Lecture 3: Realism (R.

)
 R. is one of the most important paradigm that affected IR realm & the development of IR
along with L. Politicians believe that R. is the most dominant theory in the history of IR.
 Since the dawn or the creation of the state and way before the Greek time, there was
literature on R.
 R. dominated the history of IR in the sense of state relations and the developing IR realm
as an academic domain.
 It contributed to the development of IR in the sense that many theories and many strands
of thoughts were developed as part of R. paradigm which is composed of (Classical, and
New Realism + Rational choice theory)
 R. existed in both the natural science + social science. E.g. Darwin (Evolution) + Niccolò
Machiavelli + Thomas Hobbes + Hans Joachim Morgenthau are some fathers of R.
whether in the natural or social sciences.
 We will first discuss: Introduction of the R. Paradigm including (definition + historical
background + main principles + examples). Second: we will talk about anarchy (which is
one of the main assumptions of realism.)
 The roots of R. can be found in the worlds of Thucydides, Kartailia, ancient India,
ancient Greek, (Machiavelli & Thomas Hobbes in the 16th C.), and most recently with
Hegel & Weber. Generally, its roots can be traced to the times before the Greek.
 It was 1st developed systematically by the 20th c. political thinkers such as Morgenthau &
Worths(Waltz)
 Realists focus on the competition between states on power and security.
 Realists perceive the state as a coherent unit. The state is central in R. unlike focusing on
the individual as is the case in L. For Realists, the state acts as a unit so they call it as a
unitary actor. This reflects the political systems of the Romans.
 Realists focused on the centralization of power and security.
 We have two different political systems 1) the pluralist system = decentralization of
power that goes back to the Greek time where it was liberal state & 2) Centralization of
power (in the Roman time)
 They also considered wars as the father of all things.
 R. believes in the centrality of power and such claim erupted during the cold war, when
the US (which is a liberal State where its power was decentralized=pluralist nature), the
power of the Soviet Union on the other hand was centralized. According to R, if you want
to confront the Soviet Union, you have to have the same power centrality to confront it.
During the cold war, Classical R. consolidated the notion that power should be
centralized (it shouldn’t be decentralized in the sense of the liberal nature).
 The Roman time was established on R. Therefore, During the Roman times, the decision
making process was in the hands of the house of councilors, emperors, and senators.
They were ruling the country and the foreign policy. The decision making process was
centralized.
 Machiavelli was one of the fathers who advocated R. He praised power so much in his
book, ‘the prince’. Power is the glue that keeps people together & connected. At the time
 of Machiavelli, Italy was a city state and he was obsessed with the idea of unifying Italy.
Therefore, he believed that only power would unify Italy. That is why he said ends
justify means. So no matter what power, regime, or means you would use, what matters is
your end.
 R. seeks to explain, describe, & understand the world of International Politics as it really
is rather than what we would like it to be. R. is about realizing facts on the ground rather
than wishful thinking.
 R. is based on the idea that all states are made up of individuals who may end up being
self-interested and power seekers. Therefore, each state acts in unitary form pursuing its
own national interest. So there is no centralized authority that stands above the state.
Classical R. believes in the centrality of the state as the key actor in IR & the state is the
essence of the International system.
 Realism and its principles can be useful in understanding current events in I. system. E.g.
Iran holds the potential to alter the balance of power in the I. system if it uses its nuclear
weapons. From a R. POV, Iran is pursuing its own national self-interest.
 R. emphasizes the role of nation states. It makes an assumption that all nation states are
motivated by their national self-interest where they are general and easily defined! All
nation states seek to preserve the political autonomy + territorial integrity + security
(survivability of the state) is defined as an interest of the state + power (is used to achieve
security which is a national interest).
 One of the 6 principles by Morgenthau of R. is that interest defined in terms of power
(how much power determines your ability to achieve your interest.
 When people secure their own interests, they start seeking to pursue new lands and
resources. E.g. The US seek to find more sources in Iraq. Others wish to expand their
political and economic systems to other states. (this is related to the balance of power,
why do states struggle for power?)
 Increasing power may means hegemony…
 The 6 principles of R. by Morgenthau in his book ‘politics among nations: the struggle
for power and peace’ 1948 : 1) politics are governed by objective laws that have their
roots in the human nature. Liberals believe in the goodness of human nature and that
war is artificial and peace is the state of affairs. For Realists, both goodness and
badness are part of the human nature + they see war & peace as two faces of the same
coin & that’s why politics are governed by natural laws of the human beings in the sense
of their goodness & badness.
2) International politics is all about countries trying to pursue their interest to get as
much power as possible. R. would claim that there is a great deal of egoism among
human beings, and that both themes of egoism & the survivability of the state will
motivate human beings to get more power to achieve their interests. This egoism can
be regulated by human prudence in terms of self-interests. People are self-centric and
will seek their self-interest, so to achieve your self-interest, you have to be prudent. R.
focused on prudence, while L. focused on ethics and values.(‫)الحصافة‬
3) The changeable & dynamic nature of power: the definition of power can change
over time because it can be in anyway where people control others in the sense of that
 power is not fixed over time and how it can be understood within its context. 200-300
years back in terms of hard power, it will be understood how many horses and soldiers
you have. In terms of hard power in the 40s & 50s, power would be understood in terms
of how many military divisions and powers you have. In terms of power and natural
resources, a hundred years back, coal used to be the key source of energy. Nowadays, oil
is the key sources of energy. So, there is no fixed understanding of power throughout
history. Maybe in 50 years, a new source of power may be invented and oil would not be
relevant.
4) Universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of state in the abstract (R.
is not an ethical theory & there is no such universal ethic discourse the way L. is).
However, if ethics were to be employed and applied, that will be only if they serve the
interest of the state. This emphasizes and reflects Machiavelli’s notion that ends justify
means. E.g. the current Syrian conflict, how parties are Machiavellian. Turkey has close
coordination with Russia. At the same time, it has a close relation with the Syrian
Opposition & Saudis. All of them are dealing with the Syrian situation from a
Machiavellian POV, rather than an ethical POV. So, the conflict in Syria is a conflict of
great areas. Conflict of frenemies.
5) The moral laws that govern the universe are distinct from morals of anyone’s nations.
This is also related to the ethics.
6) The difference between political realism and other schools is real and profound. This
means how distinctive R. is and how is it a well-established autonomous theory. R. has
been at loggerhead mainly with L. That is why we call them contended theories where
each theory will claim that it offers the best narrative of IR is about.
 Anarchy in light of R. (it is a central theme of R.): is a political theory that aims to create
an anarchy and a society where its individuals freely cooperate with each other as equals.
Anarchy means the absence of an overarching regulatory force at the I. level. There is no
world government or regulatory force (so the absence of world Gov.) We have domestic
order and I. order. 1) the domestic order within the state, you have a regulatory force
which is the state that regulates the interaction, but 2) at the I. level when we speak of
anarchy, it simply means that there is no I. government that will regulate I. relations. So
the I. system is of an anarchic nature. Anarchy does not mean chaos. It means there is a
level of organization. So, there is no mega power or mega state to regulate IR.
 What is a state? One of the preconditions for the state is the central authority. A
sovereign state practices its central authority its power over its territories & subjects. In
the I. system, there is no such central authority. Anarchy will impact the behavior of the
state.
 Structural R. of Kenneth Waltz (new R.) claims anarchy to be the principle force shaping
the motives and actions of the state.
 The absence of a super ordinate authority internationally sets the conditions of interacting
agents because it creates a self-help system.
 In an anarchical system, the basic motives of state behavior is survival. In order to
survive, states need to accumulate power in terms of actual power and potential power.
E.g. imagine yourself parachuted into Africa’s remote areas or jungles (anarchic
 situation), so the 1st thing you will think of is your survivability. This is the way states
will behave in an anarchic system. When we speak of self-interest, self-centric, egoism,
the 1st thing you will think of is your survivability.
 In terms of the 2 kinds of power: 1) the actual power: military strength and 2) potential
power that supports other aspects of military strength like the human power and
economic power. States capabilities of pursuing their powers are very great and they
create a ranking of states: creating some states with huge military strength (super power),
middle power states, and weak states. This depends on elements of states national power.
What determines the power of the state is the national power or elements of national
power which constitute (state power) like hard power, soft power, and smart power.
 The occupation of power (military power) changes from time to time since states
compete each other. E.g. great power formation in the world system has been shifted
many times like the Austrian and Hungarian collapse after WW1 and at the WW2 the US
and Soviet Union emerged as the primary victors.
 In the sense of the changeable nature of power, R. would easily claim that human history
is repetitive (or of a repetitive nature) not progressive as what L. claimed. It is repetitive
in the sense that we have same play but different actors. So, human history is the same
but with different actors, e.g. ancient Romans, ancient Greeks, ancient Egyptians...etc.
 In terms of economic power, Japan, China, and India witnessed a fuss of economic
growth and placed them as great powers. We call them the emerging economies
nowadays. If we speak of the current state of affairs, we will speak of the West, and the
newly emerging economies. Currently we are witnessing a sort of power transition in the
sense that there are a number of contending powers & struggling for power.
 There are 1) the newly emerging economies and 2) the well-established powers which are
mainly the West (the US & its allies). There is always a competition between these two
powers.
 Neo R. or Structural R. assumes that the structure of I. political system will influence the
foreign policy of the state without any regard to domestic orders (in the inside-outside
impact). The Russian impact plays a major role here.
 Neo R. seeks to explain how the most powerful states behaves and how they interact with
each other in the I. arena.
 Kenneth Waltz, the father of Neo R. adopted this paradigm in 1979 when he published
his book ‘Theory of International Politics’.
 Neorealists express that the theory primarily focuses on the effect of the structure of I.
system when it seeks to explain outcomes in the I. politics.
 In Waltz’s conception of structure, 2 things are very important when it comes to the I.
system. 1) anarchy & 2) distribution of powers.
 Firstly, the international system’s ordering principle is anarchy. This simply means that there is no such
thing as a world government; there is no higher authority above the main units that exist in the system
– the states. This results in an international system that is essentially a self-help system consisting of
states that are autonomous, functionally undifferentiated actors each of which must always be
prepared to fend for itself.
 The second defining principle of the structure of international politics is the distribution of capabilities
across the units inhabiting the international system. Capabilities, or power, vary significantly between
states; states, though functionally undifferentiated, are differentiated according to how much power
they possess. Variations in power yield variations in the types and magnitude of structural constraints
that states face, thereby effectuating variation in how states behave (or should behave).
 What do we mean by structural impact? When we studied L., we studied the impact of
state behavior and world peace on security in terms of (L. claims that the more stable
domestic orders we would have, the more peace at the I. level we would have.)
Therefore, L. claimed inside- outside impact. What determines world peace is those
domestic orders. Neorealism claimed the opposite, in the sense that what determines the
behavior of the states is the type or structure of the I. system we would have regardless of
the nature of their domestic orders. E.g. during the cold war, the influence of the foreign
policies of both the US & former Soviet Union were identical because of the impact of I.
system at that time which was anarchic (containment, deterrence, …) so they practiced
the same foreign policies though they have different types of political regimes. This is
called structural impact in ‘Structural R. = Neorealism’ which is one of the new notions
that was developed by Waltz. To understand Jordan’s foreign policy, we must consider
both the structural impact & small state rationale (where the most determinant factor in
small state’s foreign policy is its geopolitics). One of the key elements that influenced
Jordan’s foreign policy is its complex geopolitical location. Besides another key element
which is the small state rationale. Supposedly, a state should be rationale (which means
cost-benefit calculations). Now a small state with limited resources like Jordan must be
rationale and prudent to maintain your survivability. This is structural impact.
 For Liberals if a state has a democratic order, its behavior will be peaceful. R. says we
must have Structural Impact no matter what political system you have at a domestic level.
 The state in I. system is still a key actor. In other theories, neither the state nor the
individual is important, what matters is the social and political groups.
 The units of the system closely resemble each other in regard to the functions they
perform, the tasks they face, and the primary powers they seek to survive. In the 50s &
60s while the US was a Liberal state, the Soviet Union was authoritarian (so they have
different foreign policies), but yet they followed the same strategies, behaviors, and
foreign policies because of the structure of the I. system.
 Under anarchy, each state operates within its own without having shelter to any high
authority. Not any state can play an important role in the I. system. R. divided the world
(I. system) into two parts core states and states on the periphery. Core states are those that
determine the nature of the I. system. Core states and those on the periphery are
connected in a client-patron relationship. For R., what matters is what core states do.
Small states cannot disturb the I. system even if they launch wars, but core states disturb
the I. system. E.g. the relationship between Syria (client) & Russia (patron). During the
cold was it was so much evident. Core states will tolerate the scarification of the
sovereignty of the smaller states for the sake of peace. Ends justifies means.
 The Jordan – Israeli gas deal came on the heels of that Qatar, Egypt, and Algeria
refrained from supplying or providing Jordan with gas after Iraq collapsed. Jordan has
 been away from wars due to its foreign policies, structure, and skillfully managing its
geopolitics. Despite peace, Jordan has many economic and political mistakes and
shortcomings. But we have priorities. Saudi and other gulf countries can resolve Jordan’s
energy problem the way Iraq did in the 80s. There are international economic problems.
So you have to be rational in order to survive such difficulties. Reductionism (the
practice of analyzing and describing a complex phenomenon in terms of its simple or
fundamental constituents, especially when this is said to provide a sufficient explanation.)
is a problem. Peace with Israel dictated this geopolitical rationale and behavior. Energy
has been a pressing issue in Jordan throughout history, that’s why it has relations with
Saudi, then with Iraq, then with Egypt. The US arranged this deal and the company
working in the field is an American Company and we cannot escape a lot of the pressure.
Gaza receives its energy and electricity from Israel. Timing is very important for
decision-making. Our government does not have the so-called public affairs.
 Public affairs: work combines government relations, media communications, issue
management, corporate and social responsibility, information dissemination and strategic
communications advice. Practitioners aim to influence public policy, build and maintain a
strong reputation and find common ground with stakeholders.
 The quality of citizen is one key factor of the national power to any state.
 In terms of the structure of the I. politics. Waltz sees a power among the global
community and across states but he focuses on the distribution of power among the
global community instead of focusing on aggressive behavior across states and how states
may be capable of defending themselves or appending others. Neorealists are looking at
systematic nature of power distribution. How to do with power distribution across the
global community. For R, you have to look at the concept of polarity which is divided
into unipolarity, bipolarity, tripolarity, and multipolarity.
 Realists spot the light on reason behind conflicts and wars and that is human nature.
Neorealists say that the struggle and war are not the result of human nature but there is a
sort of a political system that results in conflicts. They must build their organizations and
institutions to defend themselves and that lead to conflicts and wars.
 John Mearsheimer, a scholar who adopted this paradigm, believes that the structure of the
I. system explains how states behave not the domestic politics. This supports the
emphasis over structural impact on state behavior in the sense that the type of I. system
determine state behavior. States in an anarchic system will do anything they can do in
order to survive.
 When it comes to economy, Waltz in his book ‘Man, The State, and War’, criticized
classical realism for not focusing on I. economies and their impact. Classical R. neglected
the impact of commerce, trade, and economy in IR. They emphasizes the importance of
what is called the I. political economy within IR. This is in reflection to complex
interdependence mentioned in Neo L. that focuses on I. economy, while classical R.
focuses on I. political economy & economics in IR.
 Criticism of Neo R: Some liberal thinkers like John Gerard blame Neo R. for ignoring
historical and social dimensions.
 Some claims and new notions of Neo R that make it different from classical R: it focuses on
3 aspects 1) the structural impact, 2) the type of the international order- Classical R.
advocated unipolar system where there should be balance holder (power) while Neo R.
advocated bipolar system, and 3) the importance of political economy.

Anarchy Fear Security Struggle for Power (Power Struggle)

International system is anarchy. Whenever there is anarchy, there is fear (fear over own self
because humans are egoistic and self-centric & what matters is self-survivability! So fear
over one’s own survivability). There is also fear over one’s security. That will motivate me to
seek power. If we have different actors who have fear over their own security, they will
struggle for power. If such struggle remains unchecked it will lead to war. That is why R.
advocated balance of power to check unregulated power struggle. Balance of power is a
method to achieve peace. If power struggle remains unchecked it will lead to conflict and war
mainly between core states. If it is controlled, it will lead to peace.
In the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s there were arms-control talks to regulate this struggle power that led
to peace.
 R. understand the IR as nothing but power politics and .
 How can we explain the emergence of UN after WW2? Because of Liberal thought and it
was organized. But after WW1, there was informal body also after Westphalia.
 What determines if the end is peaceful or not? It is based on the repetitive nature, so we can
have peace & war because they are two faces of the same coin. There is nothing to guarantee
peace for R. But we do our best to minimize possibility or likability of war. That is why they
call it pessimistic theory – theory of war. R. say that war has a root in Human culture while
L. see war as artificial and created by warlords and lack participation from the people. But
our task here in R. is that power struggle must be checked and regulated and to maintain
peace between big powers that is why they advocated balance of power. While L. advocated
collective security.
 Can we say that core states use and exploit small states for their ends? Yes, core states will
tolerate scarification of small states for world peace.
 Can we say that Neo R. is related to Marxism because it focuses on economies? No, Marxism
is related to social economic aspects. Neo R. recognized the growing role of current
economic institutions (IMF – World Bank) that’s why we have I. political economy.
Classical R. focused on military.
 Power has centrality, power of words, power of means….. and it plays a major role in the
minds or Realists.
 It will be more clear when we talk about balance of power!