Realism and Liberalism

अनुक्रमणिका

are two contrasting approaches to studying international relations, each offering different perspectives on how the world operates and how nations interact with one another.

Realism:
Realism is an approach that emphasizes the role of power, self-interest, and security in shaping international relations. Key tenets of realism include:

State-Centrism: Realism views the nation-state as the principal actor in international relations, with individual states acting in pursuit of their own interests and survival.
Anarchy: Realists believe that the international system lacks a higher authority, leading to a state of anarchy, where states must rely on their own power and capabilities to protect their interests.
Balance of Power: Realism contends that states seek to maintain a balance of power to prevent any single state from becoming too dominant, as this could threaten the security of other states.
Self-Help: States are assumed to be self-interested and rational actors, and they prioritize their own national interests over collective concerns.
Conflict and Security: Realism acknowledges that conflicts and competition for power are inherent in international relations, and military capabilities are crucial for ensuring security.

Liberalism:
Liberalism, also known as the liberal approach, emphasizes cooperation, institutions, and diplomacy in international relations. Key features of liberalism include:

Interdependence: Liberals emphasize the growing interconnectedness among states due to economic, technological, and social factors, which creates mutual interests and interdependence.
International Organizations: Liberals advocate for the importance of international organizations and institutions to promote cooperation and manage global challenges effectively.
Collective Security: Liberalism supports collective security arrangements, where states pledge to defend each other against aggression, fostering a sense of mutual security and stability.
Diplomacy and Negotiation: Liberals prioritize diplomatic and negotiated solutions to conflicts, believing that dialogue and cooperation can help resolve disputes peacefully.
Democracy and Peace: Liberals argue that democratic states tend to be more peaceful with one another, and the spread of democracy can contribute to a more peaceful international order.

Both realism and liberalism offer valuable insights into international relations, and scholars often use elements from both approaches to understand complex global dynamics. They provide contrasting lenses through which scholars and policymakers can analyze and interpret the behavior of states and international actors on the global stage.

Morgenthau’s six principles of realism

Hans J. Morgenthau is one of the foundational thinkers in the realist school of international relations. His brand of realism, sometimes referred to as “classical realism,” emphasizes the role of power and the persistent nature of human selfishness and aggression in international affairs. Morgenthau’s thinking was articulated in his influential book, “Politics Among Nations,” where he laid out six key principles of political realism:

Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. This means that while there can be variations and changes in political phenomena, the fundamental patterns of international relations can be understood by examining the unchanging nature of humanity, especially its desire for power.
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. For Morgenthau, national interest is often equated with the quest for power in its various forms. Every state, according to the realist view, seeks to maximize its power relative to others.
Realism assumes that interest defined as power is an objective category that is universally valid, but it does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. Power, for realists, is a means to an end, and its definition and forms might change according to the context.
Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. Morgenthau did not dismiss moral considerations in international relations. However, he believed that a strict adherence to moral principles would be detrimental to state interests. He argued for a balance between moral command and the requirements of successful political action.
Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. Morgenthau believed that states, in their pursuit of power, often cloak their actions with moral language. Realists caution against this, insisting that the international realm is governed by its own set of amoral principles, distinct from domestic moral standards.
The difference between political realism and other schools of thought is real, and it is profound. Morgenthau argues that realism provides a more accurate and objective framework for understanding international politics than other ideologies or perspectives, which might be too idealistic or moralistic.

While these principles form the core of Morgenthau’s realism, it’s important to remember that the realist school of thought is diverse, with various scholars emphasizing different aspects or offering slightly varied interpretations of these principles.

E. H. Carr – Twenty years’ crisis 1919-1939

E.H. Carr’s “The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939” is a seminal work in the study of international relations. Published in 1939, on the eve of World War II, it examined the interwar period, diagnosing the failure of the League of Nations and predicting the collapse of the international system that had been established after World War I. Here are some key points and themes from Carr’s work:

Utopianism vs. Realism: One of Carr’s major arguments is the contrast between the utopian ideals following World War I and the realist principles that dominated international politics. He criticized the idealists (or “utopians”) for their naive belief in the possibility of a perpetual peace through institutions like the League of Nations without addressing the underlying power dynamics and interests of major states.
Importance of Power: Carr emphasized the central role of power in international relations. He believed that the idealistic endeavors of the interwar period failed because they did not adequately account for the realities of power.
The Failure of the League of Nations: Carr explored the weaknesses of the League of Nations and its inability to prevent aggressive actions by states like Japan in Manchuria and Italy in Ethiopia. He attributed this failure to the League’s inability to enforce its resolutions and its neglect of power realities.
Economic Structures and International Relations: Carr delved into the economic disparities and the rise of economic nationalism during the interwar years. He saw the economic struggles and disparities as intricately linked to the political crises of the era.
Relativism: Carr also discussed the idea of relativism in ethics and politics, suggesting that moral standards are not absolute but are shaped by social and economic conditions.
The Role of the Scholar: Carr examined the responsibilities of scholars and intellectuals in society. He believed they had a duty to be objective and to understand the world as it is, rather than as they might wish it to be.
National Interests: Carr believed that nations act based on their self-interests. He was skeptical of the idea that international law or moral principles would restrain powerful nations from pursuing their interests.

“The Twenty Years’ Crisis” is often considered one of the foundational texts of the “realist” school of international relations. Carr’s insights into the failures of the international system in the interwar years provided a sobering perspective as the world entered another devastating conflict.

Was Carr a liberal or realist?

E.H. Carr is primarily associated with the realist school of thought in international relations, especially for his critique of liberal idealism as articulated in his book “The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939.” In this work, Carr critiqued the liberal utopianism of the post-World War I era, particularly its over-reliance on legalism, moralism, and international institutions like the League of Nations without adequately addressing the underlying power dynamics between states.

However, labeling Carr strictly as a realist might oversimplify his views. While he critiqued liberal idealism, he did not entirely dismiss the role of international law, ethics, or institutions. Instead, Carr advocated for a more nuanced understanding of international relations that recognizes the interplay between power and morality, and between realism and idealism.

Carr argued that both realism and idealism are essential components of political thought and practice. He believed that an overemphasis on either perspective to the neglect of the other would lead to flawed analyses and policies. In this sense, while Carr’s critiques were directed mainly at the shortcomings of liberal idealism, he didn’t reject its value outright.

To sum up, while Carr is best known for his realist critique of liberal idealism, his perspective is more complex and multifaceted than a strict realist label might suggest. He saw a dialectical relationship between realism and idealism and believed that a balanced understanding of both was crucial for effective international politics.

Major liberal scholars

Liberalism is one of the major theoretical traditions in the field of international relations. Over the years, a number of scholars have contributed to the development and refinement of liberal thought in this domain. Here are some prominent liberal theorists of international relations:

Immanuel Kant: Although not an “international relations theorist” in the modern sense, Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” laid out some foundational ideas for liberal international thought, including the notion that republican (democratic) states are inherently more peaceful and the idea of a federation of free states promoting lasting peace.
Woodrow Wilson: The 28th President of the United States, Wilson was a key proponent of the idea that the spread of democracy and the establishment of international institutions (like the League of Nations) could help promote peace and cooperation.
Norman Angell: In “The Great Illusion,” Angell argued that economic interdependence made war counterproductive and that countries would recognize war as futile in the modern, interconnected world.
Richard Cobden and John Bright: Both were associated with the Manchester School and argued for free trade, international economic interdependence, and peace.
Karl Popper: While more known as a philosopher of science, Popper’s ideas on open society have been influential in liberal thought in international relations.
Michael W. Doyle: Drawing inspiration from Kant, Doyle advanced the idea of the “Democratic Peace” theory, which posits that democracies are less likely to go to war with one another.
Robert Keohane: A prominent contemporary scholar, Keohane has written extensively on international institutions and cooperation. His work “After Hegemony” explores how international cooperation can continue even after the decline of a dominant power.
Joseph Nye: Known for introducing and elaborating on the concept of “soft power” — the idea that states can influence others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion. He, along with Keohane, also developed the theory of “complex interdependence” to describe the multiple channels of interaction in the modern global system.
Anne-Marie Slaughter: She has written on the role of networks in global governance and the idea that modern international relations are characterized by a “networked world order.”
Francis Fukuyama: Known for his “The End of History” thesis, Fukuyama argued in the post-Cold War era that liberal democracy might constitute the endpoint of mankind’s ideological evolution and the final form of human government.

These scholars, among others, have contributed to the rich tapestry of liberal thought in international relations, emphasizing the roles of democracy, economic interdependence, international law, and institutions in promoting peace and cooperation among states.

The Great Illusion

Norman Angell’s “The Great Illusion” (first published in 1909) is a foundational work in the liberal school of international relations thought. The primary argument of the book revolves around the idea that aggressive wars and conquests are economically and socially futile in the modern, interconnected world.

Here are the main points of Angell’s argument:

Economic Interdependence: Angell argued that modern economies are so interdependent that war would not result in any significant economic benefit for the aggressor nation. Conquest does not necessarily guarantee economic advantage due to the complexities of modern trade and finance.
Futility of Conquest for Wealth: Contrary to the old belief that nations could enrich themselves by conquering territories and seizing their wealth, in the modern age, the true sources of wealth are industry, trade, and international credit, all of which are harmed by conflict.
Credit and Finance: Angell emphasized the importance of international credit and the global financial system. He argued that the disruption of this system, as a consequence of war, would hurt all nations, including the aggressor.
Misunderstanding of National Interest: One of the main illusions, according to Angell, is the outdated belief in national military conquest as a viable means to national prosperity. Such beliefs lead nations to pursue policies that are actually against their own long-term interests.
Moral and Social Costs: Beyond economic considerations, Angell also touched upon the social and moral costs of modern warfare. He contended that the benefits achieved from aggressive wars would not justify the immense costs in terms of lives and resources.

Despite the arguments presented in “The Great Illusion,” the book was criticized for being overly optimistic, especially after the outbreak of World War I just a few years after its publication. However, its core ideas about economic interdependence and the changing nature of power and wealth in the modern world continue to influence discussions on war, peace, and international cooperation.

Woodrow Wilson’s ideas about international relations

Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States, played a pivotal role in shaping the post-World War I international order. His ideas about international relations, often termed “Wilsonianism,” were rooted in liberal ideals. Here are some key elements of Wilson’s perspective on international relations:

Collective Security: Wilson was a key advocate for the establishment of the League of Nations, an international institution aimed at ensuring collective security. He believed that through collective action, nations could prevent conflicts and maintain peace.
Self-determination: One of Wilson’s key principles was the idea that peoples and nations have the right to self-determination, meaning they should be allowed to decide their own political status and shape their own nationhood and governance.
Open Diplomacy: Wilson advocated for transparency in international relations, suggesting that treaties and agreements should be made openly. He believed secret treaties were a major cause of wars.
Disarmament: While not proposing the total elimination of arms, Wilson did believe that nations should reduce their weapons and military capabilities to levels necessary for domestic safety. This would, he believed, reduce the chances of conflict.
Free Trade and Economic Cooperation: Wilson felt that economic barriers and protectionist policies were sources of tension between nations. He advocated for the reduction of economic barriers and the establishment of equality in trade conditions.
Democratic Peace Theory: Although not articulated as it is today, Wilson’s beliefs laid the groundwork for the democratic peace theory, which posits that democracies are less likely to go to war with one another. Wilson believed that the world would be safer if democracies proliferated.
Moral Diplomacy: Wilson believed in a foreign policy approach that would promote democracy and human rights worldwide. He felt that the United States had a moral obligation to spread these values, even though this idea sometimes conflicted with the realities of geopolitical strategy.
Rejection of Old Diplomacy: Wilson was critical of the traditional power politics and balance-of-power diplomacy that had dominated European affairs. He believed that these were outdated methods that contributed to the outbreak of World War I.

Wilson’s Fourteen Points, presented in a 1918 speech, encapsulated many of these ideas, offering a framework for peace after World War I. While many of Wilson’s aspirations for the post-war world were not fully realized, especially with the U.S. Senate’s refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and join the League of Nations, his ideas have left a lasting legacy on the field of international relations and the nature of liberal internationalism.

The fourteen points

Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points were presented during a speech to Congress on January 8, 1918, and outlined his vision for a just and lasting peace after World War I. These points were intended to prevent future conflicts, address the causes of the First World War, and reshape international relations based on transparency and cooperation.

Here are the Fourteen Points:

Open Diplomacy: Public, open peace treaties with no secret international agreements.
Freedom of the Seas: Free navigation of all seas in peace and war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part during international action for the enforcement of international covenants.
Free Trade: The removal of economic barriers and the establishment of equality in trade conditions among nations consenting to peace and associating for its maintenance.
Disarmament: Adequate guarantees that national armaments would be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.
Colonial Adjustments: A free, open-minded, and impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, giving equal weight to the opinions of the colonized people and the colonial powers.
Russian Self-Determination: The evacuation of Russian territory and a welcoming of Russia into the society of free nations under institutions of her choosing. This point was in response to the Bolshevik Revolution, and Wilson sought to address Russia’s unique situation.
Preservation of Belgium: Belgium, the whole world would agree, must be evacuated and restored to sovereignty and independence.
Restoration of French Territory: All French territory should be freed, and the invaded portions restored. This specifically referred to the return of Alsace-Lorraine to France.
Italian Border Realignment: A readjustment of the frontiers of Italy to be aligned clearly with nationality lines, referencing the idea of national self-determination.
Division of Austria-Hungary: The peoples of Austria-Hungary should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.
Self-Determination for Balkan States: Romania, Serbia, Montenegro, and other Balkan states should be evacuated, restored to their territories, and provided free access to the sea.
Self-Determination for Turkey and the Ottoman Empire: Sovereignty for the Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire, but with other nationalities currently under Ottoman rule being guaranteed security and autonomous development.
Establishment of an Independent Poland: An independent Poland should be erected with free and secure access to the sea, and its territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.
League of Nations: A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to large and small states alike.

While many of Wilson’s Fourteen Points were not fully implemented in the Treaty of Versailles that formally ended World War I, they were influential in shaping post-war negotiations and the broader goals of peace and self-determination. Point 14, in particular, paved the way for the creation of the League of Nations, though the United States would not join due to the U.S. Senate’s refusal to ratify the Treaty of Versailles.

Implemented and not implemented points

The Fourteen Points presented by Woodrow Wilson represented an idealistic vision for the post-World War I world. However, during the Paris Peace Conference and the subsequent drafting of the Treaty of Versailles, many of these points were either modified significantly or not adopted at all due to the conflicting interests of the major powers, notably France and the United Kingdom.

Implemented or Partially Implemented Points:

Open Diplomacy: While the Treaty of Versailles was negotiated in public to some extent, secret diplomacy continued in international politics.
Freedom of the Seas: This was not strictly codified, but the general principle was mostly accepted during peacetime.
Colonial Adjustments: Mandate systems were introduced, especially in former German and Ottoman territories. This system, however, didn’t give as much weight to the opinions of the colonized as Wilson might have hoped.
Russian Self-Determination: The Bolshevik-led Soviet Russia was not involved in the Treaty of Versailles. Western powers did intervene briefly in the Russian Civil War, but eventually, Soviet Russia was left to its own devices.
Preservation of Belgium: Belgium was evacuated and restored.
Restoration of French Territory: Alsace-Lorraine was returned to France.
Italian Border Realignment: Italy did receive some territories, but not all that they claimed or hoped for.
Division of Austria-Hungary: The empire was dismantled, and several new nation-states were created, including Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
Self-Determination for Balkan States: Most of these states regained their territory and Serbia became the nucleus of the new Kingdom of Yugoslavia.
Self-Determination for Turkey and the Ottoman Empire: The Ottoman Empire was dissolved, and several territories gained independence or went under the mandate system. The Turkish heartland remained independent and later became modern-day Turkey after the Turkish War of Independence.
Establishment of an Independent Poland: Poland was re-established as an independent nation.
League of Nations: The League was established, but, ironically, the U.S. did not join despite Wilson’s fervent advocacy for it.

Points Not Implemented:

Disarmament: While Germany was significantly disarmed, the principle was not universally applied to all nations.
Colonial Adjustments: The idea of considering the interests of colonial populations was not genuinely respected. The mandate system, which was introduced, kept many territories under European control.
Russian Self-Determination: While mentioned in the points, the situation in Russia was complex due to the ongoing Russian Civil War.

Notably, the punitive reparations and territorial losses imposed on Germany in the Treaty of Versailles were not part of Wilson’s original Fourteen Points, and he was reluctant about some of these provisions. Many historians argue that the harsh conditions imposed on Germany contributed to the economic and political instability that eventually led to World War II.

What is realistic Wilsonianism?

Realistic Wilsonianism is a term used to describe a foreign policy approach that seeks to merge the idealistic principles associated with Woodrow Wilson—such as the promotion of democracy and international cooperation—with the pragmatic and power-based considerations of political realism.

Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, is often associated with the liberal school of international relations due to his advocacy for democracy, self-determination, and the establishment of the League of Nations after World War I. Wilsonianism, as a foreign policy approach, promotes these ideals, seeking a world order based on rule of law, democracy, and collective security.

However, Wilson’s ideals, while noble, often clashed with the realities of geopolitics. Realism, as a school of thought in international relations, emphasizes the importance of power politics, national interests, and the inherent anarchy in the international system.

Realistic Wilsonianism, then, tries to bridge the gap between these two perspectives. It recognizes the importance of promoting democratic values and international cooperation but does so with a keen understanding of the realities of power dynamics and the limitations of international institutions. Practitioners of realistic Wilsonianism would advocate for:

Promoting Democracy Strategically: Rather than pushing for democracy everywhere, there would be a recognition that not all environments are ripe for democratic governance. Efforts would be concentrated where they’re most likely to succeed and have strategic value.
Engaging in Multilateralism with Caution: While international institutions and cooperation are valuable, realistic Wilsonianism acknowledges that these entities have limitations. The national interest remains paramount.
Balancing Ideals with Power Politics: This approach understands that while promoting democracy and human rights is crucial, there will be times when strategic interests, such as maintaining stability or forging alliances, might take precedence.
Being Prepared for the Use of Force: While diplomacy and multilateral engagement are preferred, there’s a recognition that the use of military force might sometimes be necessary, especially when core national interests are at stake or when there’s a dire humanitarian need.

In essence, realistic Wilsonianism aims to strike a balance between the aspirational goals of a liberal international order and the pragmatic necessities of a world defined by power politics. It reflects an attempt to navigate the complexities of international relations by merging ideals with realpolitik.

Realism and Liberalism – approaches to study international relations