International relations

International relations have been existed long time ago. They also exist now. The beginning of the international relations can be counted to the time, when boundaries were relative and wild tribes, dressed in rough fells and with arms in they hands, played the role of people. Arms… How strange… Many years have passed, but even now it has an influence on the relations between people. And it doesn’t matter whether it is simple one or a modern neutron bomb.
Can it really be true, that a man who underlived science – technical revolution, a lot of different changes now remains a savage. It is more like a philosophic question rather than a practice one and the answer is the understanding of a human being. To be closer to a practice of realistic approach to international relations. Let’s appeal to specialists of these questions. Here’s one them.
Gans Morgentaw (1904-1980), a well-known profession from Chicago University is a founder of a theory of political realism in international relations. His book, named “Politics among nations. The struggle for Power and Peace” was published firstly in 1948. It is considered to be a classical one in the theory of international relations. You can find essential changes which look place on international scene in the period between 40-th years up to 50-th. of the XX century in this book.
Break-up of the League of nations and the beginning of the Second World War and forthcoming “cold war” caused a crisis of idealist approach as to international relations. Illusion of building up an international system based only on universal values and mutual interests of states became visible.
Morgetaw wrote that he didn’t deny any necessity of creating of peaceful international system. He wrote about international relations to be far from ideal ones. He defined international policy as “continuous effort, which are directed at preservation and extension of strength of your own nations and also as weakening of strength of another nations.
Gans Morgentaw formulates main principles of political realism in his well-known work “Political relations between nations”.
History of political ideas is a constant struggle of two points of view on the nature of person, society an policy.
Representatives of this idea believe that it is possible to keep rational and at the same time moral political order. They believe in virtue of human nature and also consider it possible to improve society within the help of reforms and education.
Representatives of another point of view –the conception of political realism – consider the world to be incomplete. It is necessary to take into account incomplete nature of human while creating rational political order. The modern world has character features of conflicted interests, so a principle of existing of all pluralistic societies are based on the balance of interests.
The first principle of political realism has connections with political activity in international relations G. Morgentaw considers political realism as political doctrine, when all discrepant sides of human nature are taken into account. Possibilities for building of just political order are limited. Political realism are also based on the point of view that any action as to improvement of society is a kind of return activity.
The second principle of political realism is the principal of national interest, which are understood in definitions of power and strength.
A conception of national interest help to understand international policy as a sphere, independent from such kind of spheres as economics, religion, ethnic relations. Morgentaw marks that it is impossible to create new policy without such theoretical assumption. He also says that this conception of interest helps to understand international relations and internal policy only if it is interpreted with the help of definitions “power” an “strength”.
The third principle of political realism has then idea that political realism saves the theory of international relations from two kinds of delusions. At first, from the principle of investigation of motives and intentions which are the basis of political actions and the second, from investigation of ideological preferences of subjects. The point of view, when a key to understanding of internal policy is considered to be in different motives of a political person is wrong. Internal policy shouldn’t be regarded through philological phenomenon.
Studying of motives and intentions directs to phicologism in investigation. Mortengaw says, that historical experience shows absence of synonymous correlation between motives and real results of internal activity. “Good intentions” of political leaders don’t guarantee morality and affectivity of internal policy. Only analysis of real political activity and the results of this activity as to the affectivity and necessity are relevant for real political investigation. The theory of international relations should be focused on studying of such kind of individual quality as intellect, will and actions, which are different from abstract reasoning about morality and intentions of political leaders.
And Mogentaw gives some historical examples. He thinks that Chemberlan more than any other British Prime-Ministers aimed at preservation of peace and stability and less at strengthening of his own power. But many of his errors were conducive to the beginning of the Second World War “Policy with the connivance of Chemberland was based on peaceful intentions”. From another point of view, motives of sir W. Cherchil as to internal policy were less universal and less noble, and were oriented on preservation of personal power. Although Cherchil’s achievements in internal policy excelled achievements of his predecessors in several times.
So, ethics takes into account morals of human’s motives, and political theory should pay attention to will, wit, and practical actions of a politician.
Political realism in a theory of international relations also means possibility of avoiding one more illusion – influence of ideological ideas of leaders on internal policy. In the countries where there is democratic control on the actions of government it is impossible to give up sacrifice political rationalism to please emotions and demonstration of support of internal policy.
Although, political realism doesn’t only mean the whole refusal from political principles and ideas. The position of political realism requires a vivid differentiation between wished and existing things, it also requires a valuation of possibility in the concrete circumstances. So, internal policy should be emotionally neutral, rational and objective.
It is important to mention, that Gans Mongentaw also stood at the sources of the theory of rational choose. Rational and well thought-out internal policy are based on a political experience and it excludes accidental deviations. Ration internal policy is aimed at minimalisation of risk and maximisation of prohibit. It is also submitted to the rules of sense and political success.
The forth principle of political realism are connected with dynamic understanding of national interests. Margentaw writes: “Political realism supposes a conception of an interest understood in terms of power, not as fixed once, but as dependant from a situation”. Interests are changeable depending on historical conditions. Here the author refers to Veber who wrote that interest (material and ideal) is not only ideas defined as type of social action. There are different type of interests. Among them there are interests defining political actions; they are formed in a concrete historical period.
Interests are long-term standards; in accordance with them, political decisions and actions should be judged and appreciated. Modern connections between interests and national state are results of history and can be changed. And now Morgentaw asks a question: how the modern world can be transformed. A connection between national interests and their results – states - can be escaped soon. Political realism doesn’t deny that modern division of the world into national states can be replaced by unions of states or by another formations.
Under the doctrine of political realism, universal general moral principles are not applied (for an evaluation of actions of states). Morgentaw says that activity of states can be based only on ethics of responsibility but not on ethics of persuasions. He writes: “At the same time, then a man has a moral right to sacrifice himself, a state has not a right to allow any moral disappovement to stand in the way of rational political action. Political actions should be based on principles of survival and self-preservation of a sovereign state. And then Morgentaw goes on “There is no morality without sense”. From the point of view of realism, sense means an accounting of consequences of possible alternative political actions and sense is the highest virtue in policy. Political ethics help to realize actions according to their results and consequences.
Political realism rejects any right of a nation to create the universal moral law which could be adopted by everyone. Political realism rejects any identity between a moral nation and universal laws. A lot of thing had the same temptation – that is – to propose their own aims, power in the capacity of universal principles.
Morgentaw adds also that there is a huge difference between political realism and another theoretical schools – political realism differs the legal and moral approach to international relations Morgentaw gives an example: the USSR attacked Finland in 1939. An act of aggression was subjected to criticism from the side of France and Great Britain from two point of view.
1) from the point of view of international right
2) from the political point of view.
1. Under criticism of the USSR from the point of view of international right a question was arisen: indeed did the USSR act with a violation of a convection, adopted by the the League of nations and if an answer is “Yes” than, what measures could be accepted by France and Great Britain.
2. While they were criticizing the USSR, a question was set up by different forces. The question was: “What national interests of France and Great Britain were affected by the actions of the USSR and what was the influence of these actions on Germany”.
To be leading members of the League of Nations, England and France regarded these actions as an act of aggression and were for exclusion of the USSR from the League. But then natural position of Sweden turned to be advantageous for avoiding of entry into the war against the USSR. Government of Sweden is known to have refused entering its territory any foreign troops. Morgengaw includes that this example, describing international policy of France and G.B., is a classical model of legalism in international relations when political as mechanisms a well as mechanisms of right are used.
So political realists defeat self-government of political sphere in estimating of international relations. They focus their attention on pluralistic shape of human being. A real human being means an “economical being”, “moral being”, “religious being”, “political being”, joined in one entity. Political realists consider also another spheres of social life but study them from the political point of view.
The next principle of Morgentaw’s conception includes the definition, that international policy is a struggle for spheres of power. International policy of someone state has also connections with a struggle for spheres of power. Here Morgentaws makes next conclusions.
1. Not anyone action of a state in the international arena is a political one. States have economical, cultural, legal, connections.
2. Different States in different historical periods are involved in international policy in a different way. For example, Spain which was one of a claimant on influence and international supremacy in the XVII-XVIII-th centuries how plays a secondary role in international relations. So, an attitude of states as to a participation in international policy is a dynamic category, dependent from internal situation in a state, cultural transformations which help a state to occupy an comfortable position on the international stage.
Morgentaw writes: “Political power is mutual relations of control and submission between persons who have social authority and power”. But political power is different from force in the meaning of physical violence. Threat of using of force in the shape of physical actions, using capital punishment or the beginning of a war – can be considered as character features of internal policy of any state.
The author differs economical policy from economical policy as a tool of international policy when economical aims are tasks of control and domination under another states. He considers such differentiation to have theoretical as well as practical sense.
So, when aims of different kind of public policy are directed at strengthening of places in the international arena at domination under another states it’s possible to talk about their submission of the internal policy of the state. It’s important to add that political power is a philological relations between them who have power and them who are submitted this power. Power means a control under activity by means of supremacy under mind and brain.
A struggle for power in the international arena is a historically transient one and it is connected with existence of autocratically governments. Speaking about international relations, based on the struggle for power, Morgentaw finds out 3 kinds of them.
“There are three basic patterns of policy of any state as well as internal, as external one.
1. Policy, oriented on preservation and conservation of power-presentation of Status Quo.
2. Policy, oriental on collection of authoritative, oriented on power strengthening of power.
3. Policy of demonstration of power.
These 3 kinds of public policy are inseparably linked in internal policy of any state.
The first type of internal policy is character for the states, which are seeking to save their hard-won positions to save Status Quo.
The second type – imperialist policy – are ordinary for the states, which are seeking to expand their influence of powers.
The third type is the policy of prestige. It is conducted by the states which are inclined to demonstrate their power and strength”.
Morgentaw doesn’t give his own definition of imperialism and he uses Marxism point of view. Morgentaw considers the end of the XIX-th – the beginning of the XX-th century to be the most convenient for spreading of the theory of economical interpretation of international relations. The author refers to Shumpleter who accepted economics of Marxist point of view.
Morgentaw finds out reasons for conducting of imperialist policy in the international arena.
When a state is in a state of war and especially in the condition of the winner his internal policy will be aimed at a changing of pre-war international relations. Even war which were firstly aimed as a defensive one, as one, started for preservation of sovereignty of a state and restoration of pre-war connections turned to be internal policy of the winner.
Wars of German imperialism in the period from 1935 till the end of the Second World War can serve as bright examples of a transformation of imperialism policy. Relations Status Quo in Europe after 1914 were characterized by the balance of such states as Austria, France, Germany, England, Italy and Russia.
After regarding of typical situations when imperialist internal policy is possible, Morgentaw pays attention to studying of aims of internal orientation. The first aim – is the world supremacy and domination, the second – a hegemony in the boundaries of a continent, the third – a local supremacy or religious domination. Expansion policy of Alexander of Macedon, Napoleon, and Hitler are historical examples of “unlimited imperialism”. Geographically limited imperialism is represented by internal policy of European countries. Seeking to occupy dominate positions in Europe: Napoleon the Fird, Ludovik the Fourteenth.
American policy in the XIX-th century is an attempt to make Canada and Mexica independent. It is also an example of continental imperialism. Examples of “regional imperialism” – internal policy of monarchy state in the XVIII-th-XX-th century: Fredrik the Great, Peter the First, Katherine the Second. Bismarck (in the XX-th century) is a master of imperial policy. He was seeking to establish German supremacy, in Central Europe. An aim of Russian imperialism is know to be a control under Finland, Eastern Europe, Iran and so on.
Imperialist internal policy is based on using of three kinds of methods: military, economical and cultural expansionism. Military imperialism – is the oldest and the most obvious form of imperialism. It is then armed seizure. “Great reforms of all times were also great seizers” – writes Morgentaw.
Economic imperialism is also a rational method of a conquest of power, it is a result of the imperialist epoch. If a state can’t expanse a territory it can attempt to set influence by means of a control under them who govern a state. The example given by Morgentaw is very vivid. The countries of Central America are sovereign states. But a spite of presence of all attributes of sovereignty, they are not the same in life and they are completely dependent from export into the USA. There fore, these states aren’t able to set up internal of external policy, wholly dependent from the position of the USA.
The nature of economic imperialism as indirect one is outlined in case of clash of interests of two large states.
Morgentaw calls cultural imperialism to be the most effective variety of all imperialist methods of settings policy. Its aim is a control under brains and mind. Such kind of control is sure to be a tool for changing of authority at the international level. “Methods of cultural imperialism” helps to win a victory and that makes another methods to be surplus now. A role of cultural imperialism is very important so as it gives an opportunity to find out a ground for economical influence. The subject of influence – a support of the 5-th colony in a state – is a vivid example of this method.
The third model, according to Morgentaw, is policy of prestige. Policy of prestige – is the third variety of policy, based on force. Internal policy of prestige is a refined aristocratic shape of social communication, which is used by diplomatic world. Policy of prestige is likely be a tool for realization of policy of Status Quo, or imperialism one there is also one fact, what says that internal and external policy of states – is only two sides of one phenomenon. A factor of seeking to social recognition in these two spheres is a stimulus to development of social-political relations and institutions. “Prestige means a reflection of actions of a state in a “miracle” of policy”.
Prestige means a reputation, authority of power. An aim of policy of prestige is to create internal image, a reputation of a state – is possible only if it realized by means of diplomacy or a demonstration of war power. For example, representatives of another states are offer asked to take part in military maneuvers by politics to show them then newest military – technical achievements and strength of a state. The whole or partial mobilization is the extreme form of internal policy. Russia had the mobilization of the whole her military forces in 1914, following the mobilization of troops of Germany, France and so on.
Functions, carried out by policy of prestige, are based on the nature of international relations, because internal policy of any state is a result of its estimation by international unities and countries.
An example the internal policy of the USA are based on evaluation of its value and importance in comparison with internal policy of another international states.
A function of policy of prestige is an influence on such kinds of evaluations a striving for strengthening of it. For example, the USA can influence the states of Latin America in such way that domination of the USA in this region is important. So, preservation of the Status Quo in Western Hemisphere is based on prestige and power of the USA.
We consider a quotation of Mortengaw about policy of prestige to be very actual. It says that policy of prestige reaches the highest pick when politics manage to persuade people in necessity of policy for rising authority of a state in the international arena.
Morgentaw in a capacity of basic principles of political realism proceeds from
1) understanding of probability of character of political activity in international relations.
2) choosing of national interests as the basis for internal policy of any state (national interests are treated in definitions of power and strength).
3) seeking to avoid philologist: real actions are objects for research of the theory on international relations.; but not intentions and motives.
4) dynamic understanding of national interests to be dependent from historical period, political and cultural context.
5) the principle of political sense and ethics of responsibility.
6) a definition of international relations as a struggle for power and influence in the international stage.
Conclusion
Supporters of the conception of political realism consider that the main motive power in international relations is national interests. And international relations are treated as “pluralism of sovereignties”. Power and the balance of power are the regulators of the international policy.
We’d like to admit that it’s impossible to accept all the principles of political realism, declared by G. Morgentaw. But we see that his principles are corroborated in history as well as in modern international relations, that outlines the importance and righteousness of his theoretical conceptions and principles.

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать