Comprehending modern global politics is a challenging task that necessitates a comprehensive understanding of past and present trends in international relations. This includes historical and current issues, as well as significant events that shape this field. Over time, various groups and schools of thought have emerged to analyze world politics and actively participate in international relations.
One style of thinking, known as power politics, realpolitik, or realism, concentrates on the influence of power in international relations. It emphasizes how states, as the primary actors in world politics, impact one another. Realpolitik prioritizes political power factors like military readiness and industrial capacity over considerations of morality, ideology, and other social aspects that can influence state actions.
Realism provides a solid foundation for comprehending short-term, interstate dynamics, while neglecting the understanding of deeper, long-term concerns. Power politics argues that human nature tends to be self-interested, based on their observations of international relations. They contend that in the international arena, states are the primary actors that pursue their own individual interests. Consequently, a state is considered powerful when it effectively influences other states in order to safeguard its national interests.
Since the emergence of states, territorial expansion and war have been historical trends dating back thousands of years. The egoistic nature of states led to the development of armies as a means to enforce their interests through force. As a result, neighboring countries were compelled to establish their own armies in response. These developments ultimately paved the way for the power politics that we witness today.
The prioritization of defense over liberal issues took precedence. Power politics extend beyond war and defense. Power is generally defined as a state’s capability to advance its own interests by influencing other states to comply.
Using militaristic, economic, and diplomatic strengths, states employ realpolitik to exert influence over other actors in order to obtain desired outcomes. This strategy is based on the belief that factors such as population, territory, geography, natural resources, and GDP contribute to a state’s potential power in shaping international politics.
Realism measures a state’s power in short-term issues by examining its military-industrial capabilities and the efficiency of its bureaucracy. Defense holds significant importance in power politics, driven by the notion of behavioral norms within an anarchistic world. As there is no central authority to establish and enforce laws on the international stage, it becomes a perilous environment for actors. Realism acknowledges the absence of a solution to global anarchy and thus relies on historical practices instead of pursuing the creation of a governing body or international organizations for maintaining order.
There is a level of dependency on norms of behavior, with the most crucial being sovereignty. Sovereignty refers to the right of states to implement any policies within their borders. Respect for sovereignty promotes less complex and less risky international relations.
If states constantly interfere in each other’s internal affairs, there would be more topics to concentrate on and more conflicts to create global disruptions. Another way in which realpolitik prevents international relations from deteriorating in a chaotic world is through bargaining. Taking into account the utilization of leverage, power politics believes that the state with more power (i.e., the one possessing a highly advanced military and a larger GDP, among other factors) will obtain the most benefits during negotiations.
The preservation of international order is achieved through cost-benefit analysis. In any given situation, states must evaluate the expenses associated with potential actions against the expected advantages of taking those actions. It is evident that a more influential state can take greater risks without incurring significant losses.
The less powerful state is compelled to comply without confrontation as it lacks the strength required to effectively pursue its own objectives. This dynamic in global relations reinforces the continuation of global disorder by acknowledging that conflicts cannot escalate due to the limited resources of certain nations.
The realistic view of anarchy in the international system highlights a key weakness in power politics. However, according to liberal internationalists, a different approach should be taken to address the absence of an international government. Rather than accepting the status quo, liberals believe that states should strive to establish international organizations that foster closer relationships among nations and aim to eliminate global anarchy. These organizations aim to create laws and agreements that provide guidelines for states to follow in their actions.
Power politics, by assuming that anarchy is the only possible way for the world to exist, rejects ambition and hope for change, resulting in the preservation of the status quo. While we acknowledge that throughout history, power politics has provided a certain level of security when compared to anarchy, the absence of a desire for improvement is disconcerting. Perhaps the tendency of realists to neglect long-term global aspirations can be attributed to a self-centered human nature that prioritizes the interests of their own nation.
Idealists have a unique viewpoint, stressing that human nature is inherently positive. They prioritize progress for the whole world rather than individual gains. To ensure the overall welfare of the planet in the future, it is crucial to take into account shared resources such as clean air that benefit everyone.
Liberals argue that for the international community to benefit, states must sacrifice some of their self-interests, a notion overlooked by realism. Realism also fails to acknowledge the significance of sub-state actors in global politics and foreign policy events. While liberals recognize that the state is not the sole influential entity in international affairs, realists believe that the state holds greater importance than any actors within it, representing only one set of goals and preferences. Consequently, those who adhere to power politics often miss the broader context, disregarding the fact that states may act based on religious or ideological views rather than purely for power.
Additionally, power politics does not encompass the influence exerted by interest groups, ethnic groups, and organizations on the foreign policy of every country. Consequently, a significant portion of international relations remains unaddressed. Power politics aids in the analysis and resolution of matters relating to national security and national interest.
Studying realism demonstrates the direct link between a country’s army size and its ability to accomplish its goals in the international arena. Examining a nation with a substantial GDP and vast territory allows us to understand that such a state is unlikely to be easily influenced on the global stage.
Power politics is demonstrated in the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait. The United States intervened when Iraq invaded Kuwait due to its national interest and the strategic significance of the region. By preventing Iraq’s takeover of Persian Gulf oil resources by annexing Kuwait, the US used its superior military strength to protect its own interests. This case illustrates that a country with a significantly higher GDP and a more favorable military can use force to exert influence on other nations.
While power politics is useful in analyzing certain global issues, it falls short in addressing and representing others. Realism, as mentioned above, overlooks important aspects of international relations such as sub-state actors, diverse goals of states, the significance of global change for global improvement, and the overall welfare of humanity.
Considering the complexities of the international stage, it is imperative not to assume that one perspective on world politics is correct while dismissing others as incorrect. To comprehend the functioning of the world, it becomes crucial to take into account each school of thought.
