Realism and Foreign Policy
| Date | 01 April 1959 |
| Published date | 01 April 1959 |
| DOI | 10.1177/004711785900101104 |
| Author | P. D. Marchant |
| Subject Matter | Article |
REALISM AND FOREIGN POLICY
P.
D. MARCHANT
IN
this article Iwant to make some observations on the work
of
a
very
influential school
of
writers on foreign affairs who refer to
the?tselves as "realists". These thinkers are most prominent in the
DOited
States and they have become most influential since the end
of
the
Second World War,
in
the period when, it has become clear that,
after years
of
isolation and several false starts in world affairs,
America now occupies acentral position on the world stage. The
;ork
of
these thinkers
is
characterised
by
at
least three notable
eatures-by
an impatience with reformers, idealists, do-gooders,
and any other sort
of
Utopianism;
by
aplea for the dispassionate
stU?y
of
international affairs and the history
of
foreign policy with
a
VIew
to learning how international politics do in fact work, rather
than attempting to make them work
in
certain ways; and
by
insisting
that both students and statesmen recognise that what they are con-
~erned
with
is
inter-national politics, that it
is
the nation that is, as
It
were, the
unit-not
mankind, or the world, or the international
community, or some other abstract totality.
Imust try to make clear at the outset what
my
terms
of
reference
are.
Ido not want to raise the question
of
the wisdom
of
realist
foreign policy,
of
whether, for example, Western statesmen should
Or
should not make policy decisions in the light
of
realist theory.
I
~m
concerned only with the theory itself from what is, Ihope, a
phIlosophical point
of
view.
This,
by
the way,
is
in
no sense unfair
to
~he
realists, for, as
we
shall presently see, it
is
from precisely this
POmt
of
view
that they invite discussion. One other introductory
Point
of
explanation
is
this-while
Iam not concerned here with the
practical politics
of
realism, this does not exclude an examination
of the relation between theory and practice in the realist position,
and
in
fact one
of
the main points
of
criticism Ihave to offer
is
that
~he
realists' anxiety to have apractical theory, one that can be
put
IOto
practice,
is
the source
of
some
of
their most serious theoretical
and philosophical difficulties.
One
of
the leaders
of
this realist school
of
thinking
is
Professor
lians J. Morgenthau, and it
is
with his writings, or some
of
them,
that Iwill mainly
be
dealing. Professor Morgenthau shares with
other realists akeen interest
in
what
is
known nowadays as foreign
policy analysis and
in
the actual formation
of
foreign policy.
At
the same time, he
is
devoted to the attempt to work
out
atheory
of international politics. But the two sides
of
his work are never
quite separate, nor, Iwould argue, quite distinct.
It
may therefore
be
appropriate to begin the consideration
of
the realist position
by
lOoking
at
an article
of
Morgenthau's
in
which the two aspects to
Which
Ihave referred are both prominent.
The article, entitled "The Great Debate", appeared
in
The
557
American Political Science Review for December,
1952,
and attracted
agood deal
of
attention. Professor Morgenthau says that
the
"great debate" which he
sees
going on in post-war discussions
.of
American foreign policy, differs in an important respect from earher
great debates
in
American history, debates over such questions
as
intervention in the French Revolutionary War in
1793,
or joining
the League
of
Nations in the nineteen-twenties. For whereas
those
debates raised the question
of
making achoice between two
fairly
clear-cut alternatives, roughly, isolation or entanglement in
Euro-
pean and world affairs, the present debate, says Professor Morgen-
thau,
is
one
at
the philosophical
level-"What
sets them (i.e.
th.
e
realists and the Utopians) apart
is
not necessarily amatter
of
prac~
cal judgment, but
of
philosophies and standards
of
thought."
It
IS
this contention
of
Morgenthau's, on which he lays considerable
emphasis, that the issue
is
aphilosophical one, that Iwant to
take
up.
Of
course, anyone who normally claims to
be
arealist in
politicS
may not be
at
all interested in any
of
those philosophical positions
which have been called realist. And agood deal
of
the work of
Morgenthau and such other writers as George Kennan,
is
an appeal
for realism
in
the straightforward sense
of
facing up to the
facts,
even, or especially, the unpleasant ones, not deceiving oneself,
not leaving issues to solve themselves and
so
on. There
is
much
of
this in this present article
of
Morgenthau's, too, and in so far
as
political realism means no more than this hard-headed, common-
sense view
of
politics and policy making, the criticisms which
folloW
leave
it
untouched. What Iam concerned with are the philoso-
phical bases and presuppositions on which Morgenthau rests
his
position and the confusions, damaging to the working out
of
atheory
of
international relations, to which Ibelieve they lead.
Stating the realist position, Morgenthau says that this "school
believes that the world, imperfect as it
is
from the rational point of
view,
is
the result
of
forces which are inherent in human nature.
To improve the world,
we
must work with these forces, not against
them. This being inherently aworld
of
opposing interests and of
conflict among them, moral principles can never
be
fully realised
but
at
best approximated through the ever temporary balancing of
interests. .
..
This school
...
appeals to historic precedent rather
than to abstract principles and aims at the achievement
of
the lesser
evil rather than
of
the absolute good".
This passage raises the three main issues which an examination of
Morgenthau's
view
must consider. Firstly, there
is
his belief that
the range
of
choices open to statesmen
in
the formation
of
foreign
policy
is
strictly limited, that there are certain forces which determine
not only the sort
of
world
we
live in, but the range
of
policies
we
can
attempt to follow
in
the world, and that any rational policy must
take these forces into account. Morgenthau completely rejects
the possibility
of
forming viable foreign policies which ignore or
558
To continue reading
Request your trial