UNIT 1 REALIST AND NEO-REALLIST APPROACH%ES

Structure
1 .1 I ntroductisn
1.2 What is Realism?
1.2.1 One. Realism, or Many?
1.2.2 Classical Realism
1.2.3 Contemporary Realism or Neo-realism
1.3 Key Concepts in the Realist Scl~ool
1.3.1 National Interest
1.3.2 National Power
1.3.3 National Security
1.4 Some I~npoi-tantTheories in tlie Realist Approach to International Relations
1.4.1 Theory of Conflict
1.4.2 'Theory of Balance of Power
1.4.3 Theory of Deterrence
I .5 Summary
1.6 Exercises

1.I INTRODUCTION
Of the major approaches to the study of international relations, Realism has by far proved to
be the most influential theory in explaining the nature of world politics. What probably explains '

its dominance as a school of tkouglit is its ability to provide the most powerful explanation for
the state ,of war, which characterises tlie regular condition of life in the international system.
This, however, does not mean that its basic assunlptions have remained unchallenged. As would
become clear in the later part of this Unit, tlie Realist perspective has come under fierce
criticism. As you go along this Unit. the relative strengths and weaknesses of tlie Realist
approach will become clearer to you.

1.2 WHAT IS REALISM?

Realism, also known as "Political Realism" or "Realpolitik", continues to remain one of the
dominant schools of thought within the domain of international'relations. Althoi~ghits genesis
can be traced back to Thucydides' account of the Peloponnesian War (43 1 BC), and to Sun
Tzu's classic work on strategy, The Art of War, written at roughly the same time in China,
Realism emerged as the dominant international perspective only during the 20th Century. More
specifically, it enierged in its modern form largely in reaction to idealism, a more normatively
driven approach which held that countries were United in an underlying "harmony of interests"-
a view shattered by the outbreak of Second World War. Rather than study the world as it might
be, Realists maintained that a science of international politics must study the world, as it was-
an insistence that resulted in the Realists' self-acclaimed appellation. In contrast to the "idealists",
a term retrospectively co'ined by the Realists for the ~nter-warscholars whose maj~;~reoccu~ation
was with understanding the cause of war and finding a tasting remedy for its existence, war to
the Realists appears as a natural phenomenon given the inherent craving -for power in human
nature. While idealism eniphasises that intertiational relations should be guided by morality,
Realism is grounded in an emphasis on power politics and the pursuit of national interests.
 But, what do these terms mean'? As you go along this Unit, the meanings and in~plicationsof
such expressions frequently used in the literature on international relations would become clear
to you. However, before we get down to explaining these terms we must take note of the fact
that from the perspective of the Realist framework, states are recognised as the preeminent
actors in world politics. What provides weight to such an assumption is the acco~npanying
notion of sovereignty, which enables states to act as independent and autonomous entities both
within and outside the nation-state. The rise of nationalisnl and the emergence of modern
nation-states have further consolidated such a belief system by transforming the different states
into cohesive political conlrnunities, within which all other loyalties and ties remain subordinate
to the nation-states. By logical extension, all non-state actors like multinational corporations
and intergovernmental organisations such as the United Nations are relegated to a peripheral
status within the international system. Despite the growing recognition of the fact that such
non-state entities do significantly influence the outconle of developments in international relations,
the Realists are unwilling to budge from their position as far as the pre-eminence of nation-
states in the international systenz is concerned. While conceding tliat the non-state actors do
operate within the political arena, the Realists argue that the states' supremacy renlains
unchallenged as they do so only with tlie consent of national political authorities. Nothing, the
Realists argue, is above tl~estate.

1.2.1 One Realism or IVlany?

There is no consensus among theorists of international relations with regard to the taxonolny
of Realism. The question as to whether Realism collstitutes a single collerent theory or there
are different strands within Realism has proved increasingly contentious. Nevertheless, different
classificatory scllernes are often used to separate one strand of Realism fro111another. Generally
speaking, the Realist school can be divided into two broad categories-classical ~ e a l k mand
contemporary Realism or Neo-realism.

1.2.2 Classical Realism

Classical Realism represents a whole worldview of international politics encompassing 'several
generations of theorists ranging from Thucydides, Machiavelli, and E.H. Carr to H b s J.
Morgenthau, the most famous high priest of post-war Realism. The central argunlent of classical
Realism rests on the assumption that international politics is drivcn by an endless struggle for
power,'~vhichhas its root in human nature. In this framework, justice, law, and society have
either no place or are circumscribed. Classical Realism recognises that principles are subordinated
to policies and that the ultimate test of the state leader lies in accepting and adapting to the
changing power political configurations in world politics.

Classical Realism, as a school o f thought, became fashionable more particularly during the
inter-war period when a new generation of scholars got actively engaged h explaining new
developme~ltsin international relations. Classical Realists, a tern1 retrospectively used by later
band of Realists, is thus often attributed to those theorists who were actively writing on
international relations i~mnediatelybefore and after the Second World War. What distinguishes
this genre of scholars from others is their shared belief in an essentially pessimistic view of
human nature. Some of the key figures in this tradition of Realist school like Reinhold Niebuhr
(1 892-1971), Nicholas Spykman (1893-1943), Hans Morgenthau (1904-1980), and others believe
that the struggle for power is inherent in human nature. In other words, the drive for power and
the will to dominate are treated as the lkndamcntal traits of human nature. Follotving from this,
tlie behviour of the state as a self-seeking egoist is thus understood to be merely a reflection
of the characteristics of the people that comprise the state. It is human nature that explains why
international politics is necessarily power politics. Convinced of the unchanging human nature,
classical Realists are highly pessiillistic with regard to the possibility of any qualitative
transfornation of world politics. As a result, they tend to rely ~nuchmore upon conventional
principles of diplomacy and mechanisms-such as balance of power, international morality and
world public opinion, and intenlational law-for regulating and restraining the inevitable clashes
of interests between states, tllan on the human nature.

1.2.3 Contemporary Realism or Neo-realism

Contemporary Realism, also called Neo-realism and Structural Realism, is a more recent
strand of Realism that developed during the 1980s under the influence of Kellneth Waltz. While
Neo-realists continue to ackno\vledge the central in~portanceof power, they tend to explain
events in tenns of the structure of the international system rather than tlle goals and make-up
of individual states. The structure of the intenlational systen~,for the Neo-realists, is a major
determinant of state bchaviour. It is tllrough an analysis of the different stn~cturesof the
international system-defined in tenns of ordering principles, the functionat differentiation of
the Units, and distributions of capabilities-that the Neo-realists tend to esplain tlle varying
patterns of world politics. This, they believe, cannot be explained simply in terms of the
interests .and policies of individual countries.

Unlike the classical Realists who trace the causes of war to the innatc humLmnature, the Neo-
realists tend to explain international conflict within the framework of the anarchic structure of
the international system. 'Illis basically means that there is no overarching central authority to
enforce rules and norms or protect the interests of the larger global co~lununity.In other words,
it is not so much the innate huiilan nature as thc anarchical system, which nurtures fear,
jealousy, suspicion, and insecurity in the international system. The stnrctural Realists insist that
conflict can emerge evcn if the actors have bcllevolent intent towards each other. This fornl of
Structural Realisin is most often associated with Kenneth Waltz's landmark book, Theory of'
International Politic.,. (1979). Waltz's Structural Realism has had a major impact 011 scholars
in intcrnational relations. Waltz's popularity as a structural Rcalist enlanates from his ringing
assertion that the structure of the intenlatioi~alsystem decisively shapes the bellaviour of t l ~ e
states. According to Waltz: anarchy prevents states from entering into co-operative agreements
to end the state of war. The condition of anarchy-absence of s "higl~crpowcr" over and above
tl~esovereign nation-states to ensure peace among t11en1-is often viewcd as synonymous to a
state of war. By the state of war, structural Realists do not intend to convey the iinpression that
large-scale war is a daily occurrence in inten~ntiol~al politics: Rather, the possibility that a
particular state may resort to force indicates that the outbreak of war is always a likely sceilario
in an anarchical environment. Put differently, the structure of the intcrnational systcnl can drive
states to war even if state leaders desirc peace. Structural Realists insist that tlic form of a state,
for example a democracy or a totalitarintr state, oy.the personality of the leader is less important
in accounting for the phenoniena of war than the fact that action M c s place within the contest
of-an anarchical realm.

However, Kenneth. Waltz's theory of Structural Realism is not the o111y version of Neo-realism.
A second group of contcniporary Re~llists,pronlinent among whom is Joseph Grieco, I~ave
integrated Waltz's ideas with the ideas of lnorc traditional Realists such as Hans Morgenthau,
Raymond Aron, Stanley Hoffit~ann,and Robert Gilpin to construct a contetnporary or modern
Realist profile. Grieco represents a group of Neo-realists or mod en^ Realists who are critical
interested in absolute gains. Grieco
of neo-liberal institutionalists who claim states are lnai~~ly
clainls that all states are interested in both absolutc and relative gains and in the questioiz of
how such gains are distributed in the ir~ternationalsystem. Such Neo-realists, however, identify
 two barriers to international cooperation, fear of those who might not follow the rules and the
relative gains of others.

There is yet another version, the third version of Neo-realism, whlch is increasingly becoming
popular as security studies. This for111 of Neo-realism is further divided into two sub-groups-
offensive Neo-realism aid defensive Neo-realism. While offensive Neo-realists emphasise the
importance of relative power, tlie defensive Neo-realists are often conhsed with neo-liberal
institutionalists, a branch of liberalism. which will be taken up in detail in the next Unit. Like
traditional Realists, the offensive Neo-realists believe that conflict is inevitable in tlie international
system and leaders must always be wary of expansionary powers. The defensive Neo-realists,
on the other hand, recognise tlie costs of war and argue that it invariably results from irrational
forces in a society. Moreover, tlley argue that it is the presence of tlie expansionary forces in
the international system, always willing to use force, which makes it impossible to co-exist in
a world tvitliout weapons. They do, however, concede that co-operation can take place but is
likely to be successfuI only among tlie friendly states.
\
However, all this has evoked strong reactions from a nuniber of scholars. Several critics point
out that conteniporary Realists like Waltz who construct a Realist theory without relying on an
assumption about human nature tend to assume that states are competitive and egoistic entities.
Moreover, in the work of contemporarj structural Realists, these traits appear to be prior to t l ~ e
interactions of states as though they existed before the game of power politics began. We shall
come back to some of the more general criticisms of the Realist approach later on in the 'Unit.
Our more imniediate concern here, however, is to identify some of the key concepts frequently
used in the ReaIist approach to the study of international politics.

KEY CONCEPTS IN THE REALIST APPROACH

We shall be focussing here on sonie of the key concepts frequently used in the study of
international relations, which together form the very core of the Realist school. These are:
national interest, national power, and national security. Our use of these concepts so far has
been rather loose lacking a systematic treatment without which we cannot possibly capture the
minute nuances of their implications in the Realist tradition of international relations theory.
Ho~vever,you might have: perhaps, already noticed that such concepts tend to overlap and are
&n used interchangeably by the Realist theorists.

1.3.1 National Interest

Fronl the perspective of the Realist frrunework, the concept of national interest, notwithstanding
its anzbiguity, is considered to be the most important analytic category in explaining and
predicting the course of international beliaviour. Pursuance of national interest as a foreign
policy goal in the Realist perspective is treated as the primary justification for all kinds of state
actions. Almost all Realists are unaninlous on this. However, the real problem arises when one
asks conceptual or substantive questions about the national interest. For example: C a i there be
a universally acceptable definition of national interest'? Does national interest keep cl~angingas
per time and space'? Who decides what constitutes national interest at any given point of time
and how is it prioritised? Does natio~ialinterest always represent the genuine interests of the
nationals of a country'LIs national intcrest the sun1 total of the interests of all the citizens of
a cowltry'? Or, is national interest, merely an expression of th;: values of the political elite of
a country'? And so on.
A review of history docs reveal that different statesmen have justified their foreign policies in
the nanne of the national interest. For example, Napoleon argued that he was acting in France's
interest when lie initiated the Russian campaign and when, later, he tnoui1tcd a last desperate
battle at Waterloo. Similarly. Hitler justified llis expansionist policies, i~lcludinga tnindless
multi-front war. in the ilame of Gernlany's national interest. In each of these and tllany other
instances. we find stateslllen justifving their diplomatic strategies in the name of national
intercst.

Hans Morgentlla~~ has been a systematic and consistent supporter of the pren~isethat diplonlatic
strategy or foreign policy should bc niotivatcd by national interest rather than by ideological
considerations. He equates national interest with the pursuit of state power, where power stands
for anything that establislies and maintains control by one state over nilother. He fiirther adds
that this power-control relationship can be achieved by coercive as well as cooperative techniques.
Morgenthau has been criticised for constructi~~g two abstract and inlprccise concepts-power
and interest-which he uses as the ends and mcans of intenlational political action. Morgentllau:
however, has remained firnnly in support of his position that great abstractions such as power
and interest cannot and should not bc quantified. Morgenthai~bclieves that political action is
not finite, precise, and clearly observable. Therefore, if political concepts are to reflcct accurately
the hazy reality of politics, they must also bc vague and imprecise.

Furtlner, the concept of national intercst is intricately intertwined wit11 the question of ~latioi~al
survival. As Morgenthau puts it, "the minimum requirement of nation-states is to protect their
physical, political and cultural identity against possible encroaclunents by other nation-states."
It is this sole objective of survival, argues Morgenthau, wlnich justifies a whole range of
cooperative and conflictive policies such as compctitivc armaments. balancc of power, foreign-
aid alliances, subversion. a~ldeconoinlic and propaganda "warfare."

However, the Realist understanding of the conccpt of national interest is not free from problems.
It is, as critics argue, defincd in a rather lo'ose fashion.with the conscqucnce that pursuance of
inatio~nalintercst does at tinncs bccomc a liccnse for thc co~intct~ancc of atrocities on the weaker
nations. As a result, natio~nalintercst. itlore often than not. is merely assumcd ratllcr than
rigorously defined. For exaniplc, that ~~ational illtcrcst is a ncccssary criterion of policy appears
too obvious wit11 the rcsult that no one tvould ever argue that the state ought to act in opposition
to its national intcrcst. But then, what constitutcs national intcrcst? As a matter of fact, those
~ 1 1 1 0 rule may not follow policies tllnt would i~ecessarilylead to enhancement of national

interest but their own or class interest.

'1.3.2 National Power

The concept of powcr has conceptunll~~ proved to bc an elusive category lnckillg unanimity
annong scholars ovcr its precise inneaning. However, from the days of Thucydides to the present,
the conccpt of powcr has been identified with political action. Morgenthau. for example, defines
politics ns'the struggle for power. In othor words, power for Morge~lthau.sy~i~boliscs
a relationship
between two political actors where actor A has the ability to control the mind and actions of
actor B. As he puts it. power is, "man's control ovcr the minds and actions of other rtten".

The Realists niake two inlportant points about the concept of power. First, power is a relational
conccpt in the scnse that one does not excrcise power in a vacuun~~ but always in relation to
anotller entity. Aid second. powcr is sccin as a relative conccpt. What it means is that iin the
international systcm it may not be enough to cnlculatc onc's own power capabilities, but also
the power of other states. However, the task of accurately assessibg tllc power of states presents
 a serious challenge. The challcnge gcts further aggravated as it is merely calculated in terms
of the number of troops, tanks, aircraft, and naval ships that a particular coulltry possesses.
Calculation of power in this purely physical sense leads to hrther build op of physical force
with a view to outstripping the power of the perceived enenly country. This is done with the
belief that it might enhance the ability of one actor to get other actors do somethillg they would
not otherwise do. This one-dimensional view of power, as understood by the Realists, has been
criticised on a number of grounds.

Colltelnporary structural Realists have in recent years sought to bring more conceptual clarity
to bear on the meaning of power in thc Realist discourse. Kennetli Waltz, for esan~ple,tries to
overcome the problem by shifting tlic focus from power to capabilities. He suggests that
capabilities call be ranked according to their strength in the following areas: size of population
and territory. resource endownlent. econolnic capability, ltiilitary strength, political stability and
competence.

However. as critics point out. resource strenb*h need not always lead to military victory. For
exaniple, in tlie 1967 Six-Day War betlveen Israel and Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, the distribution
of resources clearly favoured the Arab coalition and yet the supposedly weaker side atulihilated
its enemies' forces and seized their territory. The definition of powcr as capabilities has proved
even less successful at explaining thc relative econol~licsuccess of Japan over China. Yct
another problem with the Reallst treat~nentof power relates to its esclusive focus upon state
power. For Realists, states are the only actors that really "coi~nt". As a result, transnational
corporatio~~s, international organisations. and religious denon~inationsare rarely taken seriously
in the Realist framework. My-eover, ~t is not clear that these non-state actors are autonomous
from state power, whether this be Italy in case of the papacy or the US in case of corporations
like Microsoft. The extent to which non-state actors bear the imprint of a statist identity is
further endorsed by the fact that thesc actors have to make their way in intenlational systen~
whose rules are made by states.

1.3.3 National Security

Fro111 the Realist viewpoint, the concept of national security or national survival is trcatcd as
a hadan~eiltalvalue in the foreign policy of all states. Particularly. cljlssical Realists like
Machiavelli~Meinecke, and Weber attach top priority to national security or survival. They
stress that the task of ensuring national security/survival must be considered as the suprenle
~lationalinterest to which all political leaders must adhere. 111 othcr words, national security is
viewed as a preconditioll for attaining all other goals. whether tllesc involve conquest or n~erely
independence. In the words of Henry Kissinger, "a nation's survival is its first and ultin~ate
responsibility; it cannot be compromised or put to risk". As also noted by Waltz. "bcj~ondthe
survival motive, the ainl of states may be endlessly varied". All othcr goals such as economic
prosperity belong to the donlaill of what is called "low politics" and hence are collsidcred of
secondary importance. The primary concern of the Rcalists is u~~ambiguously with "high
7
politics '-the security of the state. Given the obsessioll of the Realists with the prcscrvatioll
of security. they emphatically reconunend the leaders of their state to adopt all ethical code
which would help them judge a11 action according to the ooutco~nerather than in tcrllls of a
.judgement about whether the individr~alact is righLor wrong.

Despite tlie near uoa~hiniityanlong Rcalists on the centrality of the issue of national secority.
recent developmmts in the Realist I thinking indicate a raging coiitroversy over the question of
"states are h fact principally security or powcr n~aximiscrs".This controversy. wllich
wid~ctl~er
primarily takes place betwecn the defnlsivc and offensive Rcalists, has significant implications
 for the prospects of international peace and co-operation. Defensive Realists such as Waltz and
Grieco argue that it is security which is the principal interest of the states and that tiley seek
to obtain only as much power as it is sufficient to ensure their own survival. According to this
view: states are primarily defensive actors and will not seek to gain greater arno~lntof powers
if that means jeopardizing their own security. Offensive Realists like Mearsheimer 011 the otl~cr
hand, argue that the ultimate goal of all states is to achieve a hegelnonic position in the
iilternational system. States, according to this view, always desire nlore power and are willing,
if the oppartuility arises, to alter the esistilig distribution of power even if such an action may
jeopardise their own security.

1.4 SOME IMPORlANT THEORIES IN THE REALIST

APPROACH
As you might have perhaps already noticed, we have been lnaking oblique reference to some
of the i~nportantRealist theories like conflict. balance of power and deterrence in the discussion
above. We shall now focus lilore s1,eciiically 011 these to help us develop a better u~lderstanding
of the Realist approach to the study of international politics.

1.4.1 Theory of Conflict

.

Conflict constitutes the core of the Realist approach. It is around this (pcrccivcd) basic realit!.
of perpetual conflict anlollg the states in the international systcnl that thc cntirc Rcalist theory
is built. If you recall the nlai~largumcnt of thc Realists, you would bc able to recognise tile
central importance tl~eyattach to human nature, wllicll according to tl~ctnis csse~itiallyconflicting.
This inherently conflicting nature of l ~ i ~ ~ ibl ac ni ~ l ~according
s, to the Realists, leads to n constant
struggle for power an~ongthem. Follo~ving fro111 this. thc nature of itltenlational system is
viewed by tlic Realists as anarchic and as one that is based on the principle of self-help. In the
self-help systeln, the Realists argue, it would be naive on the part: of ;1 statc to rely upon others
for securing its own security. In other words, the stn~ctureof thc illtcnlational system. which
is tilarked by perpetual conflict and perennial conditio~lof uncertainty in thc absellce of a
ce~~tral autl~ority,llns no space for friendship. tn~stand l~onour.

Critiquing the idealist belief in intcnlationalism and natural harnlony. thc Rcalists posit that in
the absence of any lligllcr authority over and above the sovereign state. illtematiolral politics
is conducted in a "state of nat~~rc" like situation. and is $IS charactcrised b ~ anarchy.
, not
hani~ony . Unlike dolllestic politics. \\#herea hierarchical pattern of authority esists to enforce
private agreements and public laws, there is no such arrallgctllent in the international politics
where all sovereign states enioy fornlal cquality against each other. As a result. an anarchic
i~ltenlationalsystcm in tllc Realist pcrspcctive is vicwod as one in which each state is forced
to help itself and givc priority to its ocin national intcrcst, defined, most fundanlcntally, as state
survival and territorial defence.

The issue of ilational intercst understood/in tcnns of statc survival leads to a constant struggle
for power anlong the states. As is evident fro111Halls Morgenthau's classic statenle~ltin Politics
Among Notions: The Struggle ,for Power ond Peace: that "stntcsl~lenthink and act in tenns af
interest defined as power." Power is here broadly understood in tcnlls of both nlaterial and
psychological: military and eco~lomiccapabilities. The centrality of the noti011 of power ill the
Realist perspective is ineluctably linked to the concept of national interest that is defined in
tenlls of nlasimising power. This csplains wh>r Realists put so nu.1~11of emphasis on the role
 of power and views the nature of world politics as inherently conflictual in nature. The Realists
argue that since power exists only in a relative sense and that all countries cannot maxhnise
their power or satisfy their national interests at the same time, a constant struggle for power
and more power amorlg the states cllaractcrises the nature of the world politics.

However, the pursuit of power or constant struggle for power among the states does not mean
that the international system is characterised by rele~ltlessco~lflictand uilel~dingwar. Anarchy
not in the Hobbesian sense of "state of nature" in wllich absence of nonlis and conventions,
rules and la~vshad created a free for all situation. But, anarchy in a linlited sense of the tern1
i.e. tlle absence of anjT recognisable supreme authority in the international system over and
above the state. In fact, the Realists argue that some seinblance of order is maintained within
the state systenl through the creation of a balance of power. This brings us to another inlportant
theory of the Realist approach i.e. balance of power.

1.4.2 Theory of Balance of Power

Given the anarchic natilre of the intcnlational systelll owing to absence of any higher authority
to prevent and counter the rise of force, the Realists argue that security can only be realised
through self-help. As Waltz notes, -'in ,an anarchic stnicture, self-help is neces$arily the pri~lciple
of action". However, when n paqicular state seeks to ensure its owl1 security by acquiring
weapons and other means, it invariably fuels the insecurity of other states. The spiral of
insecurity t l l ~ ~unleashed
s is called security dilemma. According to Wheeler and Booth, security
dile~wi~a exists "cvl~enthe nlilitary preparations of one state create an unresolvable uncertainty
in the mind of another as to whether those preparations are for '-defcnsive" purposes only (to
enhance its security in an i~~lcertain world) or whether they are for offensive purposes (to
change the status quo to its advantage)". This leads to a situation whereby one state's quest for
security often becomes another state's source of insecurity. In other words, statcs find it extremely
difficult to tnlst one another and often suspect the intentions of others. As a result. the militaq,
preparations of one stntc are to be invariably matclied by neighbouring states. Ironically, at the
end of the day. states often feel no niore secure than before they undertook measures to e~lhance
their owl security.

It is with a view to escape this security dilenlma that the theory of balance of power becon~es
important. However, the Realists are 11ot unanimous on this. While the Neo-realists view the
security dilelnnla to be a perennial condition of international politics, the classical Realists
believe that even in a sclf-help systan, the dilellln~acan be mitigated. The balance of power
thus becollies the principal ~~leckslllisili
by which the security dilenu~~a is mitigated.

But: tvllat is nleatlt by balance of power? Balance of power is all about fashioning a pattern
of interactio~~ amongst states that tend to ctlrb aggression and espansionism by rendering then1
impracticable. This means that while j)i~rsuingtheir national interests and national security,
states do enter into alliai~ceswhich when properly balanced against one another lnay guarantee
prolonged periods of peace and stability. However, given the highly dynanlic and volatile
nature of intenlationa1 system, it is virtually i~llpossibleto predict Ilow long would such peace
and stability last. Moreover, each tiine the balance of power breaks down, it is inevitably
followed by a war.

The Neo-realists or structural Realists argue that in a self-help system, the balance of power
call enlerge eveti in the absetlcc of a conscious policy to nnlaintain the balance i.e, without
piirswil~ga policy of prudent statecraft. As Waltz argues that balances of power inevitably
emerge irrespective of the intentions of any state. In an anarcliical system in cvllich states
 always seek to perpetuate themselves, alliances will inevitably emerge that seek to check and
balance the power against threatening states.

However, all varieties of Realism are united in the belief that the balance of power is not a
stable condition. Whether it was the contrived balance of the Concert of Europe in the early
19th Century or the more fortuitous balance of the Cold War, such balances eventually broke
down. The precipitatipg factor for the breakdown of such a balance of power could either be
a war or peacefbl change. However, the Realists argue that a new balance of power soon
replaces the old one. The continual collapsing of the balance of power in the international
system demonstrates that states can only mitigate the worst consequences of the security dilemma
but cannot escape it altogether. The Realists attribute the reason for the existence of such
conditions to the absence of trust in the international system.

1.4.3 Theory of Deterrence

The theory of deterrence is a new name for balance of power in the modem nuclear age. Also
known as "nuclear diplomacy", it came into existence during the period of Cold War diplomacy.
The term "Cold War diplomacy" refers to some very specific aspects of diplomacy that emerged
after Second World War. From the late 1940s until the end of the 1980s, world politics was
dominated by the ideological confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Each superpower supported by a network of allies sought to undermine and "defeat" the other
by all means short of a real or a "hot war"-hence the "Cold War" description of this
confrontational system. The diplomatic activity associated with the "East-West" confrontation
had a single dramatic focus-the absolute necessity of avoiding a global, nuclear conflict that
could destroy the international system. It was against this backdrop that nuclear diplomacy or
the deterrence theory came to the fore as one of the most important types of Cold War diplomacy.

But, what is meant by nuclear diplomacy or deterrence theory'? Nuclear diplomacy refers to the
interactions between states that possess nuclear'weapons where one or more states threaten to
use them to dissuade an opponent from undertaking an action. In other words, the theory of
deterrence is based on the assumption that in a nuclear age possession of nuclear weapons by
one state or one block of states would deter the enemy state or the enemy camp from making
first use of the nuclear option in the course of a likely war.

1.5 SUMMARY
In this final section of the Unit, let us try and sum up the main arguments of the Realist
approach to tlie study of international politics. As a school of thought, Realism continues to
provide one of the most influential frameworks to understand the nature of world politics. The
Realist approach views nation-states as the principal actors in world politics as they are answerable
to no higher political authority in the i~~ten~ationalsystem. In other words, states are treated as
the super-ordinate actors on the world stage. Moreover, conflicts of interests among them in an
anarchical international system are assumed to be inevitable. The purpose of statecraft, in the
Realist framework, is national survival in a hostile environment. No means is considered to be
more important to secure national sunrival than the acquisition of power. And no priilciple is
more important than self-help-the ultimate dependence of the state on its own resources to
promote its interests and protect itself. As aptly noted by Charles W. Kegley Jr., "tile game of
international politics takes place under conditions of permanent anarchy and revolves around
the pursuit of power: acquiring it, increasing it, protecting it, and using it to bend others to one's
will".
1.6 EXERCISES
I) Accou~ltfor thc dominance of Rcnlist approncl~in intcr~~ntional
relations theory.

2) Bring out the underlying assun~ptionsof Rcalism.

3) What distinguishes Nco-realism l'rom Rcalism?

4) Bring out the esselice of thc key collcepts frequently uscd in the Realist framework. What
Purposc do they scrve?
7
5) To what extent do yo11 think. is the notion of "national interest ' representative of the
genuine interests of a nation'?

6) How "anarchic" is the nature of the interaatio~~al

systan as seen by tllc Realists'? Is there
a way out'?

7) Wliat is meant by the ilotioll of "securit~.dilciluna"'? Do the Realists suggcst any mechanism
to escape or mitignte the security dilemnla?