Politics Among Nations

On the surface, Morgenthau’s ultimate solution to the problem of peace and modern war revives the importance of diplomacy, but his solution also addresses The Concept of National Interest. Idealist approaches to peace attempt to achieve lasting unity via increasingly complex efforts toward international cooperation. Ironically, despite Morgenthau’s classical realistic orientation, he agrees with the end goal of idealism. As he asserts, “If the world state is unattainable in our world, yet indispensable for the survival of that world, it is necessary to create the conditions under which it will not be impossible from the outset to establish a world state” (562). In other words, the end goal should be a universal shift in how people think of national sovereignty. However, this feat cannot be achieved through reforms on a global or even a multinational scale. Instead, because the main obstacle is something local and situational (like national self-interest), the solution should likewise be local and situational.

Still, there is a universal aspect of Morgenthau’s proposed solution. The Limitations of International Law and Morality make the idealist solution of relying on international institutions impractical. Even then, Morgenthau argues that in order to prepare diplomats to handle international situations in a way that will lay the groundwork for a more globalized society, there must be a restructuring or revival of diplomacy itself. This step is necessary for “the new task of creating and maintaining institutions and procedures through which the new common interests of nations can be pursued” (575). In a way, this idea harkens back to Morgenthau’s idealization of 18th-century Europe as an “invisible nation” (235). Likewise, diplomacy that is uncontaminated by the ideological conflict between American democracy and capitalism and Soviet communism could be used to construct another shared international consensus and culture.

Essentially, Morgenthau argues for an approach that considers both the limitations of international institutions like the United Nations and what he sees as the overriding fact of national self-interest. While Morgenthau does arguably seek the same broad goal as those who subscribe to the idealist view of international relations, he disagrees on the problems to be addressed. At the root of this difference lies the fact that Morgenthau is applying the Hobbesian concept of civil society to international relations, even though he admits that nations would never surrender a significant portion of their sovereignty in order to create a centralized, stabilizing authority. Morgenthau makes the connection between the Hobbesian view of civil society and international relations when he writes, “As the integration of domestic society and its peace develop from the unspectacular and almost unnoticed day-by-day operations of the techniques of accommodation and change, so the ultimate ideal of international life […] must await its realization from the techniques of persuasion, negotiation, and pressure, […] the traditional instruments of diplomacy” (592).