Daily Times

Realism, the oldest theoretical paradigm in the discipline of international relations, has become the focus of academic criticism in the post-cold war era. Realist scholars are under attack not only from liberals in academia but also face difficulties in finding tenure-track jobs in the United States. Several American academics erroneously believe that realism is obsolete and irrelevant to the emerging realities of world politics. One of the ways in which realist scholars are criticised is through the following viewpoint: realist scholars have become extinct, and they are not even aware of it.

My purpose of writing this article is to challenge this entire narrative, and argue that realism will continue to be the dominant paradigm in the study of international relations in the coming decades. A growing intolerance of the realist theory in American academia is tantamount to a violation of the widely accepted standards of academic freedom.

What does the theory of realism entail? For starters, it focuses on state security and military competition among the great powers. In essence, military capabilities underlie political power and economic strength, which ultimately translate into greater military ambitions. The realist theory emerged in the early 1940s after the outbreak of World War II due to the failure of Wilsonian internationalism and the idealist approach to foreign policy.

Realists stress the role of the balance of power in global politics to minimise the possibility of future wars. While the theoretical approach rests on the idea that security is enhanced with an equitable distribution of military capabilities among nations, the equilibrium of power among all major powers in the world is generally very difficult to achieve. States, subsequently, resort to employing different tactics to sustain the balance of power and achieve their desired strategic goals.

These tactics can range from making broad alliances when confronted by any significant external threat to bandwagoning and aligning with a stronger adversarial power. The real meaning of bandwagoning is captured in the following dictum: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

One of the most major criticisms of realism is that it failed to anticipate the end of the cold war and the Soviet decision to peacefully withdraw from Central and Eastern Europe. Even after the infamous fall of the Berlin Wall, realist scholars could not explain how or what events would unfold. Its main explanatory variables, anarchy and the distribution of military capabilities, were constant in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and thus could not explain the peaceful end of the cold war in Europe.

Moreover, critics believe that the structure of power in the international system changed with the end of the cold war and the world has entered a new era where the balance of power does not help in understanding international politics.

Neoliberals further extend this approach by saying that due to a very low probability of interstate warfare, security competition among the great powers is no longer a major concern. Rather, in their view, major powers now tend to see themselves as members of an emerging international community and not as rivals for global hegemony at the core of the international system.

Similar claims were made by the notable American political scientist Francis Fukuyama in his famous 1989 essay, “The end of history?” Fukuyama argued that “large-scale conflict must involve large states still caught in the grip of history, and they are what appear to be passing from the scene…there is no struggle or conflict over large issues and consequently, no need for generals or statesmen; what remains is primarily economic activity.”

Critics further argue that realism can only help us frame the variety of interactions among states during the cold war period, but has now outlived its academic utility due to the emergence of potent non-state actors that are profoundly transforming the current architecture of global governance.

In their view, international institutions will decrease the possibility of conflict in the 21st century, giving rise to a more durable collective security system. This argument goes back to Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, who gave the theory of “perpetual peace.” Kant believed that responsible “republican governments” are more inclined to promote economic interdependence that will make wars unprofitable in the future. However, the jury is still out on the question of the effectiveness of international institutions in sustaining long-term peace, given their limited influence on states.

Neoliberal scholars state that, with the rise of power transnational corporations in the global economic arena, states have become an economic anachronism. Recent technological developments and the redistribution of wealth have not only undermined the power of states as principal actors on the world stage but have also raised a big question mark over the Westphalian principle of state sovereignty.

In addition to transnational corporations, several smaller regional organisations like the European Union and Eurasia’s Shanghai Cooperation Organisation have also transformed international affairs, weakening the position of states as primary units in the global arena. These transnational forces have gradually compelled states to become a part of a globally integrated economy.

Another point of criticism is that the realist paradigm fails to be a reliable guide for policymaking choices because of its inability to incorporate the necessity of objective moral standards to judge the intrinsic value of actions aimed at promoting stability in the international system. This criticism is based on the view that, in the 21st century, an increasing number of countries are aligning their foreign policies with widely accepted norms of international human rights.

My support for a realist perspective in the field of international relations does not, by any means, imply that other theories like neo-idealism, constructivism, and the rational choice model do not possess any academic utility. But a total rejection of the realist discourse amounts to depriving the relatively new discipline of international relations of its strong theoretical foundations. We cannot ignore the fact that we live in a world that is characterised by conflicting interests and power politics. Security has and will continue to be a fundamental feature of world affairs.

(To be concluded)

The writer is a US-based nuclear security analyst, and can be reached at rizwanasghar5@unm.edu