realism vs Liberalism

• Liberals are much more optimistic about human nature and humans are much more co-operative. - states come together to achieve their goals as it's beneficial for our common humanity.
• Republican liberalism

  As more states embrace democratic liberalism and freely trade with each other, zones of peace will be enlarged at the expense of zones of conflict
• This theory is closely linked to THOMAS FRIEDMAN’S “DELL THEORY” of global peace and cooperation and has been called the DEMOCRATIC PEACE THESIS.    Indeed, as early as the 1860’s the great free trade liberal, RICHARD COBDEN, had argued that free trade liberalism would extend “the bonds of eternal peace”, while as FREDERICK BASTIAT agreed, “if goods do not cross borders armies will”.  
• Complex interdependence

  • Reduces the risk of war
• REALISTS POSSESS A PROFOUNDLY PRACTICAL / NON-IDEALISTC VIEW OF WHAT MOTIVATES STATES. Realists argue that human beings and, consequently, states have a marked tendency towards strife and violence and so states must build up their defences in order to protect their people, since institutions of global governance cannot be relied upon to provide the necessary protection to provide security.  
• In CLASSICAL REALISM conflict happens because people suck. In NEO / STRUCTURAL realism, however conflicts happens because the anarchical structure of the international system sucks
• This very negative interpretation of global politics has roots in TRADITIONAL CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY which has focused on the importance of protecting people from themselves by building structures of authority which will provide stability and security and protect us from violent insurrection.     
• THOMAS HOBBES, writing “LEVIATHAN” in 1651 is a KEY THINKER in UNIT ONE CONSERVATISM and argued that a strong state is the most certain way of guarding against mankind’s tendency towards violence.  Like Hobbes, realists thus focus in practical ways of protecting the nation state, rather than attempting to achieve peace through, what they regard as being, hopelessly idealistic, liberal organs of global governance. 
• Realism thus provides a pessimistic interpretation of global relations which is reflected in the conservative thinkers we have studied in unit one who are acutely aware of the threat to society if order breaks down. Just as conservatives want to protect the nation state from threats from within, so realists focus on the importance of protecting the nation state from external threats. 
• Morality does not come into this. MICHAEL OAKESHOTT, a twentieth century core conservative thinker, like Hobbes, thus prized security over idealism which connects him to the realist emphasis on the maintenance of global order.     
• However, realists would argue that their pessimism actually accords with the facts.  According to MACHIAVELLI in “THE PRINCE” [1513] human beings are “insatiable, arrogant, crafty and shifting, and above all malignant, iniquitous, violent and savage” and since states comprise the ruthless ambition of human beings other states can only hold them in check by being equally strong, or preferably superior
• Realists thus argue that they follow human nature as it is and so realism bases itself on the premise that SOVEREIGN STATES SEEK POWER IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE BEST DEAL POSSIBLE FOR THEMSELVES IN A DANGEROUSLY ANARCHIC WORLD IN WHICH CONFLICT IS INEVITABLE.  
• STATES DO NOT THEREFORE ACT OUT OF ALTRUISM or MORALITY, but instead approach international relations from the premise that they require the best possible outcome for themselves and, in order to achieve this they need as MUCH POWER AS POSSIBLE.  States must, therefore, be POWER MAXIMISERS since this alone provides their people with security.  
• Hans Morgenthau 1904-1980

   

  “The social world is but a projection of human nature onto the collective plane”. 

   
• HUMAN NATURE, STATE EGOISM and GLOBAL ANARCHY thus create a TOXIC RECIPE for a highly dangerous world so to survive this “SECURITY DILEMMA” states must build up their power militarily, economically and diplomatically.  
•  

  Thus realists argue that the best way of achieving peace is for states to protect themselves as well as they can through military build-up and alliance building which can, if sensitively handled, achieve a BALANCE OF POWERnecessary for peace.  

  THUCYDIDES has been referred to as the first scholar of realism; noting, for example, in the MELIAM DIALOGUEthat, in international relations, “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”.  
• The STATE, motivated by RATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS OF SELF INTEREST, thus remains the KEY PLAYER in global politics rather than multilateral organisations, based on a shared GLOBAL VISION, such as the United Nations, or on a mistaken assumption that adherence to the principles of INTERNATIONAL LAW can provide states with the protection they crave.    

  In short, the key elements of REALISM can be summarised as the

  ·       STATE

  ·       SURVIVAL

  ·       SELF HELP
• Realism

  Focuses on the nation state as the principal actor in international relations, and its central proposition is that since the purpose of statecraft is national survival in a hostile environment, the acquisition of power is the proper, rational and inevitable goal of foreign policy
• Power

  Pursued because it enables a state to influence or change the behaviour of others in a desired direction, or alternatively to resist such influences on one's own behaviour
• States answer to no higher authority and so must look to themselves to protect their interests and to ensure survival</b>
• National interest

  Defined in terms of power, to the virtual exclusion of other factors such as the promotion of ideological values or of moral principles
• The acquisition of sufficient military power to achieve your objectives is thus fundamental to Realism and since, Realists argue, all states seek to maximize power, the favoured technique for its management is a balance of power.  Stability can only be achieved through a skilful manipulation of flexible alliance systems in order to create equilibrium.  Thus, Realists emphasize the persistence of conflict and competition in international affairs and argue that co-operation is only of value so long as it serves the national interest. The Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, 1998