John Herz
reiterates the idea of Morgenthau that power thirst fuels political decisions.
Whether it be individuals, groups or states, all feel threatened and so are in
perpetual search of power to prevent their rivals from gaining control over
them. This is summarized by John Herz in the following words; “Since none can
ever feel entirely secure in a world of competing units, power competition
ensues, and the vicious circle of security and power accumulation is on”.
This security
dilemma can be explained using two theories; Political Realism and Political
Idealism. Political Realism suggests
that security and power are connected bodies and takes into consideration the
consequences of power struggle. On the other hand, Political Idealism proposes
that harmony exists and will eventually be realized by people whereas power can
easily be channeled for altruistic purposes and then eliminated from political
relationships altogether.
In my opinion, the
Realistic approach is a pragmatic way of deciphering world politics. Pakistan,
for example, has been extensively spending on military to secure itself against
supposed threat, India. Similarly, one of the reasons Israel recently committed
genocide in Gaza was because it feared that European Union will recognize Palestine
as a state which was against the wishes of Israeli government. Therefore, they
waged a war on Gaza to leave them handicapped, devoid of all hopes to have a
homeland of their own.
As supposed security threat will continue to exist, wars would be inevitable. Thus, I too agree with John Herz that the only viable solution to maintaining peace in the world is to adopt a mixed approach - Realism Liberalism. It combines the strengths of both Realism and Liberalism and negates their weaknesses. However, it will be difficult to implement this approach in the developing countries that are still trying to secure their position in the international grounds.
I agree with you that it is too much of a simplistic approach, it is not that easy to implement it the way Herz has described it and doesn't take into consideration different factors like developing countries which are undergoing social and economic problems are trying to establish themselves in the international ground. And that it is more important for them to solve their other issues first and then come to this ideological concern.
ReplyDeleteA few points to unpack.
ReplyDeleteAbove all, I like how you succinctly summarized the key points from realism and idealism. By providing context to for your reader, your subsequent argument was easier to follow.
One point that needs a bit of clarification. Israel attacked Gaza, but to say they committed "genocide" is pretty strong, especially since by definition genocide means the systematic extermination of people based on race, religion or creed. From a strictly legal perspective, you could make the case that what Israel did was "genocide", but it is a lot easier to say that Israel committed "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity." These are lesser offences - though no less bed - but matter when we try to distinguish between mass extermination and war crimes. Also, I'm not disagreeing with you about the criminality of these actions, I'm just trying to clarify how the attacks can be viewed from a legal perspective.
Finally, is realist liberalism the best way of interpreting IR, or do you think it is just one theory - amongst many - that help us better conceptualize and understand international relations?