REALISM

Originating from Ancient Greece, realism is the theory, which has been
one of the leading and most prominent ways of thinking in terms of
international relations in modern times. Thucydides, a Greek Historian,
was first to deduce that aspirations for power and domination were
prominent aspects of mankind (Dunne & Shmidt 2001: 267). Its
dominance in international relations however, really began at the Treaty
of Westphalia, which effectively set out the very principles for nation
states to protect their own interests. These basic principles of Realism
together have forged the stem to all other common assumptions in the
Realist school of thought.
Instead of referring to itself as an ideology, realists see it as more of a
straightforward rational theory, a way of thinking reasonably in a
situation, rather than idealistically. Indeed, it is argued that Realism has
dominated International Relations to such a degree, that people forget it is
just a perspective, as it is commonly recognized as a commonsense view
of world politics (Steans 2005: 50). Dunne and Schmidt point out that
the outbreak of the Second World War confirmed inadequacies of interwar idealist approaches (2001: 162), and that the realities of an incessant
struggle for power among states (Steans 2005: 51) were perceptible. After
the war, over of phenomena noted and over 90% of hypothesis tested,
was realist in inspiration (Doyle 1997: 15). This is evidence to prove that
Realism has been manifestly influential in international relations. As to
why, the changing balance of power and the way in which states would
now perceive foreign policy, following the war, ushered a new dominant
theory behind world politics, where Policy makers since have looked at
the world through a realist lens (Dunne & Schmidt 2001: 162).
In Realism, States are the primary actors in the international system,
being rational unitary actors who are functionally identical (Slaughter
1995: 503). No actor apart from the state and its executive have
independence or influence in their own boundaries, as they have ultimate
legal authority. As McGrew cited, international organizations are merely
creatures of a state (McGrew & Lewis: 1992). The EU is a prime
example of states acting in a Realist fashion, showing how Realism has
been an influence in such a prominent part of International Relations.
Arguably, states more often than not, will only pool sovereignty if it is in
their own interests to do so. Furthermore, the fundamental governing
principle of European Union law, subsidiarity, is realist in nature.
According to this principle, the EU may only act (i.e. make laws) where
member states agree that action at local level is less effective than at
community level. Therefore, states via subsidiarity must give the go
ahead first, to allow sovereignty to be pooled at the community level.
Thus, the notion of states being the primary actors in the EU is preserved.

In essence, this is why Realists see the world as anarchic, as the

interests and legitimacy of sovereign states would override national law
explaining why a world government would not work. Unsuccessful
attempts were made throughout the first half of the 20th century to
establish global institutions to resolve international disputes peacefully,
most notably the League of Nations. Instead of peace however, World
War II broke out and following this, Realism was the accepted wisdom of
International Relations, as conflict appeared to reiterate (Steans 2005;
51), despite many efforts to appease and keep peace between nations. It
has lead many to believe that Idealism is now just a synonym for
gullibility and navet for well intended optimists (Crawford 2000: 64)
and thus, had an effect on how people perceived the UN; an ambitious
attempt to outlaw aggression and to provide collective security against it
(Hoffman 1987: 75). This has indeed been the case for the UN since its
formation in 1945, especially seen in Africa, as Hoffman goes on to point
out that international agencies like the UN can only perform modest
services; they cant produce or enforce peace (1987: 75). This not only
allows, but also galvanizes the most horrific aspects of human nature to
take place. The Holocaust and other genocides alike in the 1990s in
Srebrenica and Rwanda are evidence for this. And so, where a world
government doesnt exist the law of the jungle, still prevails (Donnelly
2000: 10).
With an anarchic world that these states live in, fighting for their
survival and security is paramount. The Realist theory assumes that states
must be reliant on their own resources to achieve this and when necessary
use force to uphold them. Therefore, realism places great stress on the
significance of military power in shaping global politics, as without a
military, states cant defend their own interests (McGrew & Lewis 1992:
19). Without a world government then, states can run havoc in
international relations, using force to fulfill national goals and interests.
This was greatly seen for example in Spanish and British Imperialism
centuries ago and even today through the hegemony of the USA,
welcoming power politics into international relations. The notion of
states interests defined and achieved in terms of power within Realism
was tremendously appealing for USA in 1945; a country who emerged
from the biggest war the world had seen with more power than any other
nation, both economically and militarily (Hoffman 1987: 77). Hoffman
also states that an indefinite extension of the scope of US interests
(1987: 316) occurred, for example McGrew stresses it was clear that US
policy in Central America, particularly post-war has been interventionist
(1992: 63), where such actions were seen in the struggle for Cuba in the
Cold War with the Soviets. Even today, the emergence of neo-realism
has given particular weight to hegemonic powers in establishing and

maintaining order in the global system (McGrew & Lewis 1992: 19).
Such developments have been seen through Americas use of power
politics as they illegitimately intervened in Iraq without substantial UN
resolutions. However, it is not only hegemony and interests of the USA
that has been a prominent factor of their foreign policy, but also their
security and defense. In 1983 alone, their defense budget was a massive
$258 billion, a considerable amount more used on security than any other
nation state (Hoffman 1987: 321). In the Cold War, both superpowers
attempted to police their own spheres of influence, controlling any of
their subordinates actions, which may have altered the balance of power
against them (McGrew & Lewis 1992: 19). The Cold War therefore set
aside perfect conditions for Realism to take place, allowing two states to
compete and play against each other in a bi-polar world, explaining
further as to why Realism has been so dominant in International
Relations.
A common phrase used to interpret Realism is that nation states have
permanent interests, but not permanent allies. Realism assumes that there
is a general distrust of long cooperation and alliances. Machiavelli an
Italian political thinker of the 16th century supports this, as he advised
state leaders how to maximize their power, even if it meant breaking
promises in order to do so (Steans 2005: 52). A Machiavellian then, as
its known, is someone who acts in a cunning manner, and it is not
unknown in modern times as, Neville Chamberlain once announced
peace for our time, as promised by Hitler. However, we all know a year
later Hitler invaded Poland and Europe was plunged into World War II. If
nation states act like this then cooperation between one another are
clearly not intended or even present. Even after the war, the Big 3 had
come to an agreement talk at Yalta, however by 1948 the Soviets had
gone against their word and started to consolidate their power and
influence in the Eastern Block. This part of the Realist theory has
reiterated throughout time and has indeed, been the cause of many wars.
And so, lies will be told in order to pursue interests making Realism a
very attractive theory for policy making in International Relations,
explaining why it has been so influential.
In Realism, States interact with one another within a system like billiard
balls: hard, opaque, unitary actors colliding with one another (Wolfers
1962: 70). The last ball standing however is the state with the most
power, as they have ensured the security and interests of their state. And
so, the hierarchy of the international system is seen as the hierarchy of
military might (Hoffman 1987: 73). The assumptions of Realism
themselves are why it is so influential in International Relations. Human
nature is inherently egoistic in passion (Donnely 2000: 10). It is the
mentality perfectly suited, for States to exploit the Realist approach in

International Relations. However, where two egos clash, a dark world of

international politics, like all politics [becomes] a struggle for power