IR 210 1st Edition Lecture 22 Current LectureThe global intelligence of our national leaders: If we go into Libya, where does it stop? Do we go into Africa next? Tom Marino (R-Penn)Member of the foreign affairs committee (2011) “Out of civil states, there is always war of everyone against everyone.” T. Hobbes War is endemic in the system Fourth foundational voice: Thomas Hobbes—1588-1679- Royal tutor—clearly influenced by chaos of the English civil war - The Leviathan (1651): Published in exile - Hobbes not always as pessimistic—turned by the overthrow of the monarch—not so much by his translation for Thucydides -There’s none that pleased me like Thucydides. -Machiavelli—human nature is critical variable -Thucydides—minimalist, all three levels are critical variables, focused on system level, especially security dilemma -Hobbes says democracy’s a foolish thing; than a republic wiser in one King-Sovereigns could not be judged in his actions by the same moral standard as the private individual. Why?o Duality of morality -Acting in an amoral environment—man in nature—struggle for power -Man’s natural right is not determined by sound reason but by his desire and his power; all men seek supremacy -Seven contributions to Realist Traditionso Man in a state of nature is in constant state of conflict and warAsked why conflict (early advocate of Why did it happen) Levels of analysis Competition-pursuit of wealth in a context of materials scarcity Quarrel for glory, honor, dignity and reputation Lack of trust-fear (Individual level, or national level of fear)o How should a leader control and manage conflict? Govern? A central power or strong state that provides law ad order, security of life,liberty, and material possessions Sounds like defining activities During the time that men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in a condition called war where everyman is enemy to everymanInternational system—no common power Conflict is the likely outcome of material competition in the absence of an overpowering bulwark against aggression. Life is based on fear and the danger of violent death People use violence for trifles, as a word, a smile, a different opinion, and many other signs of undervalue Someone will use violence if there is nothing to fear other than the power of the victim. o Why are we not always at war? What prevents leaders from using war as a common behavior?Three reasons-Prudence—cost of war-Altruism—pity on victims-Moral convictions Rejects the moral argument: -Human kind seeks only power until deathRejects altruism: works when stakes are low but not when highMost likely deterrent is prudence or the fear of defeat ad high costso What about alliances? DO they provide a way to prevent future wars and encourage cooperation?Alliances based on the adaption of independent wills easily fall apart when it comes to implementationCovenants without swords are but mere words. o What is the best defense and deterrence against war? Foresight. Prepare for war and bolster one’s capacity to defend.  Sets up security dilemmao Can we be saved by global regimes that encourage cooperation? Cooperation is not part of human nature  Countries should seek peach and be fair and forgiving but because self-interest rules and survival is a higher value, no sate should take risks to achieve these duties. o Strong states keep order at home but peace globally secured by: Forts, garrisons, and guns on the frontiers of their kingdom.  Kings whose power is greatest, turn their endeavors to assuring it at home by laws or abroad by wars Fundamental and Modern Realism: ruled from 1648- 1920Assumptions form earlier thinkers ad events- No common power – Hobbes, Thucydides- Strong state essential – Machiavelli, Hobbes- Constant struggle for power- War is a constant possibly- Duality of morality - Cooperation limited utility—stag hunt - Self help/ force an indispensible tool of statecrafNo state is prepared to give up the possibility of gaining individual advantage over the rest. Sovereignty and independence get in the way of rational world peace. JJ Rousseau WWI—end of a very fragile balance of power system and a frayed colonial systemWWI: a time for rethinking world orderGrotian or Wilsonian moment?At Grotian moments—critical voices emerge to shape debates about global policyEnd of WWI: Carr, Jane Addams, Woodrow Wilson, Norman Angell, Max WeberEnd of WWII: Niebuhr, Morgenthau, Kennan, Aron, Mitrany, Kissinger, and KirkpatrickEnd of Colonialism: Nkrumah, Fanon, Gandhi, Bio, NyerreEnd of Cold War: Enloe, Falk, Bruntland, Mearsheimer, Walt, Wendt At the end of WWI and WWII:Major peace movements—the active public sought:- Eliminate war as a tool of statecraf- Stop use of certain types of weapons - Minimize war crimes- Establish rules/ laws- eliminate need for force- Global force/ collective security - Address causes of violence Excessively utopian? Unrealistic?Summing up foundational realists—If we did for ourselves what we do for our country, what rascals we would be. Cavour 1. First modern voice: Max Weber 1864-1920 - Founder of the 20th century sociology and political economy- Many contributions to social science—5 important for IR- Definition of a state—sole source of right to use force Control of the authoritative allocation of public resources -Politics is all about power—there is no peace in the economic struggle for economics. -Politics is defined by conflict and a constant struggle for power -Nationalism—great powers have the responsibility to preserve culture—at home and in the system -View of leadership—Ethic of responsibility— in order to do good, you have to do some evil A political ethic has no choice but to confront the reality that good ends often require evil 2. Second modern voice: Edward Hallet Carr (1892-1982) - Reorganization—regional and international cooperation and regimes - Journalist—diplomat- Woodrow Wilson chair (1936- 1947)- The twenty year crisis (almost lost the chair) - Not himself a realist in true sense—criticism of Utopianism/ failure of liberal Internationalism to establish Post WWI peace- Complex and inconsistent thinker- Concerned about social justice but also extremes—No heaven on earth - Bankruptcy of liberalism - The