realist theory

8/8/2019 Realist Theory

1/57

Realism founders1

FOUNDERS OF TODAYS

REALIST THEORY

OF INTERNATIONAL RELATONS


2/57

Realism founders1

Machiavellis , 1513 entrepreneur creates empire : strategy ofdomestic liberty and peace; entrepreneurial realism

- today: B Bueno de Mesquita. Principles of international politics

Hobbes, 1651 structural realism: structure what is that?

inter-state system is a social structure that pre-determines limits within state behavior can besuccessful and punishes failure

- today: K. Waltz. Theory of international politics.

Rousseaus, 1756 constitutional realism + isolation

today: A. Etzioni . The spirit of community 1993

Kant, 1795, League of republican states imposes peace; bridges

realism-liberalism

- today Robert Cooper. The breaking of nations. Order and chaos in the twentieth-first

century. Atlantic Books 2004


3/57


4/57

Why di f ferent answ ers? Causes of fore ign pol ic ybehavior d i f fer :

hum an nat ure ,domest ic soc ie t y ,in t ernat iona l sys t em

ALL AGREE:s t a t e o f w ar is s t a t e o f nat ure : perm anent ,

un iversa l, c annot undone by s ta t e ac t ion

2


5/57

1)Cr i t ic a l Quest ions about Anarc hy (i) does it cause foreign policy?;

(ii) Let it things happen, it does not make them happen?2) Fear , pr i de and int erest s : does threat perception

come from:

- growing capabilities?;- from incompatible domestic systems?

- From competing foreign policy objectives?

Implications for formation of alliances

Puzzleswhy do people kill themselves for benefit of a group??

4) A-symm et r ic w ar fare : major powers often lose warsagainst weaker opponents: willingness to suffer, Netherlands in

Aceh, 1870-1903; suicide terrorism

anarchy


6/57

Summary Hobbes

Waltz, as Hobbes: the beast man may glory in carnage; the reason

in man rebels;


7/57

1) Pessimist about the species: human nature; no progress

Will to power; struggle for power;

rea l i s ts : c ont inu i t y behav ior m an-an im al :c ogn it i ve equipm ent o f m an par t o f evo lut ion o fre jec t (i ) Desc art e s dua l i sm 1596-1650

same emotions caused by same physiological processes

Frans de Waal. Chimpanzee politics

power drive: implies cooperation in conflicts about top position;

re jec t (i i ) Loc k e s b lank sheet no t ion o f humannatu rere jec t (i i i ) Rousseau s nob le savage in sm al lc o m m u n i t y

pessimists1


8/57

Claude Levi-Strauss:

the idea of progress is an ethnocentric

illusion, which French intellectuals tookfor granted only because they had boughtinto the myth of the French revolution asa boon for all humanity as quoted inAdamKuper, Mens work, LRB 24 June 2004, p. 37 [Christopher Johnson. Claude Levi Strauss. Theformative years. [LRB June 24, 2004


9/57

[1]: Shak espeare i n t he Timon o f At hens:

If you wert the lion, the fox would beguile thee; If you wertthe lamb, the fox would eat thee; If you wert the fox, the lion

would suspect thee;If you wert the wolf, thy greediness would

afflict thee, and oft thou should hazard thy life for thydinner.Claude Lev i-St rauss:the idea of progress is an ethnocentric illusion, which French

intellectuals took for granted only because they had bought

into the myth of the French revolution as a boon for all

humanity as quoted in Adam Kuper, Mens work, LRB 24 June 2004, p. 37[Christopher Johnson. Claude Levi Strauss. The formative years. [LRB June 24,

2004

2 Shakespeare 1564-1616

R li I t ti l liti b h i f i l i th


10/57

Realism: International politics as behavior of animals in the

jungle

Machiavelli

A prince being thus obliged to know well how to act as

a beast must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion

cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot

defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox

to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.1]Interested?

Machiavellism in behavior is social expression of biological evolution: heritage of 5 million years of

primate past. Being a killer ape had survival value?

Controversy: behavior captured by evolutionary past which is discovered by rationally research, which

reflects freedom from biological determination: scientific materialism as example of self-stultifying

argument?

K. Malik. Man , beast and zombie.what science can and cannot tell about human nature.London 2000.

Frans De waal. Good natured. The origins of right and wron in humans and animals.. Harvard 1988R.

Wrangham. . Demonic males. Apes and the origins of human violence. Boston 1996.

machiavelli1


11/57

Domestic leadership rivalry may be played out through

inter-state relations

Machiavelli;

2


12/57

Current ex am ples of quas i -nat ura l ist language

Arafat outfoxes his political foes ---again [IHT 17-08-2004]

The United States has reached a dead end in Iraq, like a trapped

wolf Ayatollah Khamenei said at a gathering of Shiite clerics. It is

trying to frighten people by roaring and clawing. But the people of

Iraq will not allow the United States to swallow their country.

IHT 17-8-2004

3 Current examples


13/57

2MACHIAVELLI IS AL IVE AND WELL


14/57

Vietnam war example

Structural


15/57

Structuralrealist

Strategic

interactionbetween states

Strategic interaction

The CIA 's In tervent ion in Afghanis tan


16/57

I n te rview w i th Zb ign iew Brzezinsk i ,

Pres ident J imm y Carter 's Nat iona l Sec ur i ty Adviser

Le Nouvel Observateur , Par is , 15-21 J anuary 1998

Brzezinski:

Ac c ord ing to t he of f ic ia l vers ion of h is t ory , CIA a idt o t he Mu jahadeen began dur ing 1980, t hat i s to say,af t er t he Soviet arm y invaded Afghanis t an, 24 Dec1979. But t he rea li t y , sec ret ly guarded unt i l now , isc om plet e ly o t herw ise Indeed, i t w as J u ly 3 , 1979 t hatPres ident Car t er s igned t he f i rst d i rec t ive for sec reta id t o t he opponent s o f t he pro-Sov ie t reg im e inKabul . See Robert M. Gates. From the shadows. The ultimate insider story of five presidents and how they won the cold war 1996 ch. 9

Steve Coll. Ghost wars. The secret history of the CIA in Afghanistan and Bin Laden. From the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001. NY;Penguin 2004

Brzezinski


17/57

B. We didn ' t push t he Russians t o in t ervene, butw e k now ing ly inc reased the p robab i l i t y t hat t hey

would .

You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret w hat ? That secre t opera t ion w as an

ex c e l len t idea. I t had t he ef fec t o f draw ing t heRussians int o t he Afghan t rap and you w ant m e t o

regret i t?

The day that t he Sov ie t s o f f i c ia l l y c rossed the

border , I w rot e t o Pres ident Car t er . We now have

t he oppor t un i t y o f g iving t o t he USSR i t s V ie tnamwar .

2


18/57

Q: And ne i t her do you regret hav ing suppor t ed t he

Is lamic fundament a l ism, hav ing g iven arm s and

advic e to fu t ure t e r ror is t s?

Q: But i t has been sa id and repeat ed Is lamic

fundament a l i sm represents a w orld m enac e

today.

B: Nonsense! Som e st i r red -up Musl im s

. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner

and without demagoguery or emotion.

.. what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism,

moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or

Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites theChristian countries.

3

Todays realism: extension of thought of classical authors


19/57

Today s realism: extension of thought of classical authors

(i)Structural realism: Kenneth Waltz. Theory of international politicsgeo-politics: realism + geography [location + resources]

(ii)Entrepreneurial realism: Bruce B. de Mesquita. Principles ofinternational politics

(iii)Mercantilism: merging international political economy/ structural

realism: control rules world economy-Robert Gilpin. The political

economy of international relations

(iv)Strategic realism: models ofstrategic interaction between unified

states: interest maximization: game theory; decision theory

Thomas Schelling. Arms and influence [ coercion short ofwar]

4


20/57

Rousseau1

LEt at de Guer re, 1754: RousseauAs individuals we live in civil state = control of law

As nations, we live in state of nature= no law applicable

Under present circumstances, we have disadvantage of both without

having security in either of these realms

rejects Hobbes:social contract does not bring peace -prosperity

In society: : as long as Prince is uncontrolled, force speaks to citizens

in name of law; despotism of Leviathan solution

in Rousseau: sovereignty shifts from state to people

In International relations: force speaks to foreigner in name ofnational interests

Like Hobbes:


21/57

e obbes:

State of war is a relation between states;

for both: war is force not controlled by law

However:

For Hobbes :

states have the rights of individuals in the state of

nature

law of nature is the law of nations

contract abolishes state of nature in society

in international relations, states are in state of

nature

and behave as individuals did in state of nature----g iven w hathum an nat ure is a l l about : honor, ambition; fear/powerdrive

2


22/57

For Rousseau: state of war is international condition that does not derive from

human nature

Rousseau has 2 states of nature:

(i) men still part of animal kingdom: equal, cooperative instead of warlike; finds foodand shelter independent from each other; simple wants, few fears, few thoughts ; abundant

nature ;

Unlike Hobbes

man in state of nature is good-natured

(ii) when civilization develops, man extricates himself from nature: leaves animal

kingdom: rivalry, pride, hatred, possessiveness replaces natural happiness

rich form a contract, not the people: poor get tricked in formal equality

3

Unlike Hobbes:


23/57

development of civilization makes international conflict worse:

bad behavior not due to evil nature: what man original was is good; what has

become of him in bad society is not due his nature

Rousseau create awareness of cost of modern civilization

We thus are back to image of man:

which part of behavior is independent from society

which part of behavior is nature

Rousseau: create a second contract at home: a just society

this is Rousseaus democratic revolution: volonte general is the national interest

majority gets voice at home and abroad

U-shaped curve of development

Idyllic state of nature:

Natural man

1rst contract

Corrupt state of Hobbes2ndcontrct

Democratic community:

cultural man

Stomach

increases with

wealth:

infinite needs

4

Noble savage ideas widespread


24/57

Amerigo Vespucci, Mundus Novis, 1503

They have no cloth of wool, linen, or cotton, since they need none. Nor have they

private property, but own everything in common; they live together without a king andwithout authorities, each man his own master. They take as many wives as they which, and

son may couple with mother, brother with sister..Moreover, they have no temple and nor

religion.What more can I say. They live according to nature.

5

Realists see as the hard core of International Relations

t t f t


25/57

structure of a system:

(i) Ordering principle: independence of units ; units are alike;no differentiation among them= no hierarchy = no submission to

authority as domestic politics competition; independent survival

units;

(ii) [changes in] distribution of power resources

(iii) within an unaltered anarchy

observed capability distributions1)Hegemony: US, 1950s mid 1970s

2)Bi-polar: military bi-polarity; beginning of economic tri-polarity

alliance polarization of multi-polar power system is not same as bi-polarity: 18941907

3)Tri-polar: late 1930s: US; SU; Germany

4)Multi-polar: 5-7 major powers

5) Dispersed power: as in feudal system : great many small units

Waltz


26/57

structural realists [K. Waltz. Theory of international politics]

share:

1)international system = inter-state system;

typology of international systemslogic of inter-state competition overrules logic of market

integration

2) All inter-state systems are anarchic = state of nature= state

of war

3) Foreign policy is uniform across states: selection pressure

4) Outcome: long-term survival of inter-state system= system

of fragmented power

2

Structural realism:


27/57

(i) international system is composed of interacting units

(ii) Structural characteristics of international system make itpossible to conceive these units as a system

structure determined by

Concentration- de-concentration of distribution of capabilities across

states

Implication

Foreign policy inter-state relations change as response toshifts in distribution of capabilities across autonomous units

3


28/57

2) Focus on conflict and security/state survival; state as actor;

unity of will and purpose

3) Primacy of politics over economics

4) Practice makes theory: no ivory tower

4

realists say:


29/57

- Scratch the back of altruist politicians and you find selfish interes

- Verbal virtue hides immoral desire:a rational separation between language and reality

. Power is an indispensable instrument of government

. International government is, in effect, government by state

which supplies the power necessary for the purpose of governing

. As long as power is organized nationally, real international

government is impossible

-realist disconnect history from teleology progress

Realists in IR are also scientific realists or positivists: apply social

science methodology to gain objective knowledge of society and history--

against constructivism-relativism; knowledge of history = generalizingsocial science

5

Critics of Waltz


30/57

1) Core concept are not clearly defined: power; balance of power

2) Inadequate for explaining change: a- historical; W.: continuity dominates, despite change

Over the centuries, states have changed in many ways, but the quality of international life

has remained much the same.[ p. 111]

critics: feudal units, city-states, pre-industrial states, industrial, post industrial political units

cannot be compared; relations among modern states are qualitatively different; we now have

global economy

3) Anarchy is not part of reality; a man-made construct instead of determinant of foreign policy

[constructivism;

Ashley, the poverty of realism, in: Keohane.Neo-realism and is critics.

Wendt, Anarchy is what states make of it,International Organization 46 [1992], 391-425]

Other realists respond


31/57

pIncorporate industrial development into national power

1) Why global market?: from competitive conquest by European powers + trade

expansion/competition

both : serve national power

2) Loss of control by governments over outcomes: international markets transfer power

between political units

A third objective of states, and in the modern world an increasingly important objective, is to

control or at least exercise influence over the world economy, or what may be more

properly called the international division of labor. . In the modern world, the

international division of labor has become a significant determinant of relative wealth,

security and prestige of states

R. Gilpin. War and change in world politics , p. 24G Kindlberger. World in depression [ leadership- hegemony]

G. Modelski.Long cycles in world politics [succession of naval powers determine world

order]

M. Midlarski. The onset of world war [ hierarchical equilibrium as a form of structure;

when systemic war breaks out in multi-polar system]

Position in System


32/57

Position in SystemExplain behaviour by preferences coming from domestic

institutions

Alternative:

how actors are positioned: dominates actor definition of interests

realists: relate behaviour major powers to

- International power structure of top ranks- More generally : to position in hierarchy of resources and

authority

Internal characteristics matter less than its position in the system.

Dissimilar countries in the same position behave in rather similarways

US


33/57

R i


34/57

Russia

PRC


35/57

PRC

EU


36/57

EU

India


37/57

India


38/57

World is a round place

EU: want to lift China arms embargo

Japan is neighbor China: opposes lifting

US is global military power and wants to keep itthat way + allied to Japan

Japan and China oppose lifting arms embargoIht front page news March 28,2005

-Structural Realists


39/57

-neglect any state motive other than power, interests, honor

- focus on incentives and constraints coming out of international system:the power configuration among states

-Assume rationality: rationality of means to ends

no place for what Weber calls: emotional action and value-

rational action: hubris, arrogance ,rage, envy, contempt

value rational action actions of persons who, regardless of

possible cost to themselves, act to put into practice their convictions of

which seems to them to be required by duty, honoura religious call,.or importance of some cause

Contemporary realists pretend to transcend political culture

structural2

Example: Multipolar uncertainty


40/57

Example: Multipolar uncertaintyPaul Kennedy, The logic of appeasement TLS May 28, 1982

Relevant Dyads:UK-US; UK-SU; UK-JAPAN; UK-ITALY; UK-FR; UK-GER

US-UK; US-JAPAN ;US-GER

FR-GERM; FR-UK;FR-SU;

GER-US;GER-UK;GER-SU;

Kennedy, The logic of appeasement TLS May 28, 1982

It was not simply that [ for Great Britain] dealing with the German problem

involved a constant reference to France and that dealing with the Japan probleminvolved equally close consultation with the United States. British attempts to

improve relations with Tokyo would, it was argued, enable a stiffer line to be taken

towards Berlin which would gratify the French; but this appeasement of the

Japanese would enrage the Americans, possibly with grave consequences, and thatwould alarm the Dominions. The stiffer tone in Europe might also lead the Germans

to settle their difference with the Soviet Union. The whole thing worked in reverse

too: if Japan threatened aggression in the Far East, the British would need to move

closer to the United States; but they would probably also have to buy off Hitler inEurope, which would alarm France and its smaller allies.

For Realists:

i i l i h i d b h


41/57

international system=interstate system, characterized by anarchy

Unit action and unit of selection is the state : Statesurvival

Critique(i) realists do not ask what societies are involved in the inter-state

system

inter-state system is characterised by institutions and practicesof domestic society of its most powerful members

Examples: protestant revolution----counter-reformationFrench Revolution ------RestorationBolshevik/Mao Revolution---US anti-communist crusade

Unit of action is state leader ; unit of selection is domesticpolitical regime: Brezhnev doctrine; US regime change;

Critique1 type of society

Realists miss internationalization of domestic conflict: inter-


42/57

Critique2 social change 2

Realists miss internationalization of domestic conflict: inter state system is domain where domestic political orders are

managed

(ii) Societies change in the course of development

economic institutions [enterprise; market],political institutions [form of state]military institutions

3) Unit of action: state leadership

What is selected for survival and spread are domesticsocio-economic and political institutions that create mostwealth, power and find attraction

Regime survival:? Brezhnev doctrine;; US regime change


43/57

Critique3 Units of survivalRegime survival:? Brezhnev doctrine;; US regime change

Survival of politicians in domestic power struggles

What survives selection in IR: unit of replication

institutionalized state-economy- military institutions andelite in commanding positions in these institutions

What is the vehicle of that unit? the statecitizens get slaughtered to let state survive

state survives as political regime changes

political regime changes as domestic order changes

successful domestic arrangements multiply, become more

numerous

Mercantilist : state-society nexus determined by anarchy

Logic of international anarchy [inter state competition] compels


44/57

Logic of international anarchy [inter-state competition] compelssocieties to economic growth and thus change domestic society

Getting control over trade investment rules in world economy isobjective of international commercial policy

1) states impose market reforms on domestic society to survive

international competition: capitalist industrialization - wealthtaxation-relative state power

2)states use protection to build industries required for wealthto gain power, in particular industries for defense

3) Powerful states using force to get access to other, nonmarket societies; Colonialism; regime change

4) Powerful state use control over cross border trade and cross

border investment as tools to gain relative power/securityfor domestic society

mercantilists1

Political realism in IR developed in a time period in2


45/57

Political realism in IR developed in a time period inwhich international politics, defined as rulingterritorially defined groups that interact with eachother, developed but cross border market integrationamong them was still rather limited. Greek city states

are a good example.

Today we live in state-market condominium ; each ofthese has become part of global hierarchy:

Atlantic economies are still at the top of that hierarchy:

in current prices and exchange rate: about 15% ofworld population, controls about 76% of world GDP ;in ppp terms it is less, but still extraordinary: 15%controls about 40%.

2

Today , we have two great power


46/57

y g pstructures that bind the social world

together: enterprises and markets onthe one hand hand and the state / globalinter-state system on the other

hand. Decisions made by actors in thesestructures control a large part of humanbehavior and shape-reshape societies .

These structures interact as well: no goodeconomy without being integrated intoworld economy and without a state

organization. No organizationally strongstate without enterprises and cross bordermarkets.

Reality is very different from neo-classical economics:1) Mercantile trade capitalism : used force for conquest of land


47/57

and trade routes : till today: trade expansion by warfare

In Americas, Australia: extermination instead of tradeintegration: Americas

1) 19th Industrial capitalism coincided with colonization/ colonialtrade;

2) World market integration is not smooth: great reversals ofdisintegration

3) No convergence in living standards: polarization

4) No example of catching-up by market forces alone: state

action; mercantilism; developmental state5) Great Free trader nations starter career as protectionist: UK;

Mercantilism3

Power transition hypothesis: Thucydides


48/57

What made war inevitable was the growth of Athenian power and thefear which this caused in Sparta. Thucydides. The Peloponnesian

war. Bk 1 Par. 23

- Power transition between major powers impairs capacity for collective

conflict management

- Rise of China in relation to US, Japan, Russia, Indonesia, Taiwan and

EU; rise EU [?]

- Military power vacuum in EU: larges trade block in world has [not

yet ?] political institutions to set political objectives for military force

- Military power vacuum in Caspian/ Central Asia; US steps into

West Asia and Central Eurasia

Realist see instability

K lWe have about 50% of the worlds wealth but only 6 3 % of


49/57

Kennan exampleWe have about 50% of the world s wealth, but only 6.3 % ofits population. In this situation, our real job in the comingPeriod is to devise a pattern of relationships which permits usto maintain this position of disparityTo do so, we have todispense with all sentimentality and day-dreaming; and our

attention will have to concentrated everywhere on ourimmediate national objectives We should cease thinkingabout vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the

raising of living standards, arid democratization. The day isnot far off when we are going to have to deal in straight powerconcepts. The less we are hampered by idealist slogans, the

betterAs quoted in John Pilger. The new rulers of the world. . London: Verso 2002, p. 98.Originally in : US State Department Policy Planning Number 23, January 1948.

Multi-polar UncertaintyP l K d Th l i f t TLS M 28 1982


50/57

Paul Kennedy, The logic of appeasement TLS May 28, 1982

Relevant Dyads:

UK-US; UK-SU; UK-JAPAN; UK-ITALY; UK-FR; UK-GER

US-UK; US-JAPAN ;US-GER

FR-GERM; FR-UK;FR-SU;

GER-US;GER-UK;GER-SU;

Kennedy, The logic of appeasement TLS May 28, 1982

It was not simply that [ for Great Britain] dealing with the German probleminvolved a constant reference to France and that dealing with the Japan problem

involved equally close consultation with the United States. British attempts to

improve relations with Tokyo would, it was argued, enable a stiffer line to be taken

towards Berlin which would gratify the French; but this appeasement of the Japanesewould enrage the Americans, possibly with grave consequences, and that would alarm

the Dominions. The stiffer tone in Europe might also lead the Germans to settle their

difference with the Soviet Union. The whole thing worked in reverse too: if Japan

threatened aggression in the Far East, the British would need to move closer to the

United States; but they would probably also have to buy off Hitler in Europe, which

would alarm France and its smaller allies.


51/57

NixonOnBP1970,QuoteKiss705

We must remember the only time in the history of the

world that we have had any extended period of peace is

when there has been balance of power. It is when one

nation becomes infinitely more powerful in relation to

its potential competitor that the danger of war arises. So

I believe in a world in which the United States is

powerful. I think it will be a safer world and a betterworld if we have a strong, healthy United States,

Europe, Soviet Union, China, Japan, each balancing

together the other, not playing one against the other, aneven balance.


52/57

NixonOnBP1970,QuoteKiss705

We must remember the only time in the history of the

world that we have had any extended period of peace iswhen there has been balance of power. It is when one

nation becomes infinitely more powerful in relation to

its potential competitor that the danger of war arises. So

I believe in a world in which the United States is

powerful. I think it will be a safer world and a betterworld if we have a strong, healthy United States,

Europe, Soviet Union, China, Japan, each balancing

together the other, not playing one against the other, aneven balance.

Time has come

to break the destructive pattern of great power rivalry that hasNo to multi-polar


53/57

v p f g p w v y

bedeviled the world since the rise of the nation state in the 17the

century.

"Multi-polarity was never a unifying idea or vision... it was a

necessary evil that sustained the essence [absence] of war butdid not promote peace," she said in an address to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies

Multipolarity is a theory of rivalry, of competing powers [interests] and it its worse, competing values. We have tried this before. It led to the

Great War and to the cold war.....why should we seek to divide our

capacities for good when they can be much more effective united. Onlythe enemies of freedom would cheer this division.

She questioned the motives of those who "nostalgically" sought to

defend this concept of international relations. Condoleezza Rice,Speech IISS, June 26, 2003

p

Wolfowitz Quote

a dominant consideration [in US defense strategy should be] to


54/57


prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whoseresources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to

generate global power. Those regionsare Western Europe, East

Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and Southwest Asia

(Wolfowitz).

Stability of unipolar order dependsStability uni polar


55/57

y p p

Ability of the United States to meet three challenges

1) Prevent rise of challenger states that combineeconomic and military capability.

2) Alliance building around shared interests (resisttemptation to pursue purely national interests

3) To maintain domestic support for policiesmaintaining preponderance. [1]

[1] Mastanduno, M. A Realist View: Three Images of the Coming International Order, in Paul, T. V. and Hall, J. A. (eds): International Orderand the Future of World Politics, Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Time has come

to break the destructive pattern of great power rivalry that hasNo to multi-polar


56/57

p f g p y

bedeviled the world since the rise of the nation state in the 17the

century.

"Multi-polarity was never a unifying idea or vision... it was a

necessary evil that sustained the essence [absence] of war butdid not promote peace," she said in an address to the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies

Multipolarity is a theory of rivalry, of competing powers [interests] and it its worse, competing values. We have tried this before. It led to the

Great War and to the cold war.....why should we seek to divide our

capacities for good when they can be much more effective united. Only

the enemies of freedom would cheer this division.

She questioned the motives of those who "nostalgically" sought to

defend this concept of international relations. Condoleezza Rice,Speech IISS, June 26, 2003

Wolfowitz Quote



57/57


prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whoseresources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to

generate global power. Those regionsare Western Europe, East

Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union and Southwest Asia

(Wolfowitz).

realist theory

Documents