What is the realist prescription to the States to ensure their survival in an anarchical world?

Core Tenets of Realism and the Anarchical System

Realism, originating with thinkers like Thucydides and Machiavelli, posits that human nature is inherently selfish and power-seeking. This translates to the international arena, where states are rational actors driven by a desire for security and power. The absence of a world government – the anarchical nature of the international system – forces states to rely on their own capabilities for survival. This leads to a constant struggle for power, not necessarily driven by aggression, but by the need to ensure one’s own security in the face of potential threats.

The Realist Prescription for Survival

1. Self-Help

The cornerstone of the realist prescription is self-help. In an anarchical system, states cannot rely on others for their security. They must build up their own military and economic capabilities to deter potential aggressors. This includes investing in defense industries, forming alliances (though viewed with suspicion as temporary and based on convergent interests), and maintaining a strong economy to support military spending. The Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC), as described by Thucydides, exemplifies self-help, with Athens and Sparta each building up their power to secure their respective positions.

2. Balance of Power

Realists believe that states will naturally attempt to balance against any rising power that threatens to dominate the system. This balance can be achieved through internal balancing (increasing one’s own capabilities) or external balancing (forming alliances with other states to counter the rising power). The Concert of Europe (1815-1914) is often cited as an example of a balance of power system, where major European powers worked to maintain a relative equilibrium of power to prevent any single state from achieving hegemony. However, it’s important to note that balance of power doesn’t always prevent conflict, as demonstrated by the outbreak of World War I despite the existing system.

3. Maximizing Relative Gains

Unlike liberal theories that emphasize absolute gains (where all states benefit from cooperation), realists argue that states are primarily concerned with relative gains. This means that states are more interested in gaining more than their rivals, even if it means foregoing potential absolute gains. This stems from the fear that a rival’s gains could be used to enhance its power and potentially threaten the state’s security. For example, during the Cold War, both the US and the Soviet Union often prioritized preventing the other side from gaining an advantage, even if it meant sacrificing potential economic benefits from cooperation. The focus was on maintaining a strategic advantage, not on maximizing overall global welfare.

4. Prudence and Caution

Realists advocate for a cautious and pragmatic approach to foreign policy. States should avoid ideological crusades or unnecessary provocations. They should carefully assess the costs and benefits of any action and prioritize their own national interests. This emphasis on prudence is rooted in the belief that miscalculations can have catastrophic consequences in an anarchical system. The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) demonstrates the importance of prudence, as both the US and the Soviet Union exercised restraint to avoid a nuclear war.

Limitations and Criticisms of the Realist Prescription

While influential, the realist prescription is not without its critics. Critics argue that it overemphasizes the role of power and neglects the importance of international institutions, norms, and cooperation. They also contend that it is overly pessimistic and ignores the potential for peaceful change. Furthermore, the rise of non-state actors, such as multinational corporations and terrorist groups, challenges the state-centric focus of realism. However, despite these criticisms, realism remains a valuable framework for understanding the enduring challenges of international politics.