INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS ASSIGNMENT 1: REVIEW OF ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY:MUHAMMAD HAIDER KHAN (01-111102-122) SUBMITTED TO: SALMAN ALI DATED:

2nd November, 2011

SIX PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL REALISM By Hans J. Morgenthau

The article assigned to me is taken from a book of Hans J. Morgenthau called Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition. In this article, Morgenthau has proposed Six Principles of Political Realism to the world. These principles were proposed in 1978, the time when Morgenthau was stressing hard on the concept of States interest defined in terms of Power which was mainly conveyed through these principles. The Six Principles emphasize power over morality. All of the principles' strong statements regarding morality show it in a negative context. Morality is portrayed as something that statesmen should avoid in policymaking. It was because of these principles that Morgenthau was considered to be founding father of the realist school in the 20th century. Morgenthau's first principle, politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature, shows the basis of the realist school of thought. He believes that because statesmen, representative authorities and decision makers of every state are humans and it is humans who govern and control other humans, therefore every action or decision in political scenario has a very close relation with human nature. Humans are selfish by nature and are power hungry from the core of their genesis and that nature has never changed since the inception of time. Therefore, it should be understood that every policy/political action/states decision is (one way or the other) effected by events of politics of other humans, backed by some rationality which maybe prejudice in nature. Morgenthau's second principle presents a similar problem. Perhaps the most famous sentence in international relations theory comes from Morgenthau's second principle of political realism: The main signpost that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power. Morgenthau sets international politics as its own intellectual sphere. An economist may study the world in terms of wealth and a theologian in terms of religion, but the political realist studies the world in terms of power. The author has also stated a fascinating concept that sometimes the general public may understand the motive of a policy maker more effectively than the policy maker himself because statesmen try to find an excusable agenda to back their rational and power hungry motives but we as general public are not diluted by such thoughts and can easily understand what a human mind wants (humanity is the most common factor that can relate us easily). Power is the currency of diplomacy and is what a state needs in order to satisfy its various interests. This idea of power is that power functions as both a means and an end. It is an end because states wish to survive and are uncertain about other states' intentions. It is a means to satisfy particular

interests, which go beyond mere survival. Author also stresses that morality or a motive has nothing to do with the success of a policy, rather success is determined by the quality of rationality and logic behind any action. His third principles says that interest of any politics/ state differs from time to time, and is not fixed since humans also change their interest everyday according to different situations. In no way, this principle means that the interest defined as power is changed with something, Power is certainly there in every time but its content always vary from time to time according to cultural and political environment. In some era, military power maybe the interest of a nation because of its significance in that era and that may change in some other era when economy becomes the most dominating factor of that time. The author also states that balance of power is the most prominent factor that strikes power hunger in nations; as long as there is balance of power, there would be peace but instability in that balance which is mostly the case, then violence and wars are generally expected. The fourth principle states that a states action in no way is effected by any universal morality or law. Every state must act selfishly which is also the general case. Here the stress is again on the discouragement of morality in politics and belief that no universal moral/ ethical principle should be applied in politics, for example there is no law defined in a same way and treated in a same way throughout the globe. Fifth principle also focuses on the potentially devastating consequences of overly moral state behavior. The Six Principles, which Morgenthau claims are not a systematic exposition of the philosophy of political realism, emphasize that states need smart, prudent statesmen who know the proper place of morality in political decision making that there is a proper role which is acknowledged. It refuses to identify specific moralities of a nation or we can say faith or religious notions of different states are not to be considered or identified while making a decision. Indeed, Morgenthau writes that A man who was nothing but political man would be a beast, for he would be completely lacking in moral restraints, but it is overshadowed by the negative aspects of morality in international politics and the positive aspects of power, prudence, and intelligence (all good things too, I might add). Sixth principle again stresses on the point of Interest in terms of Power by stating that just like an economist will measure and rationalize decisions in terms of economy, lawyer will think in terms of the law, similarly, a political realist will always think in terms of power, for example he will ask a question to himself before applying any policy that how will this policy affect the power of our state?. Some examples of history are also mentioned in the article where an approach in terms of Power had a better probability of benefit or favorable result.

Personally, I have a few criticisms on these principles of realism that I think they are not matching up to the todays scenario of the world. First of all the most basic factor of these principles i.e. the relation of human nature with political decisions and actions is a bit faulty because I think human nature is very relative and changeable, it varies from time to time. Author has portrayed human nature as a selfish kind which is true in a general perspective but we all know that when the word humanity is mentioned, it doesnt give the meaning of selfishness, rather it means selflessness, the main quality which differentiates humans from every other thing. Therefore we should admit the fact humans sometimes do refuse to be selfish and power hungry. Furthermore, regarding Balance of Power, the author has expressed that it is only the instability in Balance of Power that gives rise to violence and the race of superiority in terms of power among nations. Instability in Balance of Power creates the hunger among nations known as power-hungry race, but my criticism to this point is that before World War 1, there was no superpower state nor a division of alliances then why did that war started on the first place ? I also believe that in todays world of extreme alliances and conspiracies, no state actor can freely play a zero-sum game (taking action all for itself), there is always a positive-sum game which means that not the whole benefit is aimed by an entity, rather a target is always considered as a portion of that benefit being acquired and some part always goes to some other entity. When we talk about Power Hunger among countries, picture of statesmen and their interest may come to mind but one may also wonder that does the masses also support the phenomena and could they be in this race of Power Hunger ? Certainly the answer would be no, because general public is very aware of the violent consequences of power hunger which leads to war and devastation, it is very clear and evident that they want Peace. According to Political Realism, universal moral laws are not respected and do not affect any nations actions but this is proven wrong in todays world. Today, there are a few moral codes and laws which are being followed and respected among nations like the borders of any country in sea-water which cannot be protected by any material signature like barricades, military check posts etc. but a general agreement with the world regarding the acquisition of that area is to be considered. These marine boundaries are also followed with a discipline, for example any people who cross the boundaries of a country in sea-water are captured by the defending country and a proper action in manner of law is carried out against such people. These six principles are very powerful but controversial at the same time. I personally believe that this actually reflects the human nature and how things should be direct and without any hypocrisy and complications. The thought of Power Race may give an impression of spurring a World War between nations but I believe it will create a defensive and logical action in politics avoiding any deception and enmity between nations. To sum it up, these principles are the basic pillars of the future Politics but more work is needed on the concept of Political Realism.