Intro to Realism: Class 08/29Realism, continued: Class 09/03Realism & the Cold War: Class 09/05Introduction to Neo-Liberalism: Class 09/10Neo-Liberalism (continued): Class 09/12The Rise of China: Class 09/17Nationalism & the Nation-State: Class 09/19Decolonization and the Nation-State: Class 9/24RealismLiberalismIntroduction to International Affairs Exam I Study GuideIntro to Realism: Class 08/29I. Classical Realism (Hans Morgenthau)A. Response to U.S. IdealismB. Pursuit of Power (realpolitik)II. Neo-Realism (Kenneth Waltz)A. aka Structural RealismB. Assumptions1.States are rational unitary actors2.States seek security3.AnarchyC. Balance of Power1.Alliances2.Bandwagoning3.BalancingD. Polarity1.Uni-Polarity (Hegemonic Stability Theory)2.Bi-Polarity3.Multi-PolarityE. Security Dilemma – Prisoner’s Dilemma (Game Theory)- Realism: dominant theory of the 20th centuryo Emphasis on power structures (early stages) How a state exerts power Realpolitik: power politics Shift from power to security: goal of ensuring survival of the state- Security for survival Realism deals with state actors alone.- Doesn’t ignore international organizations, but these can never be more powerful than the state – they serve the interests of the state. State is always the primary player and ultimate authority.o Historical/intellectual realists: Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Carl von Clausewitz – realism traced to ancient times (deep roots) Father of classical realism in the U.S.: Hans Morgenthau- Politics Among Nations (1948)o End of wars – leaders were too idealistic (Woodrow Wilson) They thought that flawed leadership could be cured to create a perfect system Idealists called for increased communication between states, emphasized recognizing sovereignty of other states, and for the spread of democracy in order to prevent conflict. Idealists now known as Neo-liberalso Realists thought these were naïve ideas Agreed that the leadership and systems were flawed but thought it couldn’t be fixedso easily. They found “perfectibility” laughable – against human nature. Realists thought they had a more realistic understanding of how the international system worked than idealists Realists believed that flaws are natural and that they would lead us into war because leaders seek power and by default, states seek power.- When each state seeks power, there is conflict.- Gain at one another’s expense- Realists: human nature, can’t be overcome – warfare is a natural part of human development and the international system.- War can be avoided by preparing for it – be ready to defend.o Hobbesian view: mankind inherently selfish, evil, aggressive Characteristics of the individual are super-imposed upon the state which they lead.- The state is a reflection of its leader.- In the 1960s and 70s there was a shift in thinking amongst realists Neo-/Structural-Realismo Kenneth Waltz: led the way, Theory of International Politics (1979) Saw patterns in the structure of the system, how states were aligned with each other Emphasis away from leaders/individuals System drives states: structure of system creates insecurity, which leads states to act in a manner that leads to conflict Security for the sake of survival (shift away from emphasis on power and power structures) States have to look out for themselves (self-help scenario)- Draws states into competitiono To Waltz, Hitler didn’t start World War II: we had a Europe without a balance of power. Germany’s behavior was predicted by lack of system to hold Germany back insecurity war. There is a predictable pattern based on the structure of the system.- Structural is dominant brand of realism today. Assumptions of realism:1. States are rational unitary actors. They work alone, making rational decisions about their security. They look out for themselves and work as individual players in the international system, not regional or ideological blocks. Each state works for itself and it may not always play nice with the others.2. States seek security. To maintain and seek security is the only way to ensure survival, which is the ultimate goal. A state won’t do anything to willingly compromise its own security. States often seek security at the expense of the security of another.3. Realists argue that we live in a state of anarchy: there is no governing body over states. Because there is no one else to help, there is insecurity. Anarchy breeds insecurity and states are led to act in a rash or selfish manner. States have selfish desires and behaviors –it’s a war of all against all. We can expect war to be common (which it has consistently been).- Realists have been accused to being warmongers: they push for greater security and military power. But their goal is to avoid war by understanding why and how it happens.o The best way to prevent war is to have a balance of power. This makes the world most secure and stable.o Ex: In the Cold War there was a balance of power – no one was attacked and the war was never hot. Therefore, there were decades of peace.o Small states seek alliances with powerful states for security.o Strong states also seek allies – additional reinforcements.- Bandwagoning: smaller state seeks alliance with a major power for protection. Sometimes the greater power overruns and takes advantage of the weaker power.o Ex: Sung Dynasty (10th century): known to be economically strong, but not militarily. Liao pestersSung in the north. Sung looks to the north of Lao, the Jurchens, for military backup to defeat Liao. The Jurchens took Sung territory and pushed them south. The Sung then made an alliance to the Mongols (north of the Jurchens), who took everything.o Common result of bandwagoning – smaller state taken advantage of.o Ex: WWII (1939): Germany and Russia signed non-aggression pact. Russia weaker (bandwagonedfor security) backfired. Germany invaded Russia.- Balance is a better option than bandwagoning: realists predict states will balance (natural behavior)o Realists warn against alliances. They don’t believe that they should be “fixed”, always “fluid”. With an alliance, a state can get drawn into someone else’s war. A state should get in and out of an alliance as it serves the interest of the state. There are no guarantees – things change. Realists warn against vulnerability. - Alliances help balance the international system: balance
View Full Document
Unlocking...