Globalization of World
Politics, edited by John Baylis and Steve Smith, 480-495. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 15

Political realists are often characterised as immoralists, that any means should be used to
uphold the national interest, but a poignant criticism is that the definition of morality is being
twisted to assume that acting in ones own or ones nations interests is immoral or amoral at
best. This is an unfair claim against serving ones national interest, just as claiming that any
self-serving action is necessarily immoral on the personal level.
Realism warns us against progressivism, moralism, legalism, and other orientations that lose
touch with the reality of self-interest and power. By denying any progress in interstate
relations, realism turns into an ideology. Its emphasis on power politics and national interest
can be misused to justify aggression. It has to be supplanted by theories that take better
account of the cooperation and changing picture of global politics.
Ethical confusion in terms of justifying American policy in the Middle East has mirrored the
practical confusion in carrying it out. Human rights fell by the wayside as the Bush
Administration began substituting and then mixing one faulty ideological justification for
another in Iraq. Identified with the axis of evil, which called forth a war on terror, Iraq
was then castigated as a threat to Israel and, with its control of oil, the American national
interest. But this argument stood at odds with the weakness of the Iraq military and the fact
that Iraqs secular regime was never a major supporter of terrorism in general or Islamic
fundamentalist movements like al-Qaeda in particular.
False accusations concerning the existence of weapons of mass destruction were then
introduced along with wild claims that Saddam Hussein was intent upon launching them
against Israel and the United States.
Once it became apparent that this, too, was not the case, hyper-realists began talking about
human rights and spreading democracy to the Middle East. 18 All of this was reinforced by the
belief that the Iraqi citizenry enthusiastically supported American intervention and that there
existed a groundswell of unified national support for a new democratic order.
American self-righteousness has only been exacerbated by such miscalculations and
misperceptions. Plagued by a confused ethical purpose, compromised by suspect allies and
without an exit strategy, the United States has consistently found itself entangled in a
murderous and, occasionally, even genocidal set of foreign policy actions that serve
neither human rights nor the American national interests.

References

18 http://logosjournal.com/2011/summer_bronner/#_ftn4
 16

Books and Articles:

1. BAYLIS JOHN, SMITH STEVE& OWENS PATRICIA, THE GLOBALIZATION OF WORLD

POLITICS, (4th Ed, 2008), Oxford University Press.

2. CHARLES W & KEGLEY JR. WORLD POLITICS: TREND AND TRANSFORMATION.

(2008). U.S.A: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

3. WALTZ KENNTH ART AND ROBERT J. THE USE OF FORCE: MILITARY POWER AND

INTERNATIONAL POLITICS. (2004). Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc.

4. CLARKE RICHARD A. AGAINST ALL ENEMIES: INSIDE AMERICAS WAR ON TERROR.

(2004).New York: Free Press.

Websites:

1. WALT, S. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: ONE WORLD, MANY THEORIES. (2008)

http://spectrum.troyst.edu/~teemu/.Accessed on 28/8/2014.

2. BBC. 2003. GLOBAL PROTESTS AGAINST IRAQ WAR.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2672809.stm/. ACcessed on 15/8/2014

3. CNN 2003 BUSH:LEAVE IRAQ WITHIN 48 HOURS

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/17/sprj.irq.bush.transcript/.
Accessed 17/8/2014.
4. www.jstor.org
5. www.logosjournal.com
6. www.iep.utm.edu