You are on page 1of 16

Hans J.

Morgenthau: Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, a book review
written by Bernadett Jakab

1. About the author and his oeuvre Hans J. Morgenthau was an American-German political scientist. He was born in Germany in 1904. He had the honor to learn at the top universities of Europe, at the Universities of Berlin, Frankfurt, and Munich. He was a law professor in Frankfurt, and beside of that he was also a practitioner in the fields of law, namely he was acting President of the Labor Law Court. A year before Hitler came to power, he fled his country at the age of 33, Professor Morgenthau went to teach first at the University of Geneva, after that he was Professor also in Madrid, but finally he settled permanently in the United States in 1937. In the USA he was an appreciated member of society, he taught at Brooklyn College and the University of Kansas City before his appointment in 1943 to the University of Chicago. To illustrate how well his teaching was received I would like to name a few universities where he was invited to held courses, so he was visiting Professor at Columbia, Harvard, Northwestern, Yale, and the University of California. He was also University Professor of Political Science at The New School for Social Research. He was not only a professor, he occupied many other public offices. In these quality Professor Morgenthau served as a consultant to the Departments of State and Defense and was Director of the Center for the Study of American Foreign Policy at the University of Chicago, a member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, Associate of the Washington Center for Foreign Policy Research, and a Senior Research Fellow of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is also known as the founder of the National Committee on American Foreign Policy in 1974 and its first chairman. He is the author of many articles, but I will enumerate only his most famous and significant works such as: Politics Among Nations (1948), In Defense of the National Interest (1951), The Purpose of American Politics (1960), Politics in the Twentieth Century (1962), A New Foreign Policy for the United States (1969), and Science: Servant or Master? (1972). Professor Morgenthau died in New York City on July 19, 1980 as the result of ulcer complications.

Morgenthau is sometimes referred to as a classical realist in order to differentiate his approach from the structural realism or neo-realism associated with Kenneth Waltz.1 After his early death the oeuvre of Professor Morgenthau has been many times debated, the intensification of such debates led to the appearance of derivative schools such as neorealism. 2. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace

At the beginning of my paper I would like to clarify that I have written my review based on the brief edition of the Politics Among Nations, which was published in 1993. I have chosen this edition because it is up to date until the end of the Cold War. After the death of the author (1980), there were added or deleted segments from the book, however the editors were careful with the new paragraphs, they were added only when it was strictly necessary, for example the end of the Cold War is mentioned a few times and the significance that comes with that from the point of view of realism. The new paragraphs are in accordance with the spirit of the whole. The first ten chapters were not modified because according to Morgenthau there is the core of his teaching and the publishers were keen to preserve it untouched. Hans Morgenthau is considered one of the "founding fathers" of the realist school in the 20 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. 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 way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power". Politics Among Nations become one of the most extensively used textbooks in the United States and Britain, it continued to be republished and reviewed to the current world politics over the next half century even after the death of the author, this book is a well-written and essential exposition of the realist theory of international relations. All these arguments show how important it is to study and why is important to pay attention to this book over more than 50 years after its publication.

Cf. Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000), p. 11-12.

Hans Morgenthau's classic text established realism as the fundamental way of thinking about international relations. Although it has had its critics, the fact that it continues to be the most long lived text for courses in international relations attests to its enduring value. This book was published, for the first time, at the beginning of the Cold War in 1948. It was revised several times until the authors death, currently it has seven editions, five were revised by its author and two were published and revised after the death but in the spirit of Morgenthau. In the 4th edition Morgenthau summarizes his view on international relations in the following manner "there exists an objective and universally valid truth about matters political, [and] that this truth is accessible to human reason.... "2 For the reader Professor Morgenthaus first lesson of international politics is that the complexities of international affairs make impossible to predict the future, to give simple solutions to current problems. The most that a well-prepared scholar can give is an educated guess, not the content of the future. In an era in which humanity encountered two world wars and has learned how to wage total war with nuclear weapons with the possibility to eradicate humankind, the preservation of peace has to be the prime target of all nations. The book Politics Among Nations concentrate on two main subjects: power and peace. In the subtitle of the book these concepts are underlined: The Struggle for Power and Peace. However, the concept of power gets the biggest part of Morgenthaus attention. The first seven parts of the book out of ten deals with the central concept of the realism, with the interest defined in terms of power of the nations of the world. In his book the first 10 chapters contain most of the basic principles of Morgenthaus philosophy of international relations, namely the realist theory of international relations. In my analyze, I would like to present in details the six principles of realism in order to be able later on to show how they manifest through the whole book these principles. Morgenthau wishes to present a coherent and valid theory of international politics, the latter famous political realism. He puts in contrast to idealism, which is based on the following philosophy: goodness and infinite malleability of human nature, and blames the failure of the social order to measure up to the rational standards on lack of knowledge and understanding,

Politics Among Nations (4th ed., 1967), p. ix.

obsolescent social institutions, or the depravity of certain isolated individuals or groups3, in the opposite league realism perceives the world as an entity which contains states with opposing interests and conflict among them is inevitable, these forces are the result of forces inherent in human nature. To improve the world one must work with those forces, not against them4. Realism sidesteps the limits of absolute morality, it sees the world as the result of balancing interests and power played between the participants of the political arena. Morgenthau summarizes this theory in six main principles. Six Principles of Political Realism: 1. Political realism believes that politics is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.5 This principle praises the presumed rationality of the human being. It also creates the illusion of complete objectivity, whereby can be created a widespread applicable theory in international relations. 2. Interest is defined in terms of power6. With the help of this principle is easier to make the necessary connection between rational facts and the actual situation of international politics. In this way of thinking politics is differentiated from other spheres of action, like economy, where interest is defined in terms of wealth. Although international politics should be conducted by this rational theory, the political reality is only the essence of the theory, not the theory itself put in practice due to human irrationality. Morgenthaus moral view on international politics can be summarized in a normative principle: rational foreign policy is good foreign policy exactly for rational reason, which nationwide minimizes risks and benefits and, hence, complies both with the moral precept of prudence and the political requirement of success7, bringing success for its followers in the political field. 3. Interest defined as power is an objective category which is universally valid, but whose meaning is changeable among the respective political era8. Power is the capability to establish and after that to maintain physical or psychological control of one individual over another individual. Also, the conditions of the state can and will change over time, there is no real stability in the international political system.

Hans, Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, Brief Edition, 1992, p. 3. Ibid. 5 Ibid, p. 4. 6 Ibid, p. 5. 7 Ibid, p.12. 8 Ibid.

As a final reflection on the power Morgenthau states: While the realist indeed believes that interest is the perennial standard by which political action must be judged and directed, the contemporary connection between interest and the nation state is a product of history, and is therefore bound to disappear in the course of history. 4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action.9 There is no universally applicable moral action, politicians have to act with prudence, the most important task of a politician is to serve the highest interest of state, namely its survival. After all, political actions are judged by their consequences. 5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe.10 In this case, the concept of interest defined in the terms of power helps through the catches of false morality and political faux pas. 6. The difference between political realism and other schools of thought is real and it is profound11, states Morgenthau. The key question in the field of international relations asked by a political realist is: "How does this policy affect the power of the nation?" It is unquestionable that there are other fields, standards of thoughts, for instance, legal, moral and economical ones, which intermingle with the sphere of politics, but it is important to observe that politics includes an autonomous field of subject, and a good politician always treats separately the political matters from the ethical, legal or economical ones. Above are the six cornerstones of political realism, in continuance I will analyze and criticize the approach of the international politics done in the spirit of political realism. One of the main themes of this book is power. Lets pay a little attention to the definition of power which is a sum of mutual relations of control among the holders of public authority and between the latter and the people at large12. According to Morgenthau international politics is a struggle for power alike national politics are. There is no other final end of the international political game then power itself. In my opinion this thesis is not only obsolete in our times but even in Morgenthaus time with the appearance of nuclear power and biological weapons the power politics tend to be over rated. With the help of the two above mentioned weapons even a small and relatively weak nation can

Ibid, p. 14. Ibid. 11 Ibid, p. 15. 12 Ibid, p. 29.


blow a lethal strike upon a superpower. In the case of the nuclear power can be used the argument that to become a nuclear power one nation should join the political club of nuclear powers which is expensive and the raw materials are hard to obtain, so it is a hard task to become a nuclear power. This argument is valid until a certain point, but the possibility of mass destruction of biological weapons is still valid. One nation does not need excessive economical power to create biological weapons and destroy powerful nations. In my opinion, not power should be considered as the final end of political games but security which is related to the concept of power but they are not synonyms, they are just loosely related. At the beginning of the 20th century this struggle for power was view by certain groups as a temporary phenomena, which once looses the base of the struggle, the final aim, will be a question of the past. Morgenthau names these bases, and reflects on the failure of these observers because even if the base they named as the source of the struggle disappeared the struggle for the final end remained in the international political field. My observation towards this failure of those who tried to identify the one single source of this struggle is that probably they were right, there is a source of the struggle for power, but they were not identifying the real one, probably they identified only the symptoms not the root of the evil. The presumed tendency to dominate as an element of all humans is farfetched, it is a generalization without scientifical proof, there are acts of total selflessness between human and human and not just there. There are many organization with the scope to help, humanitarian relief groups such as the Red Cross, which without material benefit with putting into risk their life tries to help the less fortunate. The problem of this statement is the generalization, surely the most visible elements of a society are those who are the loudest, most aggressive ones, but this does not mean that they are in the plurality. In the Soviet Union, for example, according to many historians the number of those who were truly believing in the communist doctrine was between 7-10 % of the population, however their deep rooted conviction of the righteousness of the communism led to the starvation and death of millions in order to became the Soviet Union an industrialized superpower. If the fact of the death of those peasants and opponents of the Communist Party is analyzed through the interest of state, then communism was an effective doctrine to help to regain the power and grandiose of Russia by industrializing her, but in the other hand one should consider the horror of her people, the losses, and last but not least the possibilities of less bloodier alternatives for her subjects.

To conclude this part, according to Morgenthau, a nation cannot choose between power politics and pacifism, the latter one is just an utopianistic and dangerous view. An important concept when someone writes about power in realist terms, the policy of the status quo has to be mandatorily mentioned. It consists in the balance of power. The classical example in this aspect is the policy of Great Britain. Great Britain always allied herself with those states that were weaker in order to preserve the balance of power between the nations of Europe, not allow the predominance of one state over the whole continent. When in the international chess table the nations play the game of power their foreign policy will be characterized either as to keep power, or to increase it, the third option is a middle ground in a way, when a nation demonstrates its potentialities. The power game has its dangerousness when a player chooses to increase its power, then the so feared imperialism wakes up. Why would a nation have imperialistic ends? If the international ground has as the final end the predominance of one nation then the answer is quite simple: because it can, at least she considers it that the state has the means to achieve her imperialistic goals. Imperialism is the antonym of the policy of status quo. The power policies of the nations are complicated, and there it is at least one element that cannot be directly measured: prestige. When someone begins to analyze the international puzzle of military powers, then the prestige issue is there unquestionable. As in the example given by Professor Morgenthau in special cases not the real military power but the prestige of ones can save a nation from the final strike. This was the case of Great Britain in 1940-41. Ironically the faade of the previous greatness, the memory of won battle in the past, in crucial situations can be beneficial. In this aspect the occasional display of military force is not a senseless action on behalf of the nations. When one is studying international relations, in order to be able to comprehend one states foreign policies, or to be able to predict future possibilities strictly related to her, one should be concerned with the field of political ideologies. Different type of ideology is related to different type of foreign policy: either imperialistic or to preserve the current situation. When a state is for the preserving of peace and for the respect of international law then her foreign policy is towards the status quo. When the nationalistic ideology is the ruling ideology of the state, then imperialistic tendencies are stronger, one should not be surprised with the presence of preparation for future war in the foreign policy of the respective state.

The indicators of the concrete power structure of a state are the geographical situation of the state, the presence of raw materials on the territory of the state, industrial capacity among others. These are the objective and stable indicators. In our current world the quality of the leadership is valorized. The geographical position became less important, nowadays there are no true distances, that was true when Morgenthau had written this book, it is even more accurate today. The scarcity of raw materials were and is a problem, but there are always alternatives for a price. The question is if the concrete state is willing and able to pay it. The good example is Japan, she has no raw materials, but with the help of technology she is the mother of many hightech apparatus. The negative examples are the African states. Many of them are abundant of raw materials, but without the technology and industry they cannot realize their worth. The number of the population of a certain state it is important, but not as much as it was in 1948. The emphasis is on the national character. When there is an innovative character of a nation it is beneficial to the state. This trait is associated with Americans. The issue if there is or not a special trait characteristic for each nation I will not debate in this paper. There are cold facts on which I tend to agree with Professor Morgenthau. Germany after the First World War and Second World War rebuilt herself in a manner that would not be possible after the degree of devastation elsewhere. The other example is Japan, after Hiroshima and Nagasaki was able to move on and become a state with political power. The famous unquestioning of the Russian people is one more example. These national traits can be blessings or burdens, but the leadership of each states is the one that will determine if the national trait will built or destroy the respective nation. Here is the example of Bismarck and his antithesis Hitler. One unified Germany, the other almost destroyed his people. The same national trait was present in the German people, the difference was in the person of the leader. After taking into consideration the main contributing factors of power in a state the next logical task is to evaluate the concrete power of a certain state. To make a realistic picture of the power of a certain state one should study her in the context of other states, there are no absolute powers, the relativeness of power should not be forgotten. If a state finds out after the evaluation of her power that she decreased along the passing time, there is still a solution to compensate for it. This state can count on the international equilibrium regarding the situation of political power. Here comes the example of Korea. Korea is situated at the crossing path of two super powers (Japan vs. China, USA vs. Soviet Union).

She owns her existence to their conflicting interests. Another way to navigate through the international scene is to form alliances. This way offers concentrated power for the weaker, and a possibility to remain until a certain point independent from the superpowers. Up to this point the international scene of politics, according to realist policies, looks like a bloody battlefield, the weak nations are murdered or enslaved, the superpowers divide among themselves the prey and simultaneously look for a chance to conquer the other ones. However there are two factors, the international morality and international law, which somehow achieve a pleasanter picture of the international world. International morality is the result of the horror of wars. After the fever of the religious wars of the 16th century, the monarchist wars of the 17th century, the bloodiness of the French Revolution, the unification wars of nationalistic armies in the 19th century led to a gradual differentiation of civil and combatant. The human life had become more sacred through the passing of time. The 20th century with the two world wars changed it back, there was no clear difference between combatant and non-combatant, and the high scale of the brutalities and the concept of total war diminished again the value and sanctity of the individual lives. The other contributing factor of the change of the face of war is the appearance of the nationalism. The problem with the nationalistic way of seeing the world is that it is an exclusive view. Its exclusiveness consists in that view that only the nationalistic group can perceive the image of the world correctly, they offer the only good solution for the nations problems, they are the saviors, those who oppose them can be considered that they are against the highest good of the nation. The problem here is clear, if every nation considers that her view is the right one, this monopolistic way of thinking and acting leads to a constant battle to validate the respective ideology to the detriment of the others. If the international actors wage war to propagate their way of life, it will create more bitterness in the eyes of the losers, which leads to a constant resentment, which will create instability in the international ground. This instability is not in the best interest of states because in this case they cannot make rational calculations for their future actions. In the case of status quo the actions of other actors are calculable, in this way one state can act according to her best interest, with the limitation of the international morality if she would like to remain in the field of action where the consequences are calculable. A nation which goes beyond those limits has to take into consideration that when unstabled the international relations by overturning the status quo it can lead to her own conquest, an instable

system can be the enemy of anybody. An edifying example for this situation is the case of the Third Reich. Germany was the most powerful nation in Europe but after the status quo was overturned the war ended by her destruction. The other protector of the international relations between states is, until a certain level, the international law. It also contributes to the peaceful setting of the conflicts between states. International law is a body of rules and principles, contained in various sources, including treaties and customs, which the subjects of international law have accepted as binding on them either in their relations with one on other per se, or in those with other juristic or natural persons.13 However the work of the International Court of Justice is not an easy one. It operates from 1920 but as the definition of international law suggests there is the problem of recognizing as binding by the state, states certain treaties and customs. Until the recognition of the binding power of a certain document for a certain state, the respective legal norms included by that document, are not legally binding for the party who did not accepted them. Hereby, the respect of the body of norms is not mandatory and the respective state cannot be sanctioned according to the international law for the violation of it. An other problem in the case of international law is the decentralized character of the law enforcement. Even if there is a sentence in a legal case promulgated by the International Court of Justice there is not a central organ which makes sure that the sentence is respected and completed. In the case of international law even through there is no central enforcement agency the majority of sentences is respected. The answer to the question why are states respecting these sentences lies in their interest. Without the jeopardy of war certain legal issues can be resolved without loosing prestige. Even if a certain state is in one case the looser of her case, but in the next case she can be the winner. If the majority of the states respects the sentences of the International Court of Justice, then there will be computability in the functioning pattern of the court. The state subjecting herself to the sentence of the Court, indifferent if the sentence is pro or against her, has the advantage in the case of future disputes to gain respect in the international arena and the prestige to be acclaimed as a respectable state. One by accepting the sentence of the Court can hope that the other states will act in the same manner. In the time when a total war could mean the destruction of humankind the respectability of the International Court of Justice can be on e of the factors that helps to preserve the peace, which is so needed in the shadow of nuclear war.

A. Abass, International Law: Text, Cases and Materials, New York: Oxford University Press 2012, p. 7.

One of the current factors which is the burden of humanity is the reappearnce of the nationalistic fever among the nations of the world according to Professor Morgenthau. Why is it so dangerous? What is the new element of the world which makes it even more significant this nationalistic fever? The new nationalism is bloodier than the old one, the old one (old nationalism can be defined as the movement whose end was to create the nation state) was a more rational movement even with its bloody consequences, it had its limits. In the case of the new nationalism the starting point as the nation state is already given, the end of the new nationals is the monopoly of truth, the monopoly of their ethics. In the case of the new nationalism there is no chance of peaceful collaboration, there is one just way of life, those who do not agree with it are traitors. The end of the new nationalism involve its world domination aspirations. The exclusiveness of neo-nationalism suggests dangers, it includes an amount of irrationality, in this way unstabled the order of the world. The combination of nationalistic fever with the destructiveness of the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons which can be purchased is worrisome. A rational mind can see plenty of dangers for the human civilization known by us. In the second part of the Politics Among Nations is treated the problem of peace. After the analyze of the power and its consequences, the destructiveness of the currently available weapons the solution for the survival of the state consists rather in peace than by means of force. The unpredictability of the outcome of a war made it necessary to put peace on a high shelf. If the head of a state is a rational person then he or she has as a high objective to keep the peace between his or her nation and the others. War as a method of settling differences is obsolete and condemned. This is the reason why the heads of state are in constant searching for a method to resolve their disputes in a peaceful way. One of the solutions to preserve and promote peace is the disarmament program. After the Manhattan program, by the appearance of the nuclear weapon certain measures to control the armament of the nations had to be made. In the case of the author, Professor Morgenthau one should not forget that he lived and has written this book in the age of the Cold War. The tension between the USA and the Soviet Union had its fluctuations but there was the constant threat of nuclear war. The nuclear club tried and tries to limit the number of its member. The destructivity of the nuclear weapons make them dangerous to be in the hand of an unstable nation. After a certain quantity of nuclear weapons there is no point of further cumulation, it would be senseless and meaningless. The control of biological and chemical weapons was

necessary due through their uncontrollability and unpredictability. One important observation relating the disarmament process is that, there is important difference between qualitative and quantitative disarmament. In most cases the treaties refer to quantitative restrictions. Even if the steps to a safer and more peaceful world were made by the disarmament treaties an even more important step, in terms of collaboration, is the thought of collective security. The collective security is a system by which states have attempted to prevent or stop wars. Under a collective security arrangement, an aggressor against any one state is considered an aggressor against all other states, which act together to repel the aggressor.14 Through the course of history there were made attempts for the establishment of world government, but these attempts were condemned to failure. The first international group in this sense was the Holy Alliance. In 1815, after the end of the Napoleonic war, the Big Five of Europe, which were also the leading powers in the world, tried to influence together the course of history of the world. This alliance was doomed because of the confronting interests of the members. Russian political interests were hard to maintain in accordance with the British or Prussian ones. An other organization which wanted the role of the world government, was the League of Nations. After the end of the 1st World War the winners wanted to preserve the gained power after the Versailles Treaty, so they founded in 1919 the League of Nations. It was meant to preserve the peace in Europe, and to be the guardian of the status quo established after the Great War. Unfortunately the term of status quo had different meaning for Great Britain and France. Great Britain would had welcome a stronger Germany in order to counterbalance the power of France. It is obvious that for France it would had been easier to remain without his main competitor on the continent. This clash of interests determined the inefficiency of this organization. The case of Italy regarding Ethiopia had showed clearly that this institution is not functioning, it is weak without real power. The third significant try to maintain and preserve the international peace was the foundation of the United Nations after the 2nd World War. This time the structural weakness was eliminated but it was not a democratically functioning organization, it was the tool of the superpowers. At the beginning of its existence it was divided between two groups: the USA and the Soviet Union. The weaker states were in the shadow of one of the superpowers.
14, 23.08.2013, 14:00.

All these organizations the Holy Alliance, the League of Nations, The United Nations were until a certain point the aborted attempts to manage the world most important issues by the politically powerful and potent. The main problem was the different interests of the states. Today the differences are even more accentuated because of the upheaval of nationalism everywhere in the world. According to Professor Morgenthau the attempt to unify the nations of the world is and will be a failure. According to him individuals tend to bond to their nation state rather than to a borderless, cosmopolitan world. He does not believe that international action groups which help to increase the well-being of individuals all around the world without the anticipation of their gratitude or material remuneration. One example in this category is the UNESCO. After the 2nd World War it was clear that cooperation on political and economical base is not satisfying the need of humanity to prosper in peace. According to the basic principle of UNESCO p eace must be established on the basis of humanitys moral and intellectual solidarity.15 In order to clarify its position in the international field the UNESCO is also known as the "intellectual" agency of the United Nations.16 As I arrived to the last part of the book, the main question remains: How to manage the international field to be beneficial for our world, for humanity? According to the realists states want power, want to dominate the others. This desire of dominance is limited by the international morality and international law. The idealists can dream about a world government which in their opinion would erase the pursue of power because it would not have an other entity which one would have conflicting interests. Professor Morgenthau gives the secret ingredient: potent diplomacy which ensures the balance of power. In the chapters about the possibilities hidden in diplomacy he clearly defines diplomacys role in establishing and maintaining peace. To fulfill this role a diplomat can use three method. He or she has to analyze the situation and use one of the following tools: persuasion, compromise, and threat of force. Strapped with these classic diplomatic assets the wise diplomat has to fulfill one of the following tasks: 1. diplomacy must determine its objectives in light of the power available for the pursuit of said objectives; 2. diplomacys role in assessing the objectives of other nations, especially in light of their power available;

15 16, 23.08.2013, 18:00. Ibidem.


diplomacys determination to the degree that such varied objectives are compatible; diplomacys employment of suitable means for achieve such objectives.17


If a diplomat fails in action to fulfill during his or her duty these four tasks, the possibility that the negotiated issue will not be solved in the best possible way is highly likely. The famous diplomats of the 19th century like Bismarck could achieve the unification of their nation. Without the contribution of the ambitious diplomat Bismarck the process of unification and preservation after the unification of Germany would had taken a different course. On the British side the contribution of Lord Castlereagh to carry on the role of Great Britain, to be the holder of the status quo. In the final part of his book, Professor Morgenthau focuses on the present decline of diplomacy. He names five decisive factors which lead to the decline of diplomacy after the 2nd World War: 1. The development of modern communications; 2. 3. The depreciation of diplomacy; Diplomacy by parliamentary procedure;

4. The bipolar world ruled by the two superpowers of his age, the USA and the Soviet Union; 5. The nature of contemporary international politics. All these factors are responsible together for the disappearance of the charismatic and wise diplomat, who behind closed doors resolved the most delicate international crises without the interference of the public, but in the final interest of the public. The shadow of the horror of war was sent away. The diplomat using his persuasive power and juggling with the set of compromises obtained the fruit of peace. The final issue in the case of diplomacy is the question that how it could be revived, how could regain its former glory and importance. One issue is clear, the way it works nowadays it is not beneficial. It had many advantage in its glorious period. A charismatic diplomat could attain peace without the shed of blood. In this final part Morgenthau gives four fundamental rules for the aspiring diplomat to be efficient in the field of diplomacy: 1. Diplomacy Must Be Divested of the Crusading Spirit

Hans, Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, Brief Edition, 1993, p. 363.

2. The Objectives of Foreign Policy Must Be Defined in Terms of the National Interest and Must Be Supported with Adequate Power 3. Diplomacy Must Look at the Political Scene from the Point of View of Other Nations 4. Nations Must Be Willing to Compromise on All Issues That Are Not Vital to Them18

3. Conclusion

To summarize the main idea lying between the lines of this book, I have to return to Professor Morgenthaus words: diplomacy is the best means of preserving peace which a society of sovereign nations has to offer.19 In our days war cannot be used as a simple tool to resolve the differences among national interests. The possibility to wage total war and to erase humankind with our modern with the arsenal of arms points to a new era, a new political direction for the leaders of the future. This direction is peace achieved by diplomacy. In this case, the concept of diplomacy is used with the meaning that was given to it in the 19th century. In that famous era the wise diplomats embodied real power and prestige. These two ingredients should reappear in the international relations of state. Through negotiation, accommodation and compromise the world politics and policies would be closer to maintain peace among themselves. Last but not least, at the end of my paper I would like to transmit Professor Morgenthaus words: The continuing success of diplomacy in preserving peace depends, as we have seen, upon extraordinary moral and intellectual qualities that all the leading participants must possess. A mistake in the evaluation of one of the elements of national power, made by one or the other of the leading statesmen, may spell the difference between peace and war.20 The emphasis is on peace, because peace equals with life, with the survival of humanity. In the era of nuclear weapons there would not be winners after a nuclear war, the high probability of annihilation of states makes them focus on the maintaining of peace. Peace is the final interest now, it is the key for the survival of the states and humankind.

18 19

Ibidem, p. 384-387. Ibidem, p. 390. 20 Ibidem.

Bibliography Books: 1. A. Abass, International Law: Text, Cases and Materials, New York: Oxford University Press 2012 2. Cf. Jack Donnelly, Realism and International Relations, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000. 3. Hans, Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, Brief Edition, 1993. 4. Hans, Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations, 4th edition, 1967. Articles: 1. Robert, Kaufman, Morgenthaus Unrealistic Realism, Yale Journal of International Affairs, Winter | Spring 2006. 2. J. Peter, Pham, What Is in the National Interest? Hans Morgenthaus Realist Vision and American Foreign Policy, American Foreign Policy Interests, 30: 256265, 2008. Web pages: 1. 2. 3. 2/p100822-3.php 4. 5.