Realists v Liberals: Likelihood of War Flashcards
disagreements between liberals and realists over the likelihood of war and conflict in global politics
differing views of human nature
differing views of the international system and how successful IGOs can be
billiard ball model v cobweb model
differing views of human nature
one of the most significant disagreements between liberal and realists over the likelihood of war and conflict in global politics relates to their views of human nature
realists believe that war and conflict is inevitable, largely due to their pessimistic view of human nature
they believe that humans are inherently selfish
Thucydides argued that humans are fundamentally self-centred and will place their own interests above and beyond the interests of others
Conservatives share a similar view of human nature, with Thomas Hobbes arguing that humans selfishly seek “power after power”
Consequently, because humans are selfish, states are selfish too because they are ruled by humans
This selfishness causes a lack of trust because states will always look out for their own interests, meaning others can never be sure of their intentions
This inevitably causes tension and leads to a clash of interests, which in turn leads to war
For instance, in 1941 Hitler invaded Russia despite agreeing to a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union
This demonstrates that states behave selfishly and this creates conflict.
More recently, China has been seeking to become a hegemon state by building islands and increasing naval patrols in the South China Sea. Thus, attempting to expand its territory without considering the interests of neighbouring countries such as Taiwan and Vietnam which inevitably creates tension and could lead to serious conflict.
However, due to their more optimistic view of human nature, liberals do not believe that war is inevitable.
Liberals argue that humans are naturally altruistic and capable of a selfless concern for others.
Socialism also has a positive view of human nature. For instance, socialists believe that we can cooperate and behave altruistically as we are bound by fraternity and common humanity.
So, if altruism is at the core of human nature, states can also act selflessly as they are ruled by people. Therefore, harmony and balance is possible.
Liberals would point to international organisations as evidence of this.
For instance, the EU was established as the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 to promote peace and unity among European countries after the atrocities of WW2. Thus, demonstrating the ability of humans to co-operate on a large scale.
Therefore, the realist and liberal views of human nature lead to different conclusions regarding the inevitability of war.
differing views of the international system and how successful IGOs can be
Realists and liberals also disagree over the likelihood of war and conflict due to their views of the international system.
Realists believe that war is inevitable because the world system is one of international anarchy. In a system of international anarchy, there is no universal sovereign or worldwide government that has more power than the state.
The international system is therefore like conservative thinker Thomas Hobbes’ state of nature in which states can act with impunity as there are no rules and nobody in any position to enforce them.
Therefore, IGOs have no enforcement power. They cannot hold states to account for their actions, punish them for infringing the rights and interests of other states or force them into cooperation.
Realists would point to the numerous failed UN peacekeeping missions as evidence. For example, the UN failed to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide that left up to one million people dead. This causes conflict and is a factor behind the realist belief in the inevitability of war.
However, liberals believe that IGOs are an effective means to cooperation and although they have no enforcement power, they are highly influential.
IGOs may not have enforcement power but states seem to consciously chose to cooperate more often than they choose to defy the rulings and decisions of organisations like the UN.
Numerous IGO successes can be used to illustrate their impact. For example, the UN peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone from 1999 to 2005 is widely hailed as a success. The UN disarmed more than 75 000 ex-fighters, destroyed more than 42,000 weapons and 1.2 million rounds of ammunition, all of which helped implement a peace agreement after the country’s civil war.
This demonstrates that war is not inevitable, cooperation and harmony are very possible and made possible by IGOs. Therefore, the realist and liberal views of the capabilities of IGOs lead to different conclusions regarding the likelihood of war and conflict.
billiard ball model v cobweb model
Finally, part of the realist theory is the billiard ball model, leading them to believe that war is inevitable.
The billiard ball model, proposed by John Dalton, essentially means that there is no connection between states, they constantly collide with one another like billiard balls.
They collide due to their differing interests and the fact that they find themselves in a competitive struggle for power, as in the Cold War 1945 – 91.
All states (whether intentional or not) pose a threat because if they wish to gain power they must take it away from somebody else. This causes tension between states and leads to war.
Liberals reject this notion and believe in complex interdependence.
Complex interdependence is a term coined by Joseph Nye and Robert Keohane. It describes how states and inextricably tied together economically, politically, culturally and militarily.
This is illustrated further using the ‘cobweb model’ in which states are increasingly interconnected and inter-reliant. So, if one part of the cobweb breaks, the whole system is weakened.
For example, the EU has the highest level of economic interdependence of any regional or international organisation. There is a single currency, a single market and the free movement of people and capital. Due to this interdependence, war between member states is unthinkable because they are mutually dependent on eachother so waging war would be entirely counterproductive.
Therefore, war is not inevitable as states prefer to cooperate. As a result of their differing views on the relationships between states, realists and liberals take polar opposite views on the inevitability of war.
