The Realist Perspective and Global Conflict

The Realist Perspective and Global Conflict

                In the field of international relations, there are many conflicting theories that all attempt to explain why states take the actions that they take. The three major theories of international relations are realism, liberalism, and constructivism, with constructivism acting as a sort of umbrella category for many of the less popular theories. All of these theories try to provide a pattern of behavior that states follow based on what the states value most highly. The realist perspective is one that states that our ideal world and the world we occupy are two vastly different places, and we cannot assume that we live in a world where morals and ethics are a consideration. Realists see the struggle to survive as being paramount to all other issues and accumulation of power to be the force which allows continued survival. The third tenant of realism says that states can only trust themselves, and that all possibility of state death comes from other states. With these major points on realism firmly established and agreed upon, many topics become interesting to observe through the realist worldview, which makes one wonder how a realist would view the concept of world war or other global conflicts.

                According to realism, human beings are inherently egotistic and self-interested to the extent that self-interest overcomes moral principles, which thereby impacts every aspect of the human mentality .When combined with the self-preservation and constant distrust endorsed by the realist theory of international relations, we see a world where there are no actions that can be done entirely for the benefit of another nation. To a realist, there is always a hidden motive when one state offers assistance to another. This scenario is entirely true of World War I and the United States’ movement of Navy ships to assist the Allied Powers in their fight against Germany and the Central Powers. The United States had been pursuing a policy of isolationism, hoping to avoid the war at all costs despite repeated requests for help from their British and French allies. However, after the sinking of seven U.S. merchant ships by German U-boats, America realized that by helping the Allies to defeat the Central Powers, it could extract revenge on Germany for the lost American lives.

                In addition to the obvious desire to avenge fallen American citizens, the actions of the United States make perfect strategic sense when examined through the realist perspective. According to realists, power is a limited commodity that some states gain at the expense of other states, making every global action merely one move in the struggle to accumulate power. As in the global conflicts to follow, the United States took actions to preserve the store of power that they had at their disposal while looking to increase it if possible. World War I provided a perfect opportunity for the United States to show that it was a force to be reckoned with on the global scale, and it took that opportunity and ran with it. At the end of the war, Germany was essentially dependent on money borrowed from the United States in order to pay the reparations for damages caused by the conflict, thereby increasing American power in Europe while simultaneously fostering resentment amongst the German people.

                To someone examining American involvement in World War I through a realist perspective, the conflict may seem contrary to the principal tenants of realism. The United States, by intervening in conflicts regarding other states, put its survival as a state into unnecessary risk. If things had gone wrong for American forces, the United States stood to lose much respect in the eyes of the international community, making it look weak and in prime position to be attacked by rival nations. However, the actions taken by the United States were well within the context of international relations realism. America recognized that increased power for the nations of Germany and Austria-Hungary meant less of a position of power for the United States in the global community. If hostile states were allowed to amass power that could potentially be used against the United States, there would be a much higher threat to America’s continued survival, which is the core tenant of realism.

                However, realism does not always serve to support involvement in global conflicts. To truly be justified by the realist perspective, a global issue must threaten the sovereignty and survival of a specific state beyond just the perception of a possible future attack. The threat must be realistic and imminent in order to be infringing upon the survival of such a state. In addition, the control of power must be taken into consideration as well. If a threatening state wishes to attack another state, the aggressor must also have enough power to execute such an assault. If not, there is no reason for realist-minded countries to intervene in global conflicts, as there is no imminent threat to their survival from a state powerful enough to actually cause concern for the continued existence of the state.

Works Cited

Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian. "Political Realism in International Relations." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 2010. Web. 27 Sept. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/>.

Morgenthau, Hans J. "Six Principles of Political Realism." Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 5th ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. 4-15. Print.