UNIT 1 REALIST AND NEO-REALLIST APPROACH%ES

Structure
1 .1 1.2

1.3

1.4

I .5 1.6

I ntroductisn What is Realism? 1.2.1 One. Realism, or Many? 1.2.2 Classical Realism 1.2.3 Contemporary Realism or Neo-realism Key Concepts in the Realist Scl~ool 1.3.1 National Interest 1.3.2 National Power 1.3.3 National Security Some I~npoi-tantTheories in tlie Realist Approach to International Relations 1.4.1 Theory of Conflict 1.4.2 'Theory of Balance of Power 1.4.3 Theory of Deterrence Summary Exercises

1.I

INTRODUCTION
'

Of the major approaches to the study of international relations, Realism has by far proved to be the most influential theory in explaining the nature of world politics. What probably explains its dominance as a school of tkouglit is its ability to provide the most powerful explanation for the state ,of war, which characterises tlie regular condition of life in the international system. This, however, does not mean that its basic assunlptions have remained unchallenged. As would become clear in the later part of this Unit, tlie Realist perspective has come under fierce criticism. As you go along this Unit. the relative strengths and weaknesses of tlie Realist approach will become clearer to you.

1.2 WHAT IS REALISM?

Realism, also known as "Political Realism" or "Realpolitik", continues to remain one of the dominant schools of thought within the domain of international'relations. Althoi~ghits genesis can be traced back to Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War (43 1 BC), and to Sun Tzu's classic work on strategy, The Art o f War, written at roughly the same time in China, Realism emerged as the dominant international perspective only during the 20th Century. More specifically, it enierged in its modern form largely in reaction to idealism, a more normatively driven approach which held that countries were United in an underlying "harmony of interests"a view shattered by the outbreak of Second World War. Rather than study the world as it might be, Realists maintained that a science of international politics must study the world, as it wasan insistence that resulted in the Realists' self-acclaimed appellation. In contrast to the "idealists", a term retrospectively co'ined by the Realists for the ~nter-war scholars whose maj~;~reoccu~ation was with understanding the cause of war and finding a tasting remedy for its existence, war to the Realists appears as a natural phenomenon given the inherent craving -for power in human nature. While idealism eniphasises that intertiational relations should be guided by morality, Realism is grounded in an emphasis on power politics and the pursuit of national interests.

But, what do these terms mean'? As you go along this Unit, the meanings and in~plicationsof such expressions frequently used in the literature on international relations would become clear to you. However, before we get down to explaining these terms we must take note of the fact that from the perspective of the Realist framework, states are recognised as the preeminent actors in world politics. What provides weight to such an assumption is the acco~npanying notion of sovereignty, which enables states to act as independent and autonomous entities both within and outside the nation-state. The rise of nationalisnl and the emergence of modern nation-states have further consolidated such a belief system by transforming the different states into cohesive political conlrnunities, within which all other loyalties and ties remain subordinate to the nation-states. By logical extension, all non-state actors like multinational corporations and intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations are relegated to a peripheral status within the international system. Despite the growing recognition of the fact that such non-state entities do significantly influence the outconle of developments in international relations, the Realists are unwilling to budge from their position as far as the pre-eminence of nationstates in the international systenz is concerned. While conceding tliat the non-state actors do operate within the political arena, the Realists argue that the states' supremacy renlains unchallenged as they do so only with tlie consent of national political authorities. Nothing, the Realists argue, is above tl~e state.

1.2.1 One Realism or IVlany?

There is no consensus among theorists of international relations with regard to the taxonolny of Realism. The question as to whether Realism collstitutes a single collerent theory or there are different strands within Realism has proved increasingly contentious. Nevertheless, different classificatory scllernes are often used to separate one strand of Realism fro111another. Generally speaking, the Realist school can be divided into two broad categories-classical ~ e a l k m and contemporary Realism or Neo-realism.

1.2.2 Classical Realism

Classical Realism represents a whole worldview of international politics encompassing 'several generations of theorists ranging from Thucydides, Machiavelli, and E.H. Carr to H b s J. Morgenthau, the most famous high priest of post-war Realism. The central argunlent of classical Realism rests on the assumption that international politics is drivcn by an endless struggle for power,'~vhichhas its root in human nature. In this framework, justice, law, and society have either no place or are circumscribed. Classical Realism recognises that principles are subordinated to policies and that the ultimate test of the state leader lies in accepting and adapting to the changing power political configurations in world politics. Classical Realism, as a school o f thought, became fashionable more particularly during the inter-war period when a new generation of scholars got actively engaged h explaining new developme~lts in international relations. Classical Realists, a tern1 retrospectively used by later band of Realists, is thus often attributed to those theorists who were actively writing on international relations i~mnediatelybefore and after the Second World War. What distinguishes this genre of scholars from others is their shared belief in an essentially pessimistic view of human nature. Some of the key figures in this tradition of Realist school like Reinhold Niebuhr (1 892-1971), Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943), Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980), and others believe that the struggle for power is inherent in human nature. In other words, the drive for power and the will to dominate are treated as the lkndamcntal traits of human nature. Follotving from this, tlie behviour of the state as a self-seeking egoist is thus understood to be merely a reflection of the characteristics of the people that comprise the state. It is human nature that explains why

international politics is necessarily power politics. Convinced of the unchanging human nature, classical Realists are highly pessiillistic with regard to the possibility of any qualitative transfornation of world politics. As a result, they tend to rely ~nuchmore upon conventional principles of diplomacy and mechanisms-such as balance of power, international morality and world public opinion, and intenlational lawfor regulating and restraining the inevitable clashes of interests between states, tllan on the human nature.

1.2.3 Contemporary Realism or Neo-realism

Contemporary Realism, also called Neo-realism and Structural Realism, is a more recent strand of Realism that developed during the 1980s under the influence of Kellneth Waltz. While Neo-realists continue to ackno\vledge the central in~portanceof power, they tend to explain events in tenns of the structure of the international system rather than tlle goals and make-up of individual states. The structure of the intenlational systen~,for the Neo-realists, is a major determinant of state bchaviour. It is tllrough an analysis of the different stn~cturesof the international system-defined in tenns of ordering principles, the functionat differentiation of the Units, and distributions of capabilities-that the Neo-realists tend to esplain tlle varying patterns of world politics. This, they believe, cannot be explained simply in terms of the interests .and policies of individual countries. Unlike the classical Realists who trace the causes of war to the innatc humLmnature, the Neorealists tend to explain international conflict within the framework of the anarchic structure of the international system. 'Illis basically means that there is no overarching central authority to enforce rules and norms or protect the interests of the larger global co~lununity. In other words, it is not so much the innate huiilan nature as thc anarchical system, which nurtures fear, jealousy, suspicion, and insecurity in the international system. The stnrctural Realists insist that conflict can emerge evcn if the actors have bcllevolent intent towards each other. This fornl of Structural Realisin is most often associated with Kenneth Waltz's landmark book, Theory of' International Politic.,. (1979). Waltz's Structural Realism has had a major impact 011 scholars in intcrnational relations. Waltz's popularity as a structural Rcalist enlanates from his ringing assertion that the structure of the intenlatioi~alsystem decisively shapes the bellaviour of t l ~ e states. According to Waltz: anarchy prevents states from entering into co-operative agreements to end the state of war. The condition of anarchy-absence of s "higl~crpowcr" over and above tl~e sovereign nation-states to ensure peace among t11en1-is often viewcd as synonymous to a state of war. By the state of war, structural Realists do not intend to convey the iinpression that politics: Rather, the possibility that a large-scale war is a daily occurrence in inten~ntiol~al particular state may resort to force indicates that the outbreak of war is always a likely sceilario in an anarchical environment. Put differently, the structure of the intcrnational systcnl can drive states to war even if state leaders desirc peace. Structural Realists insist that tlic form of a state, for example a democracy or a totalitarintr state, oy.the personality of the leader is less important in accounting for the phenoniena of war than the fact that action M c s place within the contest of-an anarchical realm. However, Kenneth. Waltz's theory of Structural Realism is not the o111y version of Neo-realism. A second group of contcniporary Re~llists,pronlinent among whom is Joseph Grieco, I~ave integrated Waltz's ideas with the ideas of lnorc traditional Realists such as Hans Morgenthau, Raymond Aron, Stanley Hoffit~ann,and Robert Gilpin to construct a contetnporary or modern Realist profile. Grieco represents a group of Neo-realists or mod en^ Realists who are critical of neo-liberal institutionalists who claim states are lnai~~ly interested in absolute gains. Grieco clainls that all states are interested in both absolutc and relative gains and in the questioiz of how such gains are distributed in the ir~ternational system. Such Neo-realists, however, identify

two barriers to international cooperation, fear of those who might not follow the rules and the relative gains of others. There is yet another version, the third version of Neo-realism, whlch is increasingly becoming popular as security studies. This for111 of Neo-realism is further divided into two sub-groupsoffensive Neo-realism aid defensive Neo-realism. While offensive Neo-realists emphasise the importance of relative power, tlie defensive Neo-realists are often conhsed with neo-liberal institutionalists, a branch of liberalism. which will be taken up in detail in the next Unit. Like traditional Realists, the offensive Neo-realists believe that conflict is inevitable in tlie international system and leaders must always be wary of expansionary powers. The defensive Neo-realists, on the other hand, recognise tlie costs of war and argue that it invariably results from irrational forces in a society. Moreover, tlley argue that it is the presence of tlie expansionary forces in the international system, always willing to use force, which makes it impossible to co-exist in a world tvitliout weapons. They do, however, concede that co-operation can take place but is likely to be successfuI only among tlie friendly states. However, all this has evoked strong reactions from a nuniber of scholars. Several critics point out that conteniporary Realists like Waltz who construct a Realist theory without relying on an assumption about human nature tend to assume that states are competitive and egoistic entities. Moreover, in the work of contemporarj structural Realists, these traits appear to be prior to t l ~ e interactions of states as though they existed before the game of power politics began. We shall come back to some of the more general criticisms of the Realist approach later on in the 'Unit. Our more imniediate concern here, however, is to identify some of the key concepts frequently used in the ReaIist approach to the study of international politics.

KEY CONCEPTS IN THE REALIST APPROACH

We shall be focussing here on sonie of the key concepts frequently used in the study of international relations, which together form the very core of the Realist school. These are: national interest, national power, and national security. Our use of these concepts so far has been rather loose lacking a systematic treatment without which we cannot possibly capture the minute nuances of their implications in the Realist tradition of international relations theory. Ho~vever,you might have: perhaps, already noticed that such concepts tend to overlap and are &n used interchangeably by the Realist theorists.

1.3.1 National Interest

Fronl the perspective of the Realist frrunework, the concept of national interest, notwithstanding its anzbiguity, is considered to be the most important analytic category in explaining and predicting the course of international beliaviour. Pursuance of national interest as a foreign policy goal in the Realist perspective is treated as the primary justification for all kinds of state actions. Almost all Realists are unaninlous on this. However, the real problem arises when one asks conceptual or substantive questions about the national interest. For example: C a i there be a universally acceptable definition of national interest'? Does national interest keep cl~anging as per time and space'? Who decides what constitutes national interest at any given point of time and how is it prioritised? Does natio~ialinterest always represent the genuine interests of the nationals of a country'LIs national intcrest the sun1 total of the interests of all the citizens of a cowltry'? Or, is national interest, merely an expression of th;: values of the political elite of a country'? And so on.

A review of history docs reveal that different statesmen have justified their foreign policies in the nanne of the national interest. For example, Napoleon argued that he was acting in France's interest when lie initiated the Russian campaign and when, later, he tnoui1tcd a last desperate battle at Waterloo. Similarly. Hitler justified llis expansionist policies, i~lcludinga tnindless multi-front war. in the ilame of Gernlany's national interest. In each of these and tllany other instances. we find stateslllen justifving their diplomatic strategies in the name of national intercst. Hans Morgentlla~~ has been a systematic and consistent supporter of the pren~ise that diplonlatic strategy or foreign policy should bc niotivatcd by national interest rather than by ideological considerations. He equates national interest with the pursuit of state power, where power stands for anything that establislies and maintains control by one state over nilother. He fiirther adds that this power-control relationship can be achieved by coercive as well as cooperative techniques. Morgenthau has been criticised for constructi~~g two abstract and inlprccise concepts-power and interest-which he uses as the ends and mcans of intenlational political action. Morgentllau: however, has remained firnnly in support of his position that great abstractions such as power and interest cannot and should not bc quantified. Morgenthai~bclieves that political action is not finite, precise, and clearly observable. Therefore, if political concepts are to reflcct accurately the hazy reality of politics, they must also bc vague and imprecise. Furtlner, the concept of national intercst is intricately intertwined wit11 the question of ~latioi~al survival. As Morgenthau puts it, "the minimum requirement of nation-states is to protect their physical, political and cultural identity against possible encroaclunents by other nation-states." It is this sole objective of survival, argues Morgenthau, wlnich justifies a whole range of cooperative and conflictive policies such as compctitivc armaments. balancc of power, foreignaid alliances, subversion. a~ldeconoinlic and propaganda "warfare." However, the Realist understanding of the conccpt of national interest is not free from problems. It is, as critics argue, defincd in a rather lo'ose fashion.with the conscqucnce that pursuance of inatio~nal intercst does at tinncs bccomc a liccnse for thc co~intct~ancc of atrocities on the weaker nations. As a result, natio~nalintercst. itlore often than not. is merely assumcd ratllcr than rigorously defined. For exaniplc, that ~~ational illtcrcst is a ncccssary criterion of policy appears too obvious wit11 the rcsult that no one tvould ever argue that the state ought to act in opposition to its national intcrcst. But then, what constitutcs national intcrcst? As a matter of fact, those ~ 1 1 1 0 rule may not follow policies tllnt would i~ecessarilylead to enhancement of national interest but their own or class interest.

' 1 . 3 . 2 National Power

The concept of powcr has conceptunll~~ proved to bc an elusive category lnckillg unanimity annong scholars ovcr its precise inneaning. However, from the days of Thucydides to the present, the conccpt of powcr has been identified with political action. Morgenthau. for example, defines sy~i~boliscs a relationship politics ns'the struggle for power. In othor words, power for Morge~lthau. between two political actors where actor A has the ability to control the mind and actions of actor B. As he puts it. power is, "man's control ovcr the minds and actions of other rtten".

The Realists niake two inlportant points about the concept of power. First, power is a relational conccpt in the scnse that one does not excrcise power in a vacuun~~ but always in relation to anotller entity. Aid second. powcr is sccin as a relative conccpt. What it means is that iin the international systcm it may not be enough to cnlculatc onc's own power capabilities, but also the power of other states. However, the task of accurately assessibg tllc power of states presents

a serious challenge. The challcnge gcts further aggravated as it is merely calculated in terms of the number of troops, tanks, aircraft, and naval ships that a particular coulltry possesses. Calculation of power in this purely physical sense leads to hrther build op of physical force with a view to outstripping the power of the perceived enenly country. This is done with the belief that it might enhance the ability of one actor to get other actors do somethillg they would not otherwise do. This one-dimensional view of power, as understood by the Realists, has been criticised on a number of grounds. Colltelnporary structural Realists have in recent years sought to bring more conceptual clarity to bear on the meaning of power in thc Realist discourse. Kennetli Waltz, for esan~ple, tries to overcome the problem by shifting tlic focus from power to capabilities. He suggests that capabilities call be ranked according to their strength in the following areas: size of population and territory. resource endownlent. econolnic capability, ltiilitary strength, political stability and competence. However. as critics point out. resource strenb*h need not always lead to military victory. For exaniple, in tlie 1967 Six-Day War betlveen Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, the distribution of resources clearly favoured the Arab coalition and yet the supposedly weaker side atulihilated its enemies' forces and seized their territory. The definition of powcr as capabilities has proved even less successful at explaining thc relative econol~licsuccess of Japan over China. Yct another problem with the Reallst treat~nentof power relates to its esclusive focus upon state power. For Realists, states are the only actors that really "coi~nt". As a result, transnational corporatio~~s, international organisations. and religious denon~inationsare rarely taken seriously in the Realist framework. My-eover, ~t is not clear that these non-state actors are autonomous from state power, whether this be Italy in case of the papacy or the US in case of corporations like Microsoft. The extent to which non-state actors bear the imprint of a statist identity is further endorsed by the fact that thesc actors have to make their way in intenlational systen~ whose rules are made by states.

1.3.3 National Security

Fro111 the Realist viewpoint, the concept of national security or national survival is trcatcd as a hadan~eiltalvalue in the foreign policy of all states. Particularly. cljlssical Realists like Machiavelli~Meinecke, and Weber attach top priority to national security or survival. They stress that the task of ensuring national security/survival must be considered as the suprenle ~lational interest to which all political leaders must adhere. 1 1 1 othcr words, national security is viewed as a preconditioll for attaining all other goals. whether tllesc involve conquest or n~erely independence. In the words of Henry Kissinger, "a nation's survival is its first and ultin~ate responsibility; it cannot be compromised or put to risk". As also noted by Waltz. "bcj~ondthe survival motive, the ainl of states may be endlessly varied". All othcr goals such as economic prosperity belong to the donlaill of what is called "low politics" and hence are collsidcred of with "high secondary importance. The primary concern of the Rcalists is u~~ambiguously politics '-the security of the state. Given the obsessioll of the Realists with the prcscrvatioll of security. they emphatically reconunend the leaders of their state to adopt all ethical code which would help them judge a11 action according to the ooutco~nerather than in tcrllls of a .judgement about whether the individr~alact is righLor wrong.
7

Despite tlie near uoa~hiniityanlong Rcalists on the centrality of the issue of national secority. recent developmmts in the Realist I thinking indicate a raging coiitroversy over the question of wid~ctl~er "states are h fact principally security or powcr n~aximiscrs".This controversy. wllich primarily takes place betwecn the defnlsivc and offensive Rcalists, has significant implications

for the prospects of international peace and co-operation. Defensive Realists such as Waltz and Grieco argue that it is security which is the principal interest of the states and that tiley seek to obtain only as much power as it is sufficient to ensure their own survival. According to this view: states are primarily defensive actors and will not seek to gain greater arno~lnt of powers if that means jeopardizing their own security. Offensive Realists like Mearsheimer 011 the otl~cr hand, argue that the ultimate goal of all states is to achieve a hegelnonic position in the iilternational system. States, according to this view, always desire nlore power and are willing, if the oppartuility arises, to alter the esistilig distribution of power even if such an action may jeopardise their own security.

1.4

SOME IMPORlANT THEORIES IN THE REALIST APPROACH

As you might have perhaps already noticed, we have been lnaking oblique reference to some
of the i~nportant Realist theories like conflict. balance of power and deterrence in the discussion above. We shall now focus lilore s1,eciiically 011 these to help us develop a better u~lderstanding of the Realist approach to the study of international politics.

1.4.1 Theory of Conflict

.

Conflict constitutes the core of the Realist approach. It is around this (pcrccivcd) basic realit!. of perpetual conflict anlollg the states in the international systcnl that thc cntirc Rcalist theory is built. If you recall the nlai~largumcnt of thc Realists, you would bc able to recognise tile central importance tl~ey attach to human nature, wllicll according to tl~ctn is csse~itially conflicting. This inherently conflicting nature of l ~ i ~ ~ ib la cn i ~ l ~according s, to the Realists, leads to n constant struggle for power an~ongthem. Follo~ving fro111 this. thc nature of itltenlational system is viewed by tlic Realists as anarchic and as one that is based on the principle of self-help. In the self-help systeln, the Realists argue, it would be naive on the part: of ; 1 statc to rely upon others for securing its own security. In other words, the stn~cture of thc illtcnlational system. which is tilarked by perpetual conflict and perennial conditio~lof uncertainty in thc absellce of a ce~~tral autl~ority,llns no space for friendship. tn~stand l~onour. Critiquing the idealist belief in intcnlationalism and natural harnlony. thc Rcalists posit that in the absence of any lligllcr authority over and above the sovereign state. illtematiolral politics like situation. and is $IS charactcrised b ~ anarchy. , not is conducted in a "state of nat~~rc" hani~ony . Unlike dolllestic politics. \\#herea hierarchical pattern of authority esists to enforce private agreements and public laws, there is no such arrallgctllent in the international politics where all sovereign states enioy fornlal cquality against each other. As a result. an anarchic i~ltenlationalsystcm in tllc Realist pcrspcctive is vicwod as one in which each state is forced to help itself and givc priority to its ocin national intcrcst, defined, most fundanlcntally, as state survival and territorial defence. The issue of ilational intercst understood/in tcnns of statc survival leads to a constant struggle for power anlong the states. As is evident fro111Halls Morgenthau's classic statenle~lt in Politics Among Notions: The Struggle ,for Power ond Peace: that "stntcsl~lenthink and act in tenns af interest defined as power." Power is here broadly understood in tcnlls of both nlaterial and capabilities. The centrality of the noti011 of power ill the psychological: military and eco~lomic Realist perspective is ineluctably linked to the concept of national interest that is defined in tenlls of nlasimising power. This csplains wh>r Realists put so nu.1~11 of emphasis on the role

of power and views the nature of world politics as inherently conflictual in nature. The Realists argue that since power exists only in a relative sense and that all countries cannot maxhnise their power or satisfy their national interests at the same time, a constant struggle for power and more power amorlg the states cllaractcrises the nature of the world politics.
However, the pursuit of power or constant struggle for power among the states does not mean that the international system is characterised by rele~ltlessco~lflictand uilel~ding war. Anarchy not in the Hobbesian sense of "state of nature" in wllich absence of nonlis and conventions, rules and la~vs had created a free for all situation. But, anarchy in a linlited sense of the tern1 i.e. tlle absence of anjT recognisable supreme authority in the international system over and above the state. In fact, the Realists argue that some seinblance of order is maintained within the state systenl through the creation of a balance of power. This brings us to another inlportant theory of the Realist approach i.e. balance of power.

1.4.2 Theory of Balance of Power

Given the anarchic natilre of the intcnlational systelll owing to absence of any higher authority to prevent and counter the rise of force, the Realists argue that security can only be realised through self-help. As Waltz notes, -'in , a n anarchic stnicture, self-help is neces$arily the pri~lciple of action". However, when n paqicular state seeks to ensure its owl1 security by acquiring weapons and other means, it invariably fuels the insecurity of other states. The spiral of insecurity t l l ~ ~ unleashed s is called security dilemma. According to Wheeler and Booth, security dile~wi~a exists "cvl~enthe nlilitary preparations of one state create an unresolvable uncertainty in the mind of another as to whether those preparations are for '-defcnsive" purposes only (to enhance its security in an i~~lcertain world) or whether they are for offensive purposes (to change the status quo to its advantage)". This leads to a situation whereby one state's quest for security often becomes another state's source of insecurity. In other words, statcs find it extremely difficult to tnlst one another and often suspect the intentions of others. As a result. the militaq, preparations of one stntc are to be invariably matclied by neighbouring states. Ironically, at the end of the day. states often feel no niore secure than before they undertook measures to e~lhance their owl security. It is with a view to escape this security dilenlma that the theory of balance of power becon~es important. However, the Realists are 11ot unanimous on this. While the Neo-realists view the security dilelnnla to be a perennial condition of international politics, the classical Realists believe that even in a sclf-help systan, the dilellln~acan be mitigated. The balance of power thus becollies the principal ~~leckslllisili by which the security dilenu~~a is mitigated. But: tvllat is nleatlt by balance of power? Balance of power is all about fashioning a pattern of interactio~~ amongst states that tend to ctlrb aggression and espansionism by rendering then1 impracticable. This means that while j)i~rsuingtheir national interests and national security, states do enter into alliai~ces which when properly balanced against one another lnay guarantee prolonged periods of peace and stability. However, given the highly dynanlic and volatile nature of intenlationa1 system, it is virtually i~llpossible to predict Ilow long would such peace and stability last. Moreover, each tiine the balance of power breaks down, it is inevitably followed by a war. The Neo-realists or structural Realists argue that in a self-help system, the balance of power call enlerge eveti in the absetlcc of a conscious policy to nnlaintain the balance i.e, without piirswil~ga policy of prudent statecraft. As Waltz argues that balances of power inevitably emerge irrespective of the intentions of any state. In an anarcliical system in cvllich states

always seek to perpetuate themselves, alliances will inevitably emerge that seek to check and balance the power against threatening states. However, all varieties of Realism are united in the belief that the balance of power is not a stable condition. Whether it was the contrived balance of the Concert of Europe in the early 19th Century or the more fortuitous balance of the Cold War, such balances eventually broke down. The precipitatipg factor for the breakdown of such a balance of power could either be a war or peacefbl change. However, the Realists argue that a new balance of power soon replaces the old one. The continual collapsing of the balance of power in the international system demonstrates that states can only mitigate the worst consequences of the security dilemma but cannot escape it altogether. The Realists attribute the reason for the existence of such conditions to the absence of trust in the international system.

1.4.3 Theory of Deterrence

The theory of deterrence is a new name for balance of power in the modem nuclear age. Also known as "nuclear diplomacy", it came into existence during the period of Cold War diplomacy. The term "Cold War diplomacy" refers to some very specific aspects of diplomacy that emerged after Second World War. From the late 1940s until the end of the 1980s, world politics was dominated by the ideological confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union. Each superpower supported by a network of allies sought to undermine and "defeat" the other by all means short of a real or a "hot war"-hence the "Cold War" description of this confrontational system. The diplomatic activity associated with the "East-West" confrontation the absolute necessity of avoiding a global, nuclear conflict that had a single dramatic focuscould destroy the international system. It was against this backdrop that nuclear diplomacy or the deterrence theory came to the fore as one of the most important types of Cold War diplomacy. But, what is meant by nuclear diplomacy or deterrence theory'? Nuclear diplomacy refers to the interactions between states that possess nuclear'weapons where one or more states threaten to use them to dissuade an opponent from undertaking an action. In other words, the theory of deterrence is based on the assumption that in a nuclear age possession of nuclear weapons by one state or one block of states would deter the enemy state or the enemy camp from making first use of the nuclear option in the course of a likely war.

1.5 SUMMARY
In this final section of the Unit, let us try and sum up the main arguments of the Realist approach to tlie study of international politics. As a school of thought, Realism continues to provide one of the most influential frameworks to understand the nature of world politics. The Realist approach views nation-states as the principal actors in world politics as they are answerable to no higher political authority in the i~~ten~ational system. In other words, states are treated as the super-ordinate actors on the world stage. Moreover, conflicts of interests among them in an anarchical international system are assumed to be inevitable. The purpose of statecraft, in the Realist framework, is national survival in a hostile environment. No means is considered to be more important to secure national sunrival than the acquisition of power. And no priilciple is more important than self-help-the ultimate dependence of the state on its own resources to promote its interests and protect itself. As aptly noted by Charles W. Kegley Jr., "tile game of international politics takes place under conditions of permanent anarchy and revolves around the pursuit of power: acquiring it, increasing it, protecting it, and using it to bend others to one's will".

1.6 EXERCISES
I)
2)

Accou~ltfor thc dominance of Rcnlist approncl~in intcr~~ntional relations theory.

Bring out the underlying assun~ptionsof Rcalism.

3)

What distinguishes Nco-realism l'rom Rcalism?

4)
5)

Bring out the esselice of thc key collcepts frequently uscd in the Realist framework. What Purposc do they scrve?
To what extent do yo11 think. is the notion of "national interest ' representative of the genuine interests of a nation'? How "anarchic" is the nature of the interaatio~~al systan as seen by tllc Realists'? Is there a way out'?
7

6)

7)

Wliat is meant by the ilotioll of "securit~. dilciluna"'? Do the Realists suggcst any mechanism to escape or mitignte the security dilemnla?