The World of Tomorrow: Two Roads Diverge 11 These shrouded women are seen registering to vote in Yemeni elections in April 1997. Even in the Yemeni Islamic culture, where strict limits exist on women's lives, they are forces for democracy and will have an impact on the choice of future leaders. These women are a testament to the spread of democratic ideals in the post-cold war world. by themselves few significantly change world politics, but the sum of many smaller actions can and does make a difference. Do not consider politics a spectator sport. It is more important than that. Treat politics as a participant-even a contact—sport. The World of Tomorrow: Two Roads Diverge * The imperative to be active is particularly important as the world approaches the beginning of a new millennium. It is not too strong to argue that we have arrived at a crucial junction in the paths by which we organize and conduct our global politics. Contemplation of that junction brings to mind Robert Frost and his famous 1916 poem, The Road Not Taken (1916). Frost concluded his poem with the thought that Two roads diverged in a wood, and I— I took the one less traveled by And that has made all the difference. Like the works of Shakespeare, Frost's lines are timeless and challenge the reader's intellect and emotions. We can build on Frost's imagery of two roads, one the traditional, "more traveled by" road, the other an alternative, "less traveled by" road, to discuss two possible paths for the future. The traditional road is a continuation of the path that world politics has mostly A FURTHER NOTE Regular People Who Make a Difference 12 Chapter 1 TliinJoltUj iuut Caring about World Politics followed for at least five centuries. This route has been characterized by male-dominated, self-interested states struggling to secure their self-interests in a largely anarchistic international system. The alternative direction entails significant changes in the way that politics is organized and conducted. Those who favor the alternative path argue that states need to abandon the pursuit of short-term self-interest and take a more cooperative, globalist approach. Some of those who advocate this road see, and even favor, a decline in the central role played by states in the international system (Camilleri, Jarvis, & Paolini, 1995). These analysts also see, and often favor, a rise of international institutions, such as the UN, as authoritative actors capable of constraining individual countries. At its extreme, this process would lead to regional governments or even to a global government. Frost leaves his reader with the thought that choosing the less familiar road "made all the difference." Was it a positive or a negative Change, though? Frost wisely left that to the reader's imagination and judgment. Similarly, a major challenge that this text presents to you is deciding which road you think the world should travel by. Realism and Idealism: Some Travel Notes on Two Roads To help you begin to make your choice, the following section describes and contrasts the two paths and discusses those who advocate each direction. Those who favor adhering to the traditional road are often associated with the philosophical approach to politics called realism. Those who favor charting a new course along the alternative road are frequently identified with the philosophical approach to politics called idealism. Before we detail these two approaches, some comments on the terms are appropriate. First, realism and idealism are broad categories that necessarily ignore subtle variations in complex ideas. In reality, there are multitudinous views about the nature of politics and about what that portends for the future. One reflection of this complexity is that political scientists used disparate terms to describe the ideas. The traditional path is variously associated with words such as realist (realism, realpolitik), balance of power, national (nationalist), conservative, and state-centered (state-centric, state-based). The alternative approach is associated with such words as idealism (idealist), globalism, (new) world order, liberal, liberal institutionalism, and internationalist. You will also find the prefix "neo" sometimes attached to some of these words (as in neorealism or neoliberalism—a fashionable term for neoidealism) to designate recent variations on the more classic concepts (Beer & Harriman, 1996; Niou & Odershook, 1994a; Baldwin, 1993; Kegley 1995). Second, do not get fooled by the connotations of the designations realism and idealism. The terms are used here because they are the common names for their schools of thought in international relations theory. But the sobriquets are flawed. "Realists" are not necessarily those who see things as they "really" are. The World of Tomorrow: Two Roads Diverge Nor are "idealists" a bunch of fuzzy-headed dreamers. As you will see, perhaps a better name for realists would be "pessimists." Conversely, "optimists" is probably a more enlightening, if not more precise, label for idealists. The point is not to prejudge books by covers or theories by labels (Snyder & Jervis, 1993). Third, it is possible to consider realism and idealism from three perspectives: descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive. The descriptive approach is concerned with "what is." Political scientists who follow this approach use empirical evidence to determine the degree to which realism or idealism influences policy (Fozouni, 1995; Griffiths, 1995; Frankel, 1994; Greico, Powell, & Snidal, 1993). The predictive approach tries to estimate "what will be." If one's theory is valid, then it should be possible not only to explain what has occurred, but also to predict what is likely to occur. The prescriptive approach to realism and idealism asks the normative question, "What ought to be?" As you will see, a great deal of this book is organized to contrast descriptive analysis of the two—traditional (realist) and alternative (idealist)—roads. The discussion of security, for example, is divided into two chapters: traditional national security and its alternative, international security. Beyond this empirical analysis, there is a more important conundrum: Which road should we take: realism or idealism? To help decide this question, the following sections compare realism and idealism according to their respective views about the fundamental nature of politics, the roles of power and justice in the conduct of political affairs, and the prospects for international competition and cooperation (Sterling-Folker, 1997; Rosenau & Durfee, 1995). The Nature of Politics: Realism and Idealism The disagreement between realists and idealists about the nature of politics is perhaps the most fundamental division in all of political discourse. At root, realists are'pessimists about human nature; idealists are optimists about human nature. Realism and the Nature of Politics "Realism paints a rather grim picture of the world" (Mearsheimer, 1995:9). Realists believe that political struggle among humans is probably inevitable because people have an inherent dark side. Many realists would trace their intellectual heritage to such political philosophers as Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). He believed that humans possess an urge to dominate, "an animus dominandi, a natural, animal-like instinct to gain power as an end in itself" (Thompson, 1994:79). One of the leading realist scholars, Hans Morgenthau, wrote that an "ubiquity of evil in human actions" inevitably turns "churches into political organizations . . . revolutions into dictatorships... and love of country into imperialism" (Zakaria, 1993:22). Morgenthau represents what might be called the classic realist school. That is joined in the realist camp by a more recent neorealist school of 14 chapter 1 TiunkiH^ and Caring about World Politics thought. Neorealists focus on the anarchic nature of a world system based on competition among sovereign states, rather than on human nature, as the factor that shapes world politics. As one neorealist points out, the international system, with its sovereign actors (the states), which answer to no higher authority, is "anarchic, with no overarching authority providing security and order." The result of such a self-help system is that "each state must rely on its own resources to survive and flourish." But because "there is no authoritative, impartial method of settling these disputes—i.e. no world government-states are their own judges, juries, and hangmen, and often resort to force to achieve their security interests" (Zakaria, 1993:22). What leaves neorealists firmly in the realist camp is that they doubt that there is any escape from the anarchistic world. One such scholar argues, for example, that international organizations do not promote cooperation. Instead, he says, "the most powerful states in the system create and shape [international] institutions so that [the states] can maintain their share of world power, or even increase it." Therefore, he concludes gloomily, whatever cooperation does occur "takes place in a world that is competitive at its core—one where states have powerful incentives to take advantage of other states" (Mearsheimer, 1995:7, 12, 13). Idealism and the Nature of Politics Idealists reject the notion that all or most humans are inherently political predators. Instead, idealists are prone to believe that humans and their countries are capable of achieving more cooperative, less conflictive relations. In this sense, idealists might trace their intellectual lineage to political philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778). He argued in The Social Contract (1762) that humans had joined together in civil societies because they "reached the point at which the obstacles [to bettering their existence were] greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual." Like Rousseau, contemporary idealists not only believe that in the past people joined together in civil societies to better their existence; they are confident that now and in the future people can join together to build a cooperative and peaceful global society. There is also a neoidealist school of thought (Mansbach, 1996). Neo-idealists, like neorealists, ascribe much of world conflict to the same cause: the anarchic world system based on competition among sovereign states. While neorealists and neoidealists agree that the anarchic nature of the system is the cause of most international conflict, they disagree about what can get done. Like all idealists, neoidealists believe that humans can cooperate in order to achieve mutual benefits. Therefore, since neoidealists also hold that the anarchic system hinders cooperation, they further believe that the best path to cooperation is through building effective international organizations. This prescription is why neoidealists are often also called liberal institutionalists. Typically, two theorists of this school contend that "when states can jointly benefit from cooperation, ... we expect governments to attempt to construct" international organizations to facilitate cooperation. The two scholars go on to argue that, in turn, international The World of Tomorrow: Two Roads Diverge 15 p&W ARE SAYING...^ . e w war a cmfc'* myTTTTTTTfl Gary Markstein, The Milwaukee journal Sentinrl, Copley News Service Realists generally believe that intervention in Bosnia is a bad idea. The fictitious U.S. senators pictured here are saying that fighting in Bosnia should be left to Bosnians and is not in the interest of the United States. Thus they want to "give war a chance." Idealists, however, view intervention through the embargo of weapons and by the use of peacekeeping troops as serving the interests of humankind. organizations then add to the growth of cooperation by providing various benefits to member states that "facilitate the operation of reciprocity" (Keo-hane & Martin, 1995:42). The Roles of Power and Justice: Realism and Idealism Realists and idealists also disagree in their descriptions of and, especially, their prescriptions about the roles of power and justice as standards of international conduct. Realists could be styled the "might makes right" school of thought. Idealists would contend that "right makes right." Realism: An Emphasis on Power Realists believe that struggles between states to secure their frequently conflicting national interests are the main action on the world stage. Since realists also believe that power determines which country prevails, they hold that politics is aimed at increasing power, keeping power, or demonstrating power. Given the view that the essence of politics is the struggle for power, realists maintain that countries and their leaders, if prudent, are virtually compelled to base their foreign policy on the existence, as the realists see it, of 16 chapter 1 TkinJdtuj cutcL CarUuj about World Politics a supposedly Darwinian, country-eat-country world in which power is the key to the national survival of the fittest. From this point of view, the national interest can be defined for the most part as whatever enhances or preserves the state's security its influence, and its military and economic power. In the world that exists and probably has always existed, realists would argue, might makes right—or at least it makes success. This does not mean that realists are amoral (Murray, 1996). Indeed, they argue that the highest moral duty of the state is to do good for its citizens. One scholar has summed up the realist rule for action with the maxim, "Do 'good' if the price is low." Contemplating intervention in Bosnia to stem the bloody conflict between Serbs and Muslims in the former Yugoslavia region, the scholar conceded that the carnage justified moral outrage. Yet he opposed intervening in Bosnia because doing so presented a "scenario from Hell" that would dearly cost the United States and other countries fofilish enough to throw themselves into the fiery pit of "several-sided civil conflict wherein, in real terms, everyone will lose" (Gray, 1994:8). Idealism: An Emphasis on Justice Idealists do not believe that acquiring, preserving, and applying power must be the essence of international relations (Forde, 1995). One idealist scholar criticizes realists for their "tendency to discount both the normative aspirations of society and the normative potential of institutional arrangements that challenge the state system" (Falk, 1992:225). Idealists argue that, instead of being based on power, foreign policy should be formulated according to cooperative and ethical standards. President Jimmy Carter was an idealist in his approach to international politics. As president, Carter (1979:2) declared himself "proud that our nation stands for more than military might or political might." Americans' "pursuit of human rights," Carter went on, "is part of a broad effort to use our great power and our tremendous influence in the service of creating a better world in which human beings can live in peace, in freedom, and with their basic needs met. Human rights is the soul of our foreign policy." President Clinton is also an idealist in terms of his basic philosophy. That was evident when he addressed the American people to ask their support for sending U.S. troops to Bosnia because "it is the right thing to do."8 The views of Carter, Clinton, and other idealists do not mean that they are out of touch with reality. Carter himself admitted that "seldom do circumstances permit me ... to take actions that are wholly satisfactory," but he tried. Clinton, too, has had to temper his fundamental idealist predilections with the realpolitik demanded of presidents. Idealists also dismiss the charge of some realists that pursuing ethical policy works against the national interest One discussion of U.S. national interest contends that "a stable international order" is necessary in an "age of global interdependence" (Von Vorys, 1990:149). Therefore, Americans might redefine their concepts of interests to take into account the inextricable ties between the future of the United States and the global pattern of human development. The World of Tomorrow: Two Roads Diverge Prospects for Competition and Cooperation: Realism and Idealism The previous two sections have examined how realists describe the nature of politics and the respective roles of power and justice. This section takes up an issue introduced in the last section: Should countries follow the dictates of realpolitik or strive to establish a new world based on greater international cooperation? Realism and the Competitive Future To reiterate a point, both classic realists and neorealists "generally accept the view that the international anarchic order is static—it has not and probably will not be changed" (Rosecrance & Stein, 1993:8). As such, they tend to dismiss the growing number of international organizations and other evidence of what idealists claim to be significant movement toward greater global order. One neorealist warns that in times of relative world calm, "the belief that power politics is ending tends to break out.... Once the [optimistic] bandwagon starts to roll, it collects bystanders" (Waltz, 1993:78). The reality of realism soon returns, Waltz says, as conflict reoccurs. As for the idealist bandwagon? "I would not bet on it," he argues. This view of a static, almost unchangeable, political world has many policy implications. Based on their views, realists advocate a relatively pragmatic approach to world politics, sometimes called realpolitik. One principle of realpolitik is to secure your own country's interests first on the assumption that other countries will not help you unless it is in their own interest. This makes realists very wary of what is sometimes termed idealpolitik. Self-sacrificing policies are not just foolish but dangerous, according to Morgenthau's (1986:38) view that countries that shun realpolitik will "simply fall victim to the power of others." A second tenet of realpolitik holds that countries should practice bal-ance-of-power politics. This tenet counsels diplomats to strive to achieve an equilibrium .of power in the world in order to prevent any other country or coalition of countries from dominating the system. This can be done through a variety of methods, including building up your own strength, allying yourself with others, or dividing your opponents. A third realist policy prescription is that the best way to maintain the peace is to be powerful. Realists believe that it is necessary for a country to be armed because the world is dangerous. Idealists would reply that the world is dangerous because so many countries are so heavily armed. It is important to say that this does not cast realists as warmongers. Instead, a fourth realist tenet is that you should neither waste power on peripheral goals nor pursue goals that you do not have the power to achieve. This frequently makes realists reluctant warriors. It is worth noting, for instance, that Morgenthau was an early critic of U.S. involvement in the war in Vietnam. He thought it was a waste of U.S. resources in a tangential area: the wrong war, with the wrong enemy, in the wrong place. Prudence, then, is a watchword for realists. 18 Chapter 1 Tkinkwuj