POLITICS AMONG NATIONS

20.04.2014

This paper covers the analysis of the politics among nations. The subtitle of this part is the

struggle for power and peace .Therefore, the explanations in this paper with the authors ideas about

the theory of realism and power struggle among nations. The main idea of this paper is to present the

authors ideas about their chapters, to assess them and then to present critique. The structure of this

paper is made up of three main parts. The first part is summary and ıt is about the subjects of the

chapters and the authors ideas. The second part assesses the author’s argument and their

demonstrations. Finally, in the third part my reactions to the author’s arguments will be presented.

1. SUMMARY

Hans Morgenthau was one of the leading twentieth-century figures in the study of

international politics. He made landmark contributions to international relations theory and

study of international law, and his book which is politics among nations, first published in

1948, went through many editions during his lifetime. Hans Morgenthau is considered one of

the "founding fathers" of the realist school in the 20th century. This school of thought holds

that nation-states are the main actors in international relations and that the main concern of the

field is the study of power. Hans Morgenthau's book established realism as the fundamental

way of thinking about international relations. It has a purpose to detect and understand the

forces that determine political relations among nations and to comprehend the ways in which

those forces act upon one another and upon international political relations and institutions.

Hans Morgenthau seeks to develop a comprehensive theory of international politics. He

argued that international relations should be understood within a realist, not an idealist

framework. Hans Morgenthau emphasized the importance of "the national interest", and in

politics among nations he wrote that "the main signpost that helps political realism to find its

1
way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms

of power.

II. ANALYSIS

Realism is fundamentally concerned with power rather than morality or material interests.

Hans Morgenthau includes strong assumption about the human nature and starts with human

nature which is not naturally good and is a source of difficulties. Conflict is a natural outcome

of the search for power, not of misunderstanding. Interests were defined by power which is

the control of man over the minds and actions of other men. The struggle for power is

universal in time and undeniable fact of experience. Morgenthau systematizes realism in

international relations on the basis of six principles in the politics among nations. He develops

realism into both a theory of international politics and a political art, a useful tool of foreign

policy. In the first principle he states that realism is based on objective laws that have their

roots in unchanging human nature. The world is imperfect because of forces inherent in

human nature; moral principles can never be fully realized. He wants to develop realism into

both a theory of international politics and a political art, a useful tool of foreign policy.

Political realism stresses the rational objective and unemotional. Next, power is to control of

man over man. In the fourth principle, Political realism is aware of the moral significance of

political action. For Morgenthau, political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of

a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe. Politics is an autonomous

sphere, as Morgenthau says in his sixth principle of realism.1 It cannot be subordinated to

ethics. According to Morgenthau, interest is the central concept that makes politics into an

autonomous discipline. Rational state actors pursue their national interests. It also indicates

that in order to avoid conflicts, states should avoid moral crusades or ideological

confrontations, and look for compromise on the basis of satisfaction of their mutual interests

1
(Brian,41;2006)

2
alone. Morgenthau regards realism as a way of thinking about international relations and a

useful tool for devising policies. Morgenthau shaped the very field of international relations

according to his conception not of how the world should or could work in the future but how

it actually worked right now.2 Morgenthau claimed that whatever diplomatic posturing might

be assumed, all states would seek the greatest amount of power and security possible, even to

the point of using military force to achieve it, while accepting no check upon individual

national sovereignty from any international, or supranational. Even as he emphasized the

centrality of the balance of power between nation states as the key means by which nations

could pursue both power and peace, however, he also discussed the possible role that could be

played by “normative limitations” such as “international law, international morality, and

world public opinion. In the politics among nations, it is questioned that what rules of

morality, mores, and law are effective on the international scene?

International politics, like all politics, is for Morgenthau a struggle for power because of

the basic human lust for power. He seeks the way how to achieve peace in international

structure such as limitation of national power by international law, peace through limitation

and peace through transformation. But, no attempt to solve the problem of international peace

by limiting national aspirations for power or peace through limitation has succeeded none

could have succeeded under the modern nation states. Balance of power is no longer possible

to stop war.

Peace through accommodation and its interest diplomacy is an element of national power.

Diplomacy is the best means of preserving of international peace that a society of sovereign

nations has to offer especially under the condition of contemporary war. Persuasion,

compromise and threat of force while highlighting their integral interplay are three channels

of diplomacy. For Morgenthau, diplomacy must determine its objectives in light of the power

2
(Brian , 31,2006)

3
actually and potentially available for the pursuit of these objectives; to assess the objectives of

other nations and the power actually and potentially available for the pursuit of these

objectives; to determine to what extent these different objectives are compatible with each

other; and to employ the means suited to the pursuit of its objective.

Relations between states were determined above all else by the pursuit of each state for

power and security. According to Hans Morgenthau, keeping power is status quo, increasing

power will be imperialism like Britain and demonstrating power will be understood well by

giving an example of USA and SU during cold war period. As a result, all use of power is evil

and there is no good foreign policy. States can never be certain about the intention of other

states. In addition to this, without military power, states are unable to defend their own

interest.3

III. REACTİONS

This book is extensive in terms of the sources, varieties and the evolution of the realism,

international structure and struggle between nations. I agree with Morgenthau in terms of the

role of the diplomacy and diplomats who ought to take to heart in order to make relations

between nations more peaceful and less anarchic, such as the keeping of promises, trust in the

other’s word, fair dealing, respect for international law, protection of minorities, repudiation

of war as an instrument of national policy in the international structure. Diplomacy is the

heart of the peace. Moreover, I do agree with his support of soft power rather than hard power

over nations. Soft power which is the ability of state to influence the behavior of another state

to get the outcome you want is more effective than latter.

Although I support him in some point, I do have some criticisms about the book which is

Politics among the nations. Power is understood as an interest and nation states are power

3
(Chambers,936,2008)

4
oriented actors. It is worth to mention that Hans Morgenthau focus on the human nature as a

source for power seeking instead of focusing on the structure as necessitating power hungry

states for security reasons. Morgenthau approach is criticized by Walt’s for his account of

human nature is entirely hypothetical since the true human nature is not empirically verified.4

Morgenthau’s ‘bottom-up approach’ takes human nature as the starting point and moves up

the levels of analysis, while Waltz ‘top-down approach’ begins at the third image and slowly

move down to the unit-level, without ever reaching the individual level. The former mainly

rooted the pursuit for power in human nature while the latter emphasized international

anarchy.

For Morgenthau, international organization would mean the end of political power. What

is striking is the fact that the author ignores the point that building international cooperation

would be resulted in increasing relations between nation states and provide them mutual

understanding of their own interests. Cooperation and sharing common values in an

organization will help them building peaceful environment. In my opinion, institution can

alter state preferences, chance state behavior and have capability to move states away from

the war. While realism is appropriate in explanation of events in certain areas of international

relations, it is less able to explain international relations in the area of the world where state

cooperate for collective economic, cultural and political benefits I disagree with the author in

some point, power is the primary consideration in international scene and he neglects the

morality, ideas, cultural factors and ideologies.5

Although he believes the possibility of peaceful change within state by the ability to

express public opinion freely, international moral consensus is no longer possible for the

settlement of disputes among nations.6 He also states that there is no higher ruling body in the

4
(Pashakhanlou,2009,1)
5
(Pashakhanlou,2009,1)
6
(Morgenthau,455,2005)

5
international system and there is no government over governments. While utopians believe in

building a world politics, the realist believes that they can -not.

One criticism about Morgenthau is that His focusing on the military power rather than

economical, organizational or moral power might threaten the very existence of state. Besides

that, the main concern and interest of states is survival. Some critics of realism contend that

survival borders on the trivial and therefore there must be some further assumption about the

state preferences. 7

BİBLIOGRAPHY

*Morgenthau, Hans. “A Realist theory of International Relations” in Politics among Nations:

The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2005

*Arish Hadrian Pashakhanlou” Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and

Neorealism”, Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and Neorealism: A Re-

examination of Hans Morgenthau’s and Kenneth Waltz’s Theories of International Relations,

E-International Relations, 2014

*Chambers, Gary; Critical Perspectives on Hans Morgenthau’s approach to international

Relations’’, Marmara University, 2008

*A.Kenney Brian “The Realism of Hans Morgenthau” University of South Florida ,2006

7
(Morgenthau,592,2005)