Realism and conflict in international relations theory

¶ … realism is that the state is the main and most important role player in the political arena with regard to international relations. Many states are involved in international relations, and as such each state is centrally governed by its own self-interest. This self-interest is furthermore not curbed by a central governing body in world politics, and each state basically chooses its own methods and means of securing its own values of self-interest and security. The realist way of political thought during the 1930s and 1940s displaced the thought of idealist and utopian ideals of politics. This was a result of an essentially negative view of human nature, brought about by the apparent success of negative strategies such as war in world politics.

Indeed, it is apparent from historical evidence that the realist theory of international relations is at least to some degree accurate. The unitary state seeks power and self-interest. The methods used to accomplish this are not necessarily in the best interest of all persons and countries involved, and war and anarchy frequently the result. One of the basic assumptions held by the realist viewpoint is that international relations are inherently conflictual.

International Relations and Conflict

This viewpoint makes sense when the variety of parties involved is considered. International relations entail a number of different countries with widely heterogeneous sets of beliefs and ethics. It therefore makes sense that conflicts would arise from the various viewpoints and ideologies. Each state then obviously also seeks its own interest and would protect this even at the cost of human lives. A further realist theory that supports this is a negative and pessimistic view of human nature. This connects with the basic realistic ideal that international relations are rooted in human nature and governed by laws that are deemed objective.

It appears, according to historical evidence, that human nature is prone to violence and selfishness. The self-interest of all the parties involved in international relations often leads to war. Rather than resolving matters in a peaceful manner, it appears that the leaders involved would prefer war. This is behavior that is detected from early childhood. This is then used as the basis for the view that human beings are not essentially good. The theory also supports the fact that international relations basically lead to anarchy. It has been mentioned that, according to the realist theory, the state is primarily interested in self-preservation.

The Anarchic System

Anarchy in international relations also means that there is no single disinterested world power that could wield intermediary force among the various states. Each state is therefore free to seek as much as possible power through any methods it chooses to use. It is therefore also the system of world government that forces the states to compete for the best and most powerful position possible in the world arena. Force is thus used in order to acquire increased power and/or security by eliminating real or perceived threat. The United States' war against terrorism is an example of this. Its dealings with Iraq as representative of the terrorist threat demonstrates how perceived rather than realistic threat results in the use of force by means of methods that are normally considered unethical.

Another example of this system is the variety of social revolutions taking place not only on a local but also on an international scale. The overthrowing of abusive political systems by workers for example is the not the result of an accepted code of world ethics so much as a code of ethics motivated by politics. The basic value is political power. The advocates of abusive systems fear the power entailed in the numbers of protesters, and therefore agree to their demands in order to maintain a degree of the power formerly held. The threat is thus perceived rather than real.

This was then the principle promoted by utopians and other believers in human nature. The realist view is that human nature is essentially selfish and that it is impossible for any basic human ethical principle to survive in politics, which is essentially interest only in the self-preservation of the state.

Nonetheless, some hold that often politics entail more than merely the values highlighted by realists. Distributive issues for example relate directly to the divide between rich and poor. The utopians for example merely ignored the glaring inequalities of the time, while realists attempted to place these inequalities in their context. From the realistic viewpoint, it was necessary to respond to the poor as a result of the power entailed in their numbers, rather than because it was ethically correct to do so. The fact is however that the utopian view ignores the issue altogether, while realism brings about the necessary change. Regardless of ethical theory, surely bringing about the necessary changes for whatever reason is better than ignoring social injustice. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in general, the state seeks its own self-preservation, and if this entails an occasionally morally acceptable decision, this will be done in terms of state ethics rather than because it is as such morally correct.

In conclusion, it appears that the realists are accurate in their assessment of the principles relating to international relations. The state is a unitary entity that seeks its own self-preservation in terms of power and security. This is done by any means necessary, regardless of universally accepted ethics. The state creates its own set of ethics in order to secure for itself the most powerful position possible in the anarchic system of international relations.

Decision-making in terms of realism occurs not as much as a result of ethically correct actions, but rather in the interest of self-preservation and power. This is true in all actions taken by states in international relations, and this is also the reason for the wars that still occur regardless of the obvious human suffering and loss that result.

I therefore agree with the basic realist interpretations of world politics. Each state acts in its own self-interest, and each state seeks for itself the maximum power and leverage possible in an arena where no single governing body exists.