Introduction to International Relations: Realism - Theories and Approaches

[Music] probably the most developed the most famous most infamous study of high off and that is the school of realism and the first concedes understand that realism is that it's probably the one real theory of international relations somebody who say it's the only theory in international relations bordering on a philosophy more than just a theory now beating around for about 2,500 to 3,000 years you kind of have some bragging rights right when we talk about realism in this case it's not that problematic it's not that available to say the all other theories in some way shape or form respond to redesign trying to either improve it or to negate some of that regard it's probably a good idea to begin with realism in such a manner that this class really progresses on afterwards okay and so you have a bunch of people that are up you know you can really see this right we've got what should people here that's you know contributes probably some of the major heavy hitters into the school of realism let's see if you know any of these people are so starting with the statue of the name Greek god left-hand corner anyone want to take a jab but I'll give you a hint he's let his beginning of his name ends in peace like most Greece do so cities today tomorrow discussing given death tomorrow is really considered to be the father of realist philosophers and his work in a history of the Peloponnesian War well you can easily first in any bookstore today is widely regarded as one of the definitive accounts not just of these civil wars between the various Greek city-states in the fifth century BC whatever happens to big it's also one of the best cases in allegorical lessons for how foreign policy between the states are conducted today next in him I'm sure that you know this character who does he happen to be Machiavelli was interesting about Locke you know is that his name has now become an adjectives right then we referred to somebody as Machiavellian or let me refer to a certain course of action as Machiavelli what does that mean what do you think that mean what do you mean when we saw this real real Machiavelli any strategy to do what we mean by what does that imply do you think deceitful ruthless okay flat the ends justify the means that's an interchange the ends justify the means which could be ruthless could be more or less dick but if canons don't justify the meetings and what does okay what else could be thinking of it anything else we want to add to that yes pessimistic okay I can see that pessimistic to a certainly a way of which the world works how reality happens to be way in the back coming oh there's a nice word - cutting like cunning self-interested or better get the rich understanding of the word Club you know we have been you know American things living out the word clever the British version of clever is a little bit more slide a little bit more like clever India different American is just like best sports clever in British English is almost like well played they're kind of a jerk but well played type of thing what's interesting about Machiavelli bells is that more often than not we know if for what reading for what writing does a female's always be a soul all together now the Brits all right it's so much shape or form you've read pieces of the prints either we know beforehand or whatever was it ability is that he really wasn't the type of person that is codified in bricks if you really want to know his true beliefs you have to read the discourses of living instead he's much more of a proponent of democratic republicanism and yet we can read when she wakes the prince it's almost writing you know in this sarcastic witty sense but the neat thing about the prince is that that seems to stick with it and this persona a lot more than me more larger philosophical treatise on Republicans okay one of the middle your guys looks like you straight out of the Dutch Republic or Victorian England yeah Thomas Hobbes Thomas Hobbes who is known for if he's known for any it is very good Carl von Clausewitz one of the early modern military strategists of what no longer existing European states Prussia like noble the difference between Prussia and Russia right Russia is Russia it's eternal and Prussia was that one part of Germany that kind of ruined it for everybody else but Russia yes absolutely as a matter of fact the Russian military intelligentsia is single-handedly key to understand European cattle politics of the 17th through late 19th century which means then that this whole gentleman over here happens to be who to do all of this for real real cool guy I ever talk about give in greater detail tomorrow I'm very good hey US diplomat State Department official problems mid to early late twentieth century really that Second World War afterwards Morgenthau is really regarded as one of the major progenitors of what we call neoclassical realism neoclassical it's really the first incantation of the first you know versions to point out or whatever that responds to the early theories of liberalism finally the nice bowtie little grandfather over here and don't take is nice cherub length demeanor don't underestimate his little smile I know who this gentleman is this was probably the most difficult but you're gonna come to know and love this guy by the end of the semester a man by the name of Ken Wolf's recently passed away about a year or two ago Ken waltz is regarded as sort of the Godfather of needle realism you know neo-realism Kenneth waltz is also one of the most profound connects within I are stones being a major theorist about modern-day international relations within the confines of neo-realism a structural realism waltz has given us probably the most complex theory about how states interact to a degree that it is difficult if not outright impossible to disprove say theory some people even go so far as to say if you can do both waltzes theory I tell you what give it a name of course I'll just give you an A through the course that can debunk the walls of Siri but that'd be character people who are trying to do that that have passed 40 to 45 years okay so these are the main hitters that we're going to be looking at today and tomorrow when we study the school of realism and so I think it's worth then beginning with what our basic premises what are the basic premises of realism and again this stuff is basic 101 elementary information if you don't know this might as well drop it Wes right this is basically the stuff that you pay to get into the bar to drink for the rest of the max hey this is your door fee the first thing to understand about realism regardless of its theoretical incantation is that the state the sovereign state last time the Westphalian state model is the primary actor in the international arena full stop in fact some rare doesn't even go so far to say that it is the only actor in the international arena those that are a bit more willing to compromise today saying that states may not be the only but they're still the most important why is that because states occupy the highest degree of authority there's nothing higher than the states that manages shapes and regulates the internationals short of a world guards which is not going to happen states remain the highest form of sovereign authority with that said the next major thing to look at is that states operate to achieve two primary goals two goals then in and day out Monday through Sunday power and security full stop States are constantly seeking these two things power and security and both are interrelated both are symbiotic power increases and guarantees one's security and security enables one to acquire and consolidate further power so it's not really a chicken versus egg what comes first power or security and it's more of a cyclical dialectic relationship power gives one security and security allows one to the bare-bones minimum consolidate the power that you have and they're going for broke air increase further setback how insecure most things in states that are the primary actors the third thing to take into account there's an ocean of warm water is considered to be an evil but necessary and an unavoidable evil war is simply considered to be a logical and natural phenomenon in the international arena probably the two best quotes that give us this understanding between the relationship of power and security one hand and war on the other comes from two of the people that we just looked at Clausewitz and Oregon Klaus mixes famous cities war is politics by other means it's a philosophy in some cases somewhat even regarded as a mattre war is politics by other by another means it's too simply a continuation of international relations when diplomacy breaks down or when a state cannot achieve what its primary and objectives are before war war is and should be consider a possible option and what are those primary objectives very simple maintaining power and maintaining security or in this case is not meant for game lore is not meant for adventure lore is almost always defensive in nature now of course that opens up the debate to a wide range of interpretations of what constitutes defensive war some would say that sometimes the best defensive war is a good preemptive offensive war we can get to that as it comes but the point to understand here is that war is unavoidable it is natural and stinks should not shy away from its second blood politics is a struggle for power over men Tom Porter thought so in that regard war and politics are two sides of the same coin which is ultimately a way of achieving power and security of a state I know that I'm sounding redundant here but I'm trying to get the point home here and trying to really drive the track point home is that power and security to paradigm issues war is one of a number of ways in which states can achieve this for the time being yes okay that's a good example of collective action okay anyway so far so good if you can get through this welcome to the next 14 weeks okay cool 30:14 government the other thing to understand that realism is that international relations are shaped by and driven by our politics it's not that difficult to rationalize if realism has effectively described the way in which states interact with each other for nearly three millennia it's not that leap of age it's not that large of a leap in logic to understand that strong states are going to exert greater influence over the international environment than leaper States this is nothing different from you know the laws of nature side note that realism is very much like the laws of biology the alphas dominate the Omegas try to ride in apps okay the first thing to understand in this matter is that states live in a world of anarchy States live in a world of energy now as I've said before anarchy does not mean chaos is a major difference into an anarchy and chaos chaos is just simply a free-for-all anarchy what is anarchy ultimately need look this energy ultimately mean well not so much no time it's going one step further autonomy can be a result of anarchy the lack of order or structure even more appropriately the lack of specifically what way the vector the lack of authority coming from what the lack of form the lack of order structure the lack of authority very good cut coming from the government it's just simply that the lack of any kind of Garner's Interstates exists in a world of international anarchy and why is that because we don't have known we haven't had one and chances are we're not going to that wall so in that in mind there are roughly right now 193 saga states some of these sovereign states exist a little warm on pink look at math and oh there's a UN seats but let's just play by this one hypothetical scenario let's just say that each state have equal capability just one with a trouble that means there's a hundred and ninety-three players on the field 193 players hundred ninety three different strategies for preservation self defense Authority silent e whatever it happens to be and if everybody has to eat the degree of power there really is no authority outfit or regular yes okay so Anna Marquis does not necessarily mean chaos in the sense that it just means a general panic moment no energy to simply means that there's nothing else higher than the state knowing that each state pursues its own natural - well national and natural with freedom its own national interests there's nothing stopping it as a matter of fact pursuing one's own national interest self interest is in effect a reaction to self-preservation if you were forced to live off the land by yourself you were forced to basically survive what you do to survive is clearly in interest okay searching for children searching for food if need be searching for a lost maybe you're the lone wolf if you like to get stuff doing a lot better or quicker on your own whatever it happens to be that falls into States making their own decisions the other thing we have to take into account is that these decisions are made in a field of incomplete information that's a simple response to the notion of alligator and what do I mean by incomplete information I mean when I say States operated in the field of incomplete information okay very good no states has complete information on what other states are doing you don't know what other states are doing even if you see it's the best part of that even if you see what another state is doing it does what you see translate into what actually gives know states could be called plus states could be other states could be willingly putting out disinformation point is that no state operates under complete information no one has completely eliminated the fog of war so in that regard we operate under a period of uncertainty uncertainty and hesitation in the same way as I mentioned last week walk into a dark room it's fixed light and you don't you've never seen this room before all you can see is just black in front of you and around you when you walk in I'm walking in quickly and with confidence or lose feeling around with your hands to find out where the wall is there's no bump into something or hold into something or whatever it happens to be right so you're taking necessary precautions that you otherwise would not do if the lens that comes with be on that's what state is doing it in this case let's take the first three states limit all about P each day pursuits unmatched national interest as States operate in a field of incomplete information drives hold the points later under that state self-interest and preservation are not only paramount but perennial objectives thank so far realism is not necessarily a very optimistic theory isn't many cases realism is quite pessimistic it's not depressing but that's what we called it realism as soon as you like screw you over wrists okay that's what realism is it may be pessimistic to somebody who wants global peace it may be pessimistic for someone who wants to end the vicious cycle of uncertainty but that's what we call a realism that's just how it is with that said things like treaties and alliances lasts as long as they are expedient classical realism argues that states could certainly put alliances if common interests happen to be on the table but states will enter alliance is not out of friendship not out of philanthropy but simply because they can get something out of this alliance and they can't get anything if they actually feel that their security is weakened by forming an alliance rejected using the other think about realism go states do this simply because that's what states do and at the risk of sounding Tongji everything is on both strictly business but nothing is personal if I choose to not form an alliance with you don't take a person if I choose to break an alliance with you don't take a person what I will take personal if you break an alliance with me and everything is for self-preservation and self-interest you can't be worrying about my feelings or vice versa so according to the realist perspective then thank what a state does or does not do has nothing to do with another state's interests values or morals even when war does happen which it will nobody wants war but war is a natural and product but war should be fought only to the defense of that on sticks war should not be Wars of liberation for other countries or other people's Wars should not be fought to spread an ideology or a marketing plan lords are simply of defensive nature ok that is basically the overarching brochure for realism now I want to do is an elective last time looking at the subcategories we're going to start with classical realism there which as I can mentioned is more of a philosophy than anything else then we're going to get very briefly to neoclassical realism I'd like to that spend a good chunk of the end of class by talking about neo bears so we talked about classical realism and this is just mentioning communities in general we're not pointing out anything specific in the leading we're going to do that tomorrow but vicinities sort of gives us an impression of how the international system works it is right and the first thing that he does is that he knows that there is a quote-unquote natural order of things which is a very subjective normative observation of the world and there's a natural order of this between strong and weak States no different from the laws of nature there are strong species there are weak species even with it want to play the social daughter card hey there are strong individuals and there are weak individuals and each things according to their capabilities the strong States almost out of necessity have to be strong States and why is it detrimental for a strong state not to act like a strong state why does it determined why do you think yes well there's one way of looking at it is thinking actually more like liberalist but it's a good one anyway if the strong state doesn't live up to whatever it's supposed to do its allies as you say will what it was favourable elsewhere okay fair enough but can we think even more self-interest wise that's not bad I'll give you that but can we think of something else but we think that's more think one a realist what's wrong with a strong state not being a strong state is that there are people whose expectations are at stake that's what it risks being upended it risks being challenged or the alpha male of the tribe and what actually ends on that leave us to this to pick a strong state will actually risk warfare it does not act like a straw sticks and you constantly have to defend your hegemony you constantly have to defend your prop Oh as mother lines going to come over knock you out and if you know how Lions work usually think of all the ducks because they want their own so a strong state needs to do it as Rumsey doesn't up same for the leap state needs to act that the weak state and why is that the weak state needs to know this place what why do week's states need to know where they are on the food chain okay I'll get a little oh you don't have the necessary capabilities to be anything other than weak like animal on that big the chances are you're gambling with money you don't have and then you lose the match and someone else says pay up and you don't have it you're in the worst position in war so a weak state needs to also recognize where they are on the food chain simply because they also cannot risk instability that doesn't mean that a weak state will be weak indefinitely strong and weak go back Swain right but that's for history to design today's weak power could be a strong country down the road hard to believe thank you gentlemen but about 60 65 years ago which Korea was slated to be the industrial giant North Korea until roughly 1974 1975 had all the hallmarks of being one of the most developed countries in East Asia regardless of governments South Korea was considered to be a basket case South Korea was for corrupt squabbling and pathetic in dependence upon the United States we're a South Korean today light years ahead of were three where's North Korea today aside from being constant Joker you know country is an absolute absolute mess get strong and weaker and come by historical circumstance but nowhere in law in that country prudence and common sense are just as distinct from private morality justice is when you are operating in the international arena your morals behaviors ideas and values should be different from how you govern at home in other words you could be the leader of an enlightened democracy your constitution could stay democratic rights of citizens free and fair elections holy heck you could be one of those annoying clean Scandinavian democracies where like I think the Finnish Constitution has it in constitutes because there's no Finland actually said it's a right of all citizens of Finland to have access to high-speed Internet that's pretty cool if you want my opinion okay now you want to be the enlightened Republican Democrats and hold awesome incanting that in the international arena why simple you don't control the international arena you don't control it you have no say over the subjects or citizens of another country and if you really want to drive a point home the citizens of other countries don't pay taxes to you so what do you care nice you may run on a series of morals and ideals inside your country but that is a recipe for disaster if you apply the same type of morality and justice in the international arena and why is that because what is morality what is justice what is justice then again our justice and morals synonymous okay may be completely different you didn't think we're going to get that at a physical limits quiz so we're torkoal question but go ahead again your two weeks ahead of us but but that also is a very good example of the dangers of morality in the international arena you know awesome your company doesn't have freedom get will fly it out to you you know welcome to the country that the United States looks at it says oh they can be using some freedom right now now okay a moment of silence for Syria you know but you're right in that regard realists are going to say do plot you don't owe them anything and secondly morality and justice weren't perfectly fine over there you may not agree with it just is there a justice system isn't is the rest is there a sense of wool order and justice in North Korea yes but it's there do I want in my country Elmo doesn't work there as long as little kids empower yes is there a sense of one justice in China absolutely is there one justice under the Taliban in Afghanistan yes there was there's a law and justice in Cuba for students the voyage is that gravity is something that's unfortunately is relative so as such leave it at home that doesn't necessarily mean that wars to be avoided by consistent war in this case should only be wait if and only if victory is guaranteed or on the other level complacency compromises your own security in other words war to be waged two reasons number one if you know that you can win is what we call no foul doc : how doctor overpower the enemy and to walk know that you can decisively defeat your enemy in a quick short and surgical work you do that okay because you're not fighting war for bragging rights you're fighting a war to get your point across the other option is if you don't go to war if you sit there and do nothing and the Chinese walk up their driveway in that regard war should be waged for defensive purposes so war is necessary and it is natural but only if you know that you can win this in five minutes or not doing anything reduces one security and makes the status quo even more so we know we're talking about more of the human factor lucida these looks at this as some of the woola's of the tonal Machiavelli looks at this and says okay states are inorganic antes they are run by individuals they're run by leaders or princes to you know drive the point home this is where Machiavelli this is where classical realism comes the closest to waltzes level analysis because the leaders of a states need to embody certain qualities that the otherwise would not have as ordinary citizens okay leaders need to be kind ruthless but also fair the need to abide by certain objective principles and in this case that means formed alliances only were necessary not getting chummy with some countries or being belligerent you know everything and within a week I would close down Guantanamo Bay his club get closed no it's still business is that because Allah wide or is that because congratulations mr. president you now are in charge of this country here's the drivers hand in it here's what you have to do Oh that's all nice whatever whatever you know what you're a friendly man you have sort of decisions you have to make when you want a head of state you make decisions that are otherwise irrational at the domestic level completely rational at the international level which means that preemptive strikes may sometimes be necessary forgetting you all know preemptive strike is right go to war before you tell your opponent that you're about to go to war what's the one at least in theory not a reality but in theory what's probably the one reason why pre-emptive strikes are good okay what do we mean what what gives us an advantage in the element of the promise you're right but let's be specific okay so attack them before they get ready okay so preemptive strikes gives you at least the tactical leverage right it hit them before they're ready when the idea is is that you can hit them before they're you know prepared the war can be shorter and less costly if we wait for them to get all ready get their troops in gear or like I said you know there's a good example was it was one of the best cases of a distant theory the merits of pre-emptive military historian the Schlieffen Plan how many people heard of the Schlieffen Plan before and what ultimately what was the speaker anyone but it's Germany and what was Belgium at the time to attack northern France so do a whole bunch of quasi-legal that's completely human stuff to the sake of advantage rivers at the ends justify the means I've said the ends justify the means okay so let's just say the world Germany did Schlieffen Plan anyone what were what we really care if Germany did something illegal or people built in territory no we would not what because who's dictating peace first German not the United States okay now hold off in the nut pre-emptive war gets you into a lot of hot water especially today as the United States could attest 10 plus years ago neighbors and alleged allies sorry for the typo are never to be trusted the other thing neighbors are never to be trusted they can tell you what they want but they could be feeding through misinformation they could also be deliberately bluffing for their own self-interest therefore the only state you can trust ourselves no places from around the native broad and why is that because we just talked about before morals and forms of justice they run the gamut but they're seen as vastly vastly different justice and strength to constantly be used at home power and hegemony are weighed overall so there's two types of leadership here domestic leadership and international leadership are the very same people in power Laska that we look at you cars lastly realism as conservatives Thomas Haas moving beyond the simply the philosophical hey I'm just gonna wax miracles on April and drink wine type of thing is the far more concrete structural English way of looking at the world Thomas Hobbes Leviathan as many of you probably have read or these snippets of acknowledges of Carlo very pessimistic things that Hobbes is probably the most pessimistic on home state of nature says Hobbes is the state of war now realism dictates that anarchy is the state of nature and the state of nature is war Hobbes is basically saying guys Gallants at any given time war could break out because there's nothing stopping us there's nothing stopping any other insane person in the room from just losing at that moment so you always have to be prepared for the inevitable matter of that Hobbes is probably one of the biggest believers in the idea that reality is almost always dictated by the most insane person in the room therefore the state comes into the equation the states or the Leviathan as Hobbs refers to us has absolutely nothing to do with democracy and justice this time of its inception the states is put there for order and stability in this case think of the states as that tired angry parent who has way too many kids to take care of some of them may not even be there up or on a dangerous center sure that at some points if any of you grew up you have brothers or sisters and mothers like the following statement okay everybody in this case but the state provides peace in or okay what pops plays into realism is that the state therefore is constantly existent within a condition of defense of this and cowboy state can only control order and stability or certain territories everything outside of its borders in story therefore since the state cannot prevent warfare or instability outside zone borders the state of nature also the state of security security security deluxe our Trent we're going to be looking at next week that's worth noting right now what security dilemma if anyone heard this term before security dilemmas are based almost entirely on perception almost entirely on perception knowing that you are living in a world of incomplete information knowing that states change their strategy at moment's notice whatever suits their interests any activity perceived by one State against another runs the risk of being seen as illiterate and threatening to that first state without access in turn the observed state state X sees what state wise do state X interprets that as a potential threat against its security and power therefore what is the natural reaction for state X to take build up a zone that do whatever it can this new breed of horses on security the trouble is the minute that state x increases its own security but to statewide to respond and hides at some point to different states with possibly two completely benign goals in mind end up becoming belittling towards each other so a good example of a security dilemma today is the United States relationship with your llama you're on the players that is going to be moving towards nuclear power the United States says the word nuclear never come to sentence your honor and happy the Iranians could be as totally trustworthy as possible do not using it to weapons waste of time and energy and resources that's it I don't care you guys can't death to America at least once once a week and you don't like it so there it is and something the United States and Iran develop an antagonistic relationship towards each other simply because Iran does not trust America's intentions lots of these things we can talk about in greater detail next week but for the sake of moving forward I want to now look at the next sub period neo-classical there's not much it's not much to go on deal classical realism except for what I'm about to really emphasize so you can extract a lot of the stuff from the textbook the first and probably the most important thing is that the philosophies of classical realism that we talked about Bakke belly Sudanese Thomas Hobbes are now kind of brought into the 20th century okay the 20th century which the witnessed two world wars weapons of mass destruction and warfare to a degree that people never thought imagine it and what does that do for us it means that neoclassical realism is far more pessimistic than classical realism initially observed it is also based on a response to the next theory that we'll be looking at liberalism liberalism for the sake of just moving the argument forward is far more optimistic liberalism is come up guys let's give peace a chance come on guys we can do better than that and the other classical realism is like yeah you want to know what that happened Hitler that's what happens okay you give peace a chance reality is dictated by what most insane person in the room and guess who was that in st. mofos Hitler okay pizza in our time Chamberlain what the do you mean peace in our time okay Czechoslovakia wasn't even invited to the conference that dissolved its own sovereignty - seriously who are you trying to kick hey and if you don't believe me on that organs now basically voice the concerns of us occurred before Kissinger came in thank you sir it was also good video classic arraylist war without was really the progenitor of Kissinger both of them were pessimistic wait until the wait until you get to page huh wait until you read call right after the midterm cars work on the 20-year crisis between mold 1 and bull horses is basically the idea that collective security things under wilsonian liberalism okay you can have all the best intentions out there that's all fine and good if there still are illiterate states in the arena that necessitates you to be belligerent as well we would like to change but a world is run by idiots so in classical realism is kind of like a aha moment to some of the ideas of liberalism which by the way I'm not debunking liberalism but when we get to it lots of important things that come out of the school of liberalism video possible realism is kind of saying yeah you know what give me take a seat okay and that's largely because Liberty and personal freedoms that liberalism so we're getting logs can only come up with security and power I think I need to mention this last time too this worth repeating again Jack Nicholson's very famous the truth speech in a fluid bed Thanks you want the freedom to say look you want to say you want the rights to do what you feel that you should be entitled to do you can't do that when you have no army you can't do that and you need that army and you need those people on that war to basically be the pessimistic people to defend your sorry ass so you totally buy them okay so if you don't take care of yourself those will do it for you that's the bottom line if you don't take care of yourself no one doesn't like to do it for you one of the big reasons behind them again we're talking another major detail is there was an attempt in the early 20th century had created the first attempt the first honest-to-god effort at collective security it's an organization that go longer exists we know it informatics what is the name of that organization believe nations look does does did successes before it resulted in Chamberlain's peace and our talk the point is is that that type of security can work if and only if those working for it are determinants minutes then you switch gears and go from a stop I know what I'm tired of defending them the world I'm just going to defend myself a minute that you start thinking about yourself again is the minute we default to written it we default to this stuff alliances are matters for convenience no different from before foreign policy may be evil but they are necessary evils so warrants out can look at someone like Neville Chamberlain and say ok on one level I can see why nobody likes you but what was Chamberlain's rationale what was Chamberlain's rationale for throwing the Czechoslovakia under the bus for it basically to avoid a larger war and you know again and to justify the means peace in our time effectively 1938 was their war in 1938 I think 30 1939 well he's a jerk there's no war in Europe in 1938 did chamberlain achieve his goal yes at the cost of what a country okay but the important thing is that the Persian Empire was secure at least for a few more years and if you're thinking about all my god what a dick move well then you're gonna love eh Carl wait until you get their power morality have doesn't economy hey morality what a drag rape written into a conflict with journey over sex a lot power was ok takes yeah whatever you know take it and go a small price to pay to avoid a larger set speaking of our in this case car is more of a Marxist than a realist when some people can say if you are Marxist and I are theory you're just a really really really pessimistic valence you're really upset Hey but the imposition of one state ideology on another is both dangerous and foolhardy why is that because a good number of countries put their trust in the League of Nations they put their trust in the promise and guarantee by other countries that their sovereignty could be defended and that works it can only give that promise remains the minute that these countries decide that you're not worth it yes well your security is compromised so neoclassical realism basically says don't buy into this stuff you will be used as collateral for a large event hence the citizen that and car tech wave towards the League of Nations and Kissinger and neoclassical realism is very very critical about Western foreign policy of democratic script because they give us a I think that if you're going to play around and intervene on behalf of some human rights being violated in one country well if you don't want to be seen as hypocritical you gotta go on to all your gonna do what you do all do you have the money for that do you have the resources for that oh you don't well then that's the reason why we stayed home okay oh look at being baby fighting erupted somebody should do something about this okay Oh looking for Ukraine being invaded better much all about that oh look at the poor people in Bosnia being subject all those crimes against humanity somebody should do something about that oh well like if you play that card yes go you hypocrite okay and you're only gonna get scored from the rest of the world neoclassical realism acknowledges that power and morality do come into play and that's a really bad thing because morality in this case is oftentimes linked off this justice here's where I want me to really think of those morality from the power of the state is linked up to death wolf ducks now that where the car is safe is that any country that has the public edge whether it's Great Britain in the first half of the 20th century with the United States in the second half of the 20th century and foremost the 21st century often times what has the final say an international morality what's good for the hegemonic country is good for the rest of the world therefore in a country another state has its sovereignty violated if that state slaves in certain interests or the geostrategic causes of a larger state they may be blessed with the benefit of intervention but if they are peripheral and have little to no value for the major countries well then that's just life that's just life you're shaking your head but again that's why we call it realism in this case neoclassical realists are the most depressing out of all so we better come up with something a little bit more optimism and that's where canvas comes in in the remaining time that we have the need to think about ten walls is that almost all of his books are standard tests lifted by our theory his dissertation man the state and war is freaking dissertation is one of the most important Greeks in dispute overshadowed only by one of his major works theory of international politics why because more than anyone else before provided the farmwork scientific explanation for the international political system and he does so first in his dissertation man the state and Wars which then heat almost perfects in theory of international politics what is it in his dissertation it breaks the international system down into what he regards has three levels of analysis the systemic level the state level and the individual in so many worlds the first level of analysis the systemic level that's the international community it does not deter from anything that we've been talking about over the past power and enologist primacy of states the international system is anarchic states operate under imperfect information and alliances can be made broken and remade again all right so nothing doing but think about it like this is the logical flow of ideas you draw a lot from aa female whether he knows it or not and he noticed you notices that the state therefore makes the actions that it does based on rational decisions if the state knows for more importantly state leadership knows that it is operating under information no matter how great their surveillance network happens today they still have to err on the side of caution number number your folks this is reality minute can make a long decision you cannot restore to a previous game and you're playing and I remain focused you screw up who wants to be at the helm knowing that they were the ones that reduced the security of their own country so everything must be done smoothly and important as such mistakes making decisions that thing to do in the systemic level not because they're fully rare not because they're mystic not because they're aggressive because their puts into one of the Paramount position that is leadership the presidents prime ministers Chancellor's anyone who wins the election next year regardless of what he or she says on the campaign trail is largely going to be from a wolf believes heroics on the international stage on the international stage guess what when you become the head of state of the United States you automatically have a number of things you have to do number one you have to maintain close ties with certain countries around the world Israel Saudi Arabia Great Britain two things for it now most people are not going to be all that upset maintaining a good relationship with Great Britain Israel win some lose Saudi Arabia there's nothing good to say but the one thing that you have to do keep that government in power whether you like you're nuts okay you have commitments that the state previously made so what waltz is basic say is that the anarchic system of the international arena compels States and more so their leaders to act in certain ways what Waltz is saying is that this is not just simply a vicious cycle of predatory nature it's unfortunately the best system that we have and as such leaders need to make irrational decisions to move cautiously and defensively therefore the actions of certain states compel leaders to act in certain webs does Obama really not care about the refugee crisis in Syria if he had infinite resources at his disposal would we not be intervening well better yet if there never was an Iraq conflict in 2003 would we be as cash-strapped military wives and resource-wise as we are today going up against Iran or better yet with Iran even be as belligerent as it is today if it weren't for the removal of Saddam Hussein the point that Waltz is making is that decisions that state leaders make are not based on self-interest but are based out of self-preservation of the state one's responsibility for the States and then that pace to finish up when we look at the world the world is not only divided by three levels of analysis international national and individual but by the different relationship with power at any given time a bipolar system a multipolar system and a unipolar system just quickly what is applied older system okay the international system is dominated by the two Pennock powers that sort of balance each other apps right the United States so maybe you were prior to that you had maybe Elizabethan England and fern on Specter whatever happened to be or back in the day at Romans perfect okay two major powers well there's two powers that are constantly doing it out with each other if you are in charge of one of those two hours your decisions are heavily influenced by that power relationship a multipolar system is what in that case it was like late 1800s Early 1900 like Austria Hungary Russia so how many powers roughly like freedom oh yeah so anywhere between minus 3 or 5 in this case alliances can make broken we made whenever is everybody's worth jockeying for power again if you are a leader of any of those major powers the decisions that you make to uphold Alliance systems and to uphold commitments to lesser tattles necessitate and direct one's activity and this rarely happens but it does one country runs the show he was this our Ottoman Empire yes things happen default is so basically from 1992 until we react show America number one thank and you there it's a dangerous situation to take but if you're Bill Clinton or any of the bushes the decisions that you make to maintain that position on power is that the international system is not as anarchic as we've elected it is somewhat structure and that structure necessitates and enforces shapes in decisions and decisions that we make opinions these theories were main one of the Paramount theories of contemporary art so much suffering that neoliberalism and various strains of constructivism begin their arguments within waltzes level of analysis this is the closest that we actually have towards I wouldn't say perfect information but the most structured understanding of how the international system works today the nature of the international system and Arctic as it is forces States to make the decisions that they do the decisions that states made over time necessarily influence future decisions that new individual leaders will make you can say whatever you want when you're running for office when you win that blow up this with much more responsibility there's a backseat driver and then there's the one with the steering wheel the backseat driver knows all the shortcuts knows every rule knows every trick of the trace when you're actually driving you have to take a compass a few things you would like to do I would love to run that red light I would love to I would love to think that speed limits are really two surfaces for the most part they kind of are but it's you know what you break those rules and you're a risk the structure if you told I'll give you with this before we leave if you know that you are driving into town when the cops constantly take it dude are you more or less likely to follow the speed limit or do you want to follow a speed limit not really

Channel: Michael Rossi Poli Sci

Views: 28,860

Rating: 4.9506173 out of 5

Keywords: michael rossi, rutgers university, political science, international relations, global studies, realism, college lecture, academia, thucydides, machiavelli, hobbes, waltz

Id: fW330ojy7I4

Length: 72min 23sec (4343 seconds)

Published: Fri Sep 01 2017