Realism and Foreign Policy

January 9, 2014

Overview

What is realism?

The development of realist theories

Realist analysis of foreign policy

Using Realism in analysing foreign policy

Academic vs Foreign Policy Analysis

(Hedgehogs and Foxes)

What is realism?

Realism is based on 3 assumptions about

how the world works:

Groupism

Egoism

Power-centrism

So translating that into more familiar

concepts:

Groupism => states

Egoism => self-interest

Power-centrism => power

Implications for Foreign Policy

These assumptions about the world have important consequences for international politics which leads to an identifiably realist approach to foreign policy

Realist foreign policy

An orientation towards the most powerful

groups at any given time

Scepticism towards the professed aims of

foreign policy other than the state interest

Tendency to question the ability of any state’s

foreign policy to transcend power politics

Tendency to look beyond rhetoric to the

power realities that realists expect nearly

always underlie policy

Look for where the power is, what the group

interests are, and to the role that power plays

in reconciling interests

The development of realist theories

The first and most general of all realist theories, and the one from which most others proceed, can be stated simply: if human affairs are indeed characterized by groupism, egoism, and power-centrism, then politics is likely to be conflictual unless there is some central authority to enforce order.

When no authority exists that can enforce agreements, a condition theorists call anarchy, then any state can resort to force to get what it wants.

Realism’s sub-schools

As an academic theory, realism informs the analysis of foreign policy. Theoretical sub-schools within realism:

classical realism

neorealism

defensive realism

offensive realism

neoclassical realism

Implications

So what would the implications be from taking each of these perspectives in foreign policy analysis?

How might the various sub-schools change our analysis?

Sub-schoolsClassical realismNeorealismDefensive realismOffensive realismNeoclassical realism

Specific theories within realism

Balance of power theory

Balance of threat theory

Hegemonic stability theory

Power transition theory

Assumptions, conditions and theories

The challenge for foreign policy analyst: how do

we know which of these sub-schools or

particular theories applies to a specific foreign

policy issue?

Morality and power

Standards of right and wrong tend to be defined by the powerful in ways that further their narrow group interest (E.H. Carr)

US in Serbia (Kosovo) Russia in Georgia (South Ossetia and

Abkhazia)

Both US and Russian diplomats use same

arguments justifying their own actions.

Using Realism in Analysing Foreign Policy

Examples that clarify the potential pitfalls of

realism as a guide to foreign policy:

The Never-Ending Cold War

Major power war in 1990s Europe

Anti-US counterbalancing in the 1990s

Avoiding Pitfalls

Avoiding inaccurate foreign policy analyses:

Know the theories and the caseNeed careful thought about how the theories

relate to realism’s core assumption and expected outcomes – i.e. need to know the theory

Need to know the specifics of the foreign policy case at hand

Hedgehogs and Foxes

‘The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog

knows one big thing.’ (Archilochus)

Academic realists can fall into trap of treating

their theories as universal

Academic theorists tend to be hedgehogs

Idea that for good foreign policy analysis need to be able to understand an issue from many angles as possible

Foxes are better at practical tasks like foreign policy analysis. They should know theories without becoming overly committed to any one