93 pages • 3-hour read
Politics Among Nations
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
The Role of Power in International Relations
According to the classical realistic theory that shapes Hans Morgenthau’s analysis of international relations, there exists a universal human nature that compels all individuals to be motivated by self-interest. This self-interest determines not only the behavior of people but also the actions and perspectives of nations. Morgenthau summarizes this view when he states, “Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim” (31). Striving to gain power or trying to main power is the dominant motive behind international relations, with power being “a characteristic of all politics, domestic as well as international” (101). He also contends that the “basic manifestations [of politics] do not appear as what they actually are—manifestations of a struggle for power” (101).
Because of the centrality of power in international relations, Morgenthau outlines two central categories for comprehending foreign-policy programs. The first involves preserving the status quo. The second involves imperialism, which is “a policy that aims at the overthrow of the status quo, at a reversal of the powerful relations between two or more nations” (59). He also contends that power is not limited to violence and military power. Instead, it can also refer to more indirect and softer forms, such as political, cultural, and economic influence. In that sense, the domination of the United States film industry across the world is a valid example of power.
Morgenthau holds that power is so pervasive in international relations that ideological motives often “conceal” the truer, deeper power motive. He even goes so far as to assert that even formerly colonized nations are truly seeking power, despite their claims of seeking restitution from colonization and their stated goal of economic equality with the industrialized nations of Europe, North America, and Japan. Another example would be the Napoleonic Wars, which were fought to spread liberty and equality across Europe; in Morgenthau’s view, these wars were really fought to expand France’s power.
Morgenthau contends that the way in which power operates in international spheres is shown through historical and political events. He explicitly argues that “statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out” (5). In fact, even though Morgenthau views striving toward power as an innate aspect of universal human nature, he acknowledges the variation in how power manifests and is understood. In terms of classical realism, “a key concept of interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but it does not endow that concept with a meaning that is fixed once and for all” (10). Morgenthau’s presentation of the business of diplomacy and political leadership is designed to promote a greater understanding of power and the way in which power intersects with political and social developments.
The Concept of National Interest
Deeply intertwined with power is the concept of national self-interest, which is also seen as an aspect of humanity’s universal nature. Morgenthau draws from views of the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes, who contended that individuals often sacrifice some of their freedom in order to empower governmental institutions that can guarantee collective security. Classical realism basically applies that same idea to nations. However, although individual self-interest can be held in check through social, legal, and political institutions, nations are far less likely to surrender their sovereignty. Additionally, the fact that international courts are, by necessity, a decentralized form of enforcement of national laws presents an insurmountable problem. As Morgenthau writes, “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” (480).
While individuals may relinquish certain freedoms, the sovereignty of the modern nation-state is considered indivisible. Thus, any practical enforcement of international law requires nations to voluntarily surrender their self-interest and agree to enforce international law via economic sanctions or military intervention. Furthermore, there is a risk that nations could exploit international law to pursue their own national interests. Under the current international system with the United Nations, a nation is expected to “sacrifice its national interests to the common good of the United Nations as defined by the Security Council” (339). Yet even when a nation has a seemingly humanitarian motive, it could nonetheless be motivated by self-interest, as when an empire intervenes in a smaller nation’s civil war under the guise of peacekeeping when, in reality, they are seeking to protect or install a government that is friendly to the empire’s own interests.
However, Morgenthau argues that national self-interest can operate in ways that support the security and cooperation of various nations. For example, an equal balance of power among an array of nations can prevent “any one of them from becoming strong enough to threaten the independence of the others” (223). Also, collective security occurs when a large number of nations act in concert in mutual defense and support, but for this approach to be successful, “those nations must be willing to subordinate their conflicting political interests to the common good defined in terms of the collective defense of all member states” (452). Even so, national interest remains an obstacle to establishing a permanent peace, given that nations’ interests are constantly in flux. For these reasons, Morgenthau believes that the best way to achieve a permanent, global peace is through a version of diplomacy that can navigate specific situations involving nations’ interests and their relationships with each other. He reasons that if national self-interest is local and subjective, then the way to overcome national self-interest for the global good is to address the problems created by national self-interest on the ground.
The Limitations of International Law and Morality
Throughout Politics Among Nations, Morgenthau makes it clear that he believes international institutions (including courts and representative bodies like the United Nations) to be insufficient means of achieving an end to war. He explains that this is because international courts are necessarily decentralized. As he argues, “The decentralized nature of international law is the inevitable result of the decentralized structure of international society” (295). Arguably, this is Morgenthau’s main objection to the idealist theory of international relations, which holds that peace can be achieved through increasingly complex and effective patterns of international cooperation. In his view, international institutions are too weak and too reliant on the willingness of nations to be an effective force in preventing wars.
Likewise, international morality is restrained by both national self-interest and by the fact that nations possess distinctive moral cultures and characters. In one case, Morgenthau describes the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, as having “a national morality resting on the belief that the government has a monopoly of truth and virtue and that the people are merely children who must be guided, if not coerced, to do the government’s bidding” (389). In his view, such attitudes are naturally an obstacle to compromise and peace.
The ideal solution for achieving world peace and preventing a catastrophic nuclear war would be to create a world state. However, Morgenthau contends that only a shared cultural and moral consensus can provide the foundations for a world state that could be developed without resistance. He believes that such a consensus existed in early modern Europe, stemming from the international aristocratic culture among European leaders and diplomats. As he states, “The moral standards of conduct with which the international aristocracy was compiled were of necessity of a supranational character” (263), even if this framework was destroyed in “a slow process of corrosion” (267). In his view, only a revitalized form of diplomacy can achieve such unity because such diplomacy would be better able to address the situational problems that arise from self-interested nations and their relationships. While idealist theory offers broad solutions via campaigns to develop global cooperation through institutional support, Morgenthau believes that a more nuanced and flexible approach will be necessary to save humanity from the specter of nuclear war.
Unlock every key theme and why it matters
Get in-depth breakdowns of the book’s main ideas and how they connect and evolve.
- Explore how themes develop throughout the text
- Connect themes to characters, events, and symbols
- Support essays and discussions with thematic evidence