According to Morgenthau, political theories among them realism canillustrate the laws of politics. For realism, theory contains of establishedfacts that giving them meaning through reason. Realism asserts that there is oneimportant way to determine the character of foreign policy which is theexamination of the political acts performed and the predictable consequences ofthese acts.1 Hebelieved that this way it can be found out what statesmen have done, and it canalso be summarized what their objectives might have been from their predictableconsequences of their acts. Morgenthau asserted that additional steps should betaken to examine these facts, and to give meaning to foreign policy, politicalreality must be approached with a rational outline and a map which suggests tous the possible meaning of foreign policy.
The concept of interest defined interms of power is the main indication that helps political realism to find itsway through international politics.2 Without the concept ofinterest a theory of international or domestic politics would be impossiblebecause political and nonpolitical facts could not be distinguished without it. He stated that realist theory of internationalpolitics will guard against two major misconceptions which are the concern withmotives and with the ideological preferences. It shows that searching for theclue of foreign policy particularly the motives of the statesmen (psychology ofthe leaders) is useless and misleading. It is impractical because motives arethe most intellectual of physiological data.
3 Morgenthau stated that if someone wants tounderstand foreign policy, it is not mainly the motives of a statesman (Policymaker’s psychology), but his intellectual ability to understand the essentialof foreign policy, and his political ability to translate what he hascomprehended into a successful political action. Morgenthau argued that international politics, similar to allpolitics is a struggle for power.4 Whatever the final aim ofinternational politics, always power is the immediate aim. Statesmen and peoplemay seek freedom, security, and prosperity. They may define their aims indifferent terms of religious, philosophic, economic, and social ideal. They maytry to do it through nonpolitical means such as technical cooperation withother nations or other international organizations. But their ultimate goal bymeans of international politics is to gain power.
5 He also stated that insome cases the availability of nuclear weapons can be a suitable instrument offoreign policy making. For instance, the state armed with nuclear weapons canassert power over another state by saying you do as I say or I will destroyyou. But the situation would be different if the threatened nation was armedwith nuclear weapons and say if you destroy me by nuclear weapon I will destroyyou in return. Thus the mutual threats cancel each other because the nucleardestruction of one state would lead to the destruction of the other. He alsomentioned that because of the magnitude of its destruction the use of nuclearpower to threat other nations is illegitimate power and not morally justified.Therefore, this reduces suitability of nuclear weapons as an instrument offoreign policy. The states armed withnuclear weapons can disregard the threat on the assumption that they will actrationally. Kenneth N.
Waltz stated that the subject of foreign policy is outof constraints due to its complexity. He asserted that foreign policy is drivenby internal and external factors and we should not strive for theoreticalexplanations of it. Instead “we must rest content with mere “analyses” or”accounts” that include whatever factors appear relevant to a particular case.
“6 According to Aaron L. Friedberg and Melvyn P. Leffler a shit inrelative power leads to a shift in the foreign policy of a certain country.7 Friedberg started hisanalysis with the relative decline of Britain’s economic and military strengtharound twentieth century aimed to understand how the decline effected Britain’sforeign policy and external behavior. Friedberg found that policy makers ofBritain reacted to the decline randomly and created policies that ignoredweaknesses in Britain’s position for solving certain issues, and created newpolicies and probably more dangerous ones. This reaction was not expected froman actor responding rationally for incentives in the international system.Friedberg argued that to explain it properly one had to consider not only changesin relative power but also organizational, intellectual, and domestic politicalfactors. To evaluate relative power by policy making elites, Friedbergconcluded “are related to but not directly determined by reality” and are “inturn, related to but not fully determinative of policy.
“8Accordingto Wohlforth, Lobell, Ripsman and Taliaferro, a key determinant of foreignpolicy making is the international system, a reaction to external conditionsand other states. These realist thinkers operate on the assumption of anarchywhich is the absence of a dominant government in the international system. Theydescribe it as one of the most important external factors which affect foreignpolicy making. In the state of anarchy, actors must strive to gain their own interestswhich results in competition, distrust, and conflict among states.
Accordingto Thomas Hobbes, the state of nature is the basic framework for understandinginternational relations. Based on this framework, he concluded that thefundamental law of nature is “to seek peace when it can be had, when it cannot,to look for aid in war.” He alsoobserved that “Violence and fraud” are necessary tools in foreign policy, hecalled it “the virtues of war”.9 Hobbes drew insights into domestic politicsfrom international relations. In the state of nature, individuals related toone another as states to do other states. There is no common power that can enforce agreements and guaranteepeace. In the international relations, there is always possibility to war amongstates. 1Morgenthau, J.
(2011). PoliticsAmong Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, pg 4. 2Ibid 53Ibid 64Ibid 315Ibid 316RoseG. Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy, pg 1467AaronL. Friedberg, The Weary Titan: Britain and the Experience of Relative Decline,1895-1905 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988); and Melvyn P. Leffler,A Preponderance of Power: Na tional Security.
8Ibid. 295, 290-91. 9EpistleDedicatory, 2