Realist Theory of International Relations

Introduction

Sovereign States are the main actors in International system, and they are the most influential
when it comes to the International stage. States are majorly concerned about their security,
territory expansion, order, justice, welfare, freedom and power. States has a function under a
political theory, an ideology that analyse how States should run its relations with other States
and principles to handling political situations. Also a State must be aware of its States actions
and when a problem rises, it must use the best approach to resolving it. Realist share a view on
International relations such as the causes of war and stability of peace, the structure of
International system is regarded as a necessary factor to explanation of questions in
International affairs. This essay advocates for the realist theory, as it’s an International relations
theory focused on anarchy, State actors, rational actors and State’s survival and its best
described as personal perspective on International relation.

Realist are of the notion that theories ought to consist of facts and giving meaning and sense to
situations. The character of foreign policy can be seen through the political acts and the
consequences of the acts. From this we can see the actions and objectives of statesmen, and
consequences of their actions. Realist assumes that Statesmen actions are driven by their self-
interest (power) and history has proven this assumption. Besides the theoretical element, a
normative element is also considered. It shares the need for a theoretical understanding, to
make the rational element of political reality obvious.

States are guided by national interest, although the interest might vary depending on the
circumstances. “The State can be seen as a unitary actor. Because States problems are majorly
defined by the nature of the international system, their actions are basically a responds to
external rather than domestic political forces.

In response to the suggestions that scholars should devise and test theories of foreign policy,
Waltz writes that “there is a lot which is included in an analysis while very little is included in
theories. He opined that “due to foreign policy which is driven by internal and external factors, it
does not amount to such an autonomous realm, a truly theoretical explanation of it should not
be strived for, rather a mere analyses should be considered and it may include a relevant factor
to a particular case”(Walt, 1996. Pp54-55) In this light, an analysis of the strength and weakness
of the realist theory using the case study approach. An analysis with the realist paradigm in the
Middle East context which in my opinion is weaker than its counterparts. They control a good
amount of the world energy both oil reserves and natural gas reserves according to a statistic
review.

“Realists are of the view of coming up with direct answers to problems, they characterise the
State as a government which defends its border, protects the citizens, enforce laws and make
politics peaceful and totally different from the International politics”(Mearsheimer, 1995 P5). The
supreme model of international relations for almost six decades has been Realism, because it
provides a well structured understanding of the collapse of post-World War I international order
in Europe and far East and also in World War II and the Cold War.

Classical realism on human nature has always had a pessimistic theory, self interest behavior are
not limited to few leader and its very basic and also a core of a realist theory. Because human
nature is constant and unavoidable in International relations and in order to avoid problems,
modern realist have focused less on human nature instead on the structure of the system to
understand the state behavior better. The lack of precision in which the classical realist use the
concept of balance of power, power and national interest has been noted by critics. They noted
a refutation between the perspective and central descriptive component of realism. Nations and
nations leaders seem to act in the motion of interests in terms of power, while other Statesmen
give recognition and consider the interests of other nations. Power in classical realism obviously
plays a major role but the connection between political outcomes and relative power balances is
less than fascinating, pointing out the need for enriched analyses with other variables . The
difference between usable options and power as capabilities is very important in such a nuclear
age, for example just like the Soviets learnt in Afghanistan and the United States discovery in
Vietnam. September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York and Washington is much of an
illustration of the lack of consistency between political impact and material capability.

History and political science insight and evidence has critically being viewed by classical realist,
the search for clarification has led modern realist to search for similarities and insights. The main
focus is often economics, which modern realists have used different borrowed concept such as
game theory, theories of firms and market, rational choice, bargaining theories and expected
utility. The search for precision has brought up rich theories and models such as the game
theory which Mortan Kaplan relates as types of international systems which includes- Unit-veto,
tight bipolar, universal, balance of power, loose bipolar and hierarchical. Some other scholars
have developed means of understanding international relations by good explanation of system
level.

“Realism theory is not a clearly defined theory, scholars who have studied it differ in
interpretation of the theory, some scholars have argues that it is formed within a general
establishing state (Feruson and Mansbach, 1988; p79). While other would argue that it is a loose
framework” (Rosenthal,1991; p7), One standing view of realists by commentators of international
relations theory is that the realists are believers of state as the actor in international politics and
they are much concerned of the balance of power in a state. The state act a certain way due to
the character of people and this is closely related to the theory of Thucydides on human nature
that speaks of egoism, power drive and self-interest. They desperately desire protection for
themselves only excluding every other, only in cases where they are to gain from an inclusion.
“This then creates a ground for the sate itself, making it a selfish state that seeks protection and
assurance of survival for itself only at the cost of other state to fall, which is somehow also
considered an achievement” (Heywood, 2011; p67).
According to Kenneth Waltz in his theory of international politics, the theory of war is also
involved with the system level and not just the state attributes and theory of human nature.
Waltz proceeded by agreeing that new beginnings brings in new concepts and he was of the
motion that international system basic structure hasn’t change one bit, things are still the same,
states as the main actor in world politics, Waltz believed that changes in the system that has
taken place in history was as a result of nuclear weapon discovery. Some States changed in the
security provision for themselves and including other States due to Nuclear weapons, the
nuclear weapon somehow defined how power in States in terms of security, but still the anarchic
structure of international political system has not being changed by nuclear weapons and it is
this anarchical structure that makes Realism to be the superior theory of international relations.

Security competition between States has being mistaken to be an outdated notion, but this
notion has been shattered by the Middle East interstate conflicts, terrorism, human right
violation, religious fundamentalism and other enormity which has taken place. The anarchical
situation happening in the Middle East is best described by Realism. Hence it has be proven by
the conflict in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and interstates conflicts in Africa that security competitions are
not antiquated but alive.

Waltz theory was used to conclude on the characteristics of international relations, which
includes some unclear theory about the contemporary international system such as system
stability on anarchical character maintenance and no change in the number of major actors.

A theory of the foundation on the three main proposition to determine the structure of
international relations was brought by Waltz due to the avoidance of reductionism. The first
focus was to concentrate on how the system is ordered. The contemporary system is not
hierarchical though it is different in many ways. The other main proposition is the behaviour of
the state and the contemporary system and anarchic system are similar because the anarchical
system is based on a sovereign state.

Realism is recognized to have little historical concept of States, Neo-realism main problem is to
rely on a preoccupation of Great Power relation. It favours the powerful minority over the weak.
While for Realism, the state is the main actor in the aspect of international politics. This seems to
be an issue because the realists sees the state to be having a massive unchanging structure. This
was certainly a problem for the Middle East because they are the outcome of foreign
domination. Conceptualization of states is limited, as it takes account for no agency according
to neorealist theory. Negative Internal factors regarding state behaviour is not considered. For
example “the rejection of the impact to the pursuit towards Arabic Israeli peace by the Pan
Arabism. Transnational Islamist politics was useful in helping to elaborate on the Iraq-Iran war
adjustment of behaviour in religious aspects since the Iranian revolution”(Gause 1999).

Realist theory has also being unable to explain and analyse conflict issues, the examination of
the conflict in the Middle East has being contrary to the neo-realist unwarranted claim on the
predominance of factors in elaborating on the behaviour of states. It is believed by Fred Halliday
that neo-realism possess not a reasonable predictive capacity and even explanation to the
management and reduction of Middle East conflicts. “The inability of these, results from the fact
that conflicts are twisted complicated with state building and this forms a political communities
that is not addressed by both theories”(Halliday 2005.)

“There has being serious theoretical criticism and accusations on realism from both scholars and
others on the unimportance of its marginalizing of the world which it tried to
systematize”(Burchill). The realities of present days has being brought to light the importance of
realism. An analysis on International Relations theory has proven that realism for a fact has some
weaknesses but still I root for the theory for bringing awareness and understanding of the time
we live in and also the concept of realism has being relevance in the understanding of the
society and the world at large, giving an idea of how to deal with situations at hand.

Realism has being very useful in dealing with difficult issues affecting the International
community today. The balance of power concept gotten from the philosophy of power as a
main factor of realism. For example, After the Franco-Prussian War, the world order progressed,
which lead to a stronger Germany, The milestones that made a logic in the historical process
was the Versailles-Washington world order which was after World War I and Yalta-Potsdam
world order which was after World War 11.(Carr, 1995). The world has always had a problem of
power struggle, the balancing of power and war . Meanwhile war has being a means of
changing and shaping modern states.

Theorist and policy makers would prefer to believe that there is a way power can be balanced
but the truth is power is far from being balanced. An evidence is the United States, as a super
power, it has not being very productive in ensuring other nations have a genuine peaceful
environment.

It is best for a state to preserve its balance of power instead of shifting it as a way of raising
conflicts and instability. To some, it is believed that balance of power means resorting of war.
States are suppose to get along and sort out their problems with the world but that is where the
issue of competition comes in, National interest takes a better part of the situation and state
find themselves in a competitive environment.(Buzan,1996). It is certain that every state or
nation leader would want to put the interest, independence and survival of its citizen first as a
primary factor and also the condition of its existence.

Realist theory has appeared to be a useful theory to states by fulfilling the interest of the nation,
the theory has given an opportunity for a better understanding of the true human nature and
shown things in their real nature. I would totally agree that realism to an extent isn’t perfect and
cannot have solutions to all problems but still it is able to make contribution and understanding
to world issues and challenges.

Realism is a vibrant theory, due to the use of it in present day IR and the role it plays in nation
states, power, national interest, security, conflict and all. The weakness of the theory doesn’t it
make it irrelevant, but it can be combined with other theories to make a better outstanding
outcome.
It is clear that till present day, realism is still alive in so many aspects of international relations,
such as in the political life of states, nations interest, sovereignty, war, conflict, security and
power. Realism has served state as a point of understanding the world since it shows a good
sign of useful thinking. It appears that realism has something valuable to offer to the world in
describing it and it can either be accepted or disagreed with. For instance, most nation are
going through some development changes, economic crisis which is affecting a lot of nations.
State are by all means doing everything in their power to protect their interest and this may lead
to some kind of consequences. There can be a rise of negative feelings between states due to
national boundaries which could result to conflict. In cases like this, it might be useful to look at
realism to get some answers or possible solutions to a situation like this.

Waltz, Carr and Morgenthau have all done a good job for giving a clearer picture of what the
world really is, rather than what is should be. The focus on the reality of the system has being a
better move, rather than focusing on unrealistic political ideas. The theory provides a reasonable
explanation to thing, thus it has being highly recognised and used in IR. “Realist are of the
notion that practice creates theory and not theory creating practice”(Carr). They are of the
believe that state have the privilege to use organizational forces such as military interventions,
still there are still a level of terrorism in the world and state are the ones privilege to use
organized forces then non-state actors. The fact that realism is only focused on its own core
assumption and not studying other factors that affects international relations, this would lead it
as the most used theory in IR that gives understanding to contemporary international affairs.
Realism has served the political world very well , giving a foundation of how people conduct
International Relations.

It is clear that realism is more than a theory and cannot be understood by the scientific
explanation of international relations, Realist theory is one that relies on the political and
historical conditions, the ethical standards and the importance in making political decisions was
definitely judged. It also has being very useful in cautioning against moralism, legalism and
progressivism and other that fail to view reality of State interest and power. Therefore realism is
an essential tool for states, in protecting the interest of citizens, securing their safety, preventing
of conflicts and war or anything that threatens the global peace.