Politics Among Nations

“Political realism […] knows that political reality is replete with contingencies and systemic irrationalities and points to the typical influences they exert upon foreign policy. Yet it shares with all social theory the need, for the sake of theoretical understanding, to stress the rational elements of political reality.”

Morgenthau believes that international relations are shaped by The Concept of National Interest, which is itself rooted in universal human nature. Because of this stance, Morgenthau draws upon expressions of human behavior in political and historical events to support his theory—hence the term “realism.”

“The first lesson the student of international politics must learn and never forget is that the complexities of international affairs make simple solutions and trustworthy prophecies impossible.”

Although Morgenthau argues that international relations are driven by The Role of Power in International Relations and the concept of national interest, he does not deny that international relations are complex. He acknowledges the constantly changing methods that nations employ for seeking power or hiding it within other motives, contending that nations’ individual interests have a huge impact on their relationships with other nations.

“[I]t is sufficient to state that the struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience.”

As this statement suggests, Morgenthau views power as an essential factor in international relations. It is representative of his view that there is a universal human nature that completely informs politics and international relations.

“What the precapitalist imperialist, the capitalist imperialist, and the ‘imperialistic’ capitalist want is power, not economic gain.”

Morgenthau argues against other explanations for conflict among nations, such as the Marxist view, which holds that economic and class interests drive foreign policy. Instead, he suggests that conflict is driven by both the role of power in international relations and the concept of national interest. For example, Morgenthau would argue that the Holy Alliance sought to restore the old status quo after the Napoleonic Wars in order to protect their own power.

“[T]he true nature of the policy is concealed by ideological justifications and rationalizations.”

The role of power in international relations is such that, even when a foreign policy is not explicitly designed to seek power, it may still revolve around issues of power despite claiming an entirely different motive. In Morgenthau’s view, diplomats and politicians must always face the challenge of discerning the true purpose of another nation’s foreign policy.

“Thus the terms in which the so-called North-South conflict is fought out between the have and the have-not nations of the world in good measure conceal and at the same time justify a conflict between the traditionally powerful and the new politically weak nations whose main real object is exactly a new distribution of power.”

Morgenthau’s view of the role of power in international relations leads him to be skeptical of even the motives of formerly colonized countries, as he believes that these nations are really seeking to challenge a disadvantageous status quo. For Morgenthau, this is shown by how the former “Third World” nations of East Asia have used Western rhetoric of liberty and self-determination for their political goals.

“At this point, then […] the traditional distinction between foreign and domestic policies tends to break down.”

This is an important component in Morgenthau’s understanding of the Cold War. Because the Cold War was as much a clash between capitalism and communism as it was a struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union, domestic policies and propaganda that were geared toward their own populaces formed a major part of the conflict.

“Owing to the essentially unstable and dynamic character of the balance, which is not unstable and dynamic by accident or only part of the time, but by nature and always, the independence of the nations concerned is also essentially precarious and in danger.”

In this passage, Morgenthau argues that balances of power are a major and perpetual part of international relations. However, the inevitability of historical change dictates that such balances are always fragile and in flux.

“This uncertainty of power calculations is inherent in the nature of national power itself.”

The fact that the concept of national interest is an essential factor of international relations does not simplify one’s understanding of international relations. National interests are not fixed; instead, they change in response to alterations in the relationships between nations.

“Actually, however, the very threat of a world where power reigns not only supreme, but without rival, engenders that revolt against power which is as universal as the aspiration for power itself.”

This passage summarizes Morgenthau’s views on international relations. He sees this concept as a constant conflict between nations that are invested in the status quo and nations that feel that they do not benefit from the status quo and thus seek to overturn it.

“While men everywhere subscribed to the words of the Fourteen Points, it was the particular nationalisms, molding and directing the minds of men, that infused their particular meanings into these words, painted them with their particular color, and made them symbols of their particular aspirations.”

President Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” are seen as a pivotal example of idealism in international affairs. Even then, Morgenthau contends that the way the “Fourteen Points” were received according to the concept of national interest, with Wilson’s diplomatic efforts succumbing to national interests, affirms classical realistic ideas.

“In the same sense in which the individual nation is its own legislator and the creator of its own tribunals and of their jurisdiction, it is also its own sheriff and policeman.”

Often in Morgenthau’s analysis, the international realm reflects how civil societies function. Still, a constantly important difference is that nations enjoy considerably more autonomy than individuals who live within a specific society. This is a key reason why achieving world peace is so difficult.

“World public opinion is but an ideological shadow without even that substance of common valuations and reactions which in other times at least the international aristocracy shared.”

For Morgenthau, there is essentially no such thing as a unified world opinion, apart from a few universal concepts like the desire for peace, as nations differ on a cultural and moral level. This can be solved by achieving a shared moral consensus between nations through diplomacy, which could provide a basis for a kind of an institutional world government that could help ensure global peace.

“The fear of Communism blocked the road to freedom.”

The Limitations of International Law and Morality have considerable consequences in foreign policy, as demonstrated by the United States’ approach to the Cold War. Morgenthau argues that the United States’ aggressive approach to communism justified anti-American propaganda, damaging the United States’ moral reputation.

“The new energy created by the machine, and much of the human energy that a century and a half ago was still absorbed in the business of keeping alive, can now be employed for military purposes, either directly by way of military service or indirectly through industrial production.”

Changes in war have historically influenced the tenor of international relations. For example, technological improvements in warfare have played a major role in nations’ relationships with each other, and Morgenthau contends that fear of nuclear war has become a major force in the late 20th century.

“What makes for war are the conditions in the minds of men which make war appear the lesser of two evils.”

Morgenthau believes that the desire for peace is another universal human trait. Nonetheless, he believes that the concept of national interest is the main reason for war, as nations view war as an acceptable risk compared to a situation that threatens their interests or even their very survival.

“The use of nuclear weapons, even initially on a limited scale, is an unmitigated disaster, which in the end can only lead to the destruction of both sides.”

Nuclear weapons may have genuinely prevented the Soviet Union and the United States from openly going to war with each other. At the same time, nuclear weapons represent an existential threat to the entire human race, and Morgenthau argues that this threat may call for the establishment of a world state.

“At the bottom of disputes that entail the risk of war there is a tension between the desire to preserve the existing distribution of power and the desire to overthrow it.”

This passage holds the key to understanding how Morgenthau represents the role of power in international relations. By discussing power, Morgenthau also refers to the status quo as maintaining the power of certain nations while limiting or threatening the power of others.

“For sovereign nations are moved to action by what they regard as their national interests rather than by the allegiance to a common good that, as a common standard of justice, does not exist in the society of nations.”

The chief obstacle to the establishment of a lasting global peace is the concept of national interest. This problem can only be circumvented by diplomacy, which could establish a moral consensus between nations, much like the consensus that Morgenthau argues existed among nations in 18^th century Europe.

“Here lies the important distinction between the techniques of traditional and United Nations diplomacy: the latter is compelled to persuade where the former could afford not to care.”

A problem with diplomacy as it is currently practiced is the democratic nature of the United Nations. Morgenthau actually views the “aristocratic” diplomacy of early modern Europe as preferable since it has to address and find compromises between competing national interests rather than simply winning over a majority of nations (86).

“The state is not the artificial creation of a constitutional convention, conceived in the image of some abstract principles of government and superimposed upon whatever society might exist. On the contrary, the state is part of the society from which it has sprung, and prospers and decays as society prospers and decays.”

This passage outlines an important nuance in Morgenthau’s discussions of the establishment of a world state. He contends that it is not feasible to simply erect a global institution that can impose peace. Instead, there must also be an “international moral consensus” that can provide a strong foundation for such an enterprise (477).

“There is no shirking the conclusion that international peace cannot be permanent without a world state, and that a world state cannot be established under the present moral, social, and political conditions of the world.”

Similar to Thomas Hobbes’s contention that non-violence in a civil society is established when individuals sacrifice aspects of their freedom to a central government, Morgenthau likewise believes that peace can only be enforced through a global government. However, the very nature of nation-states makes the establishment of such a state unlikely, as each nation is highly protective of its sovereignty.

“If nations who are sovereign, who are supreme within their territories with no superior above them, want to preserve peace and order in their relations, they must try to persuade, negotiate, and exert pressure upon each other.”

Here, Morgenthau expresses a major point in his classical realist view of achieving peace. An end to war is not achieved through international institutions that operate broadly but through diplomats who can address national conflicts on a localized level.