Blog Post 1: Negatives of Realism

Realism believes that states are sovereign and that the basic unit of international relations is the state.  Although realism believes it’s a timeless philosophy, it fails to account for a time, place and situation for a state. All these factors mixed with a state’s identity shape a state’s actions and can change the way a state behaves. Realism doesn’t take into account non-state groups such as a terrorist organization, which is so prominent in today’s international politics. Realism also relies solely on military power as the only relevant form of power, although there are many other forms of power that effect global politics.

Realism’s inability to predict change and understand different situations also invalidates some of its points.  It may not be the case that every nation, regardless of time and place will behave similarly to another. A country’s identity will likely change its behavior. A democracy, when placed in certain situations will act differently from a monarchy or a dictator. A country with democratic values will most likely try harder to defend democratic ideals than a dictatorship will. Each state prioritizes certain actions according to its identity. A certain state may prioritize economic power or cultural power over military power. Going against the realist view of states, certain states may act irrationally or unpredictably. Realism believes that there will always be a Hitler or Stalin and situations will always lead to the same results each time. However, international politics is not that simple and state will act differently based on the identity they have.

Realism fails to acknowledge the role non-state groups play in international politics. ISIS is not a nation state but it is having a major influence in global politics in today’s world. This has been a main focus of the Western countries right now. ISIS is influencing foreign policies around the world, including the U.N. Although it’s not recognized as a sovereign state, it has much of the military power of an independent. Modern warfare isn’t just waged between states; it’s also waged between a state and an organization. Future warfare may be large organizations against one another. This could be companies, international organizations such as the European Union, or could be large terrorist groups against one another. This refusal to acknowledge non-state organizations also stems from the fact that realism is not open to a changing world.

Realists believe that all nations want power and want to dominate. Since realist power is based on military, realists believe that the state with the most military is the most powerful. However, countries like Germany or Japan are seen as having a lot of power without much of a military. They have economic and cultural influence and are seen as major powers in the world. It would be very difficult for a country to invade and conquer Japan or Germany, proving that there can be power without having a large military.  In certain situations, a state might not seek to gain military power. It may be beneficial for a state to not have a military. This is true of countries like Iceland or Monaco and shows that a country can function without having a military even though it would be considered powerless according to realists.

Realism has a sound logical argument but oversimplifies too many complicated parts of international relations. It does not account for change in the world and especially does not account for modern day issues such as terrorism. Realism’s beliefs give a negative insight into human nature when in reality, international relations issues are far more complicated than realist beliefs. 

Shahzeb Asim