The Theory of International Relations: Hans J. Morgenthau and His Critics Author(s): Ghazi A. R. Algosaibi Source: Background, Vol.

8, No. 4 (Feb., 1965), pp. 221-256 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of The International Studies Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3013729 . Accessed: 07/02/2011 10:58
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Blackwell Publishing and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Background.

http://www.jstor.org

THE HANS Ghazi

THEORY J. A.

OF

INTERNATIONAL AND HIS

RELATIONS: CRITICS

MORGENTHAU R. Algosaibi

School of InternationalRelations The Universityof SouthernCalifornia

in the last The study of international has experienced relations 'theor? decade a burst of activity "which is unambiguously labelled " etical' This concern with theory is one aspect (Fox, 1959, p. 33). of the soul-searching in the field have in which scholars process for the last twenty years. It is a sign that the field is been engaged of the mood of a new sophistication. It is a clear reflection acquiring who feel the crying need "for more theory, international relationists more model-building, more quantification, more integrated study on the resources of all the sciences of life, man, and society" drawing 1958, p. 329). (Boulding, It seems that this concern with theory is here to stay. Indeed, of future the present trends are to be taken as an indication will increase and grow in theory-oriented writings developments,

if

importance. It is a logical efforts in the task for students in the light of the insights field that to examine past recent theorizing

theoretical

about theory

has provided.

We have been theorizing all the time. The need is for us to gain greater theoretical self-awareness so that we can subject our theories to a more sustained and penetrating critical analysis (Fox, 1959, p. xii).

Morgenthau's

Concept

of

International

Relations

Theory

of American is among the most influential Hans J. Morgenthau His theory "has relations. scholars in the field of international the center of the scene in this country during the last ten occupied One writer goes so far as to 1961, p. 423). years . . ." (Hoffman, of international assert that "in recent years much of the literature or not, between is a dialogue, and 'Morgenthau explicit politics his critics* . . ." (Thompson, 1959a, p. 222). Few efforts have been 221

made to bring together and his critics in one place, Morgenthau however. The present study is conceived as an effort to fill this gap. The paper does not concern with all of Morgenthau's itself but is focused rela? writings, only upon his theory of international commentaries tions. Three limitations follow. First, Morengthau's on world affairs and his critiques of American foreign policy are not considered. as Second, Morgenthau's specific arguments?such those concerning and the balance of power? aid, alliances, foreign remain outside the scope. Third, Morgenthau's theoretical discussions of matters beyond the field of international relations?for example, his theory of ethics and his views of science?are treated only insofar as they bear upon his theory of international relations. Man vs. Power only two, Scientific have proved to be of vital Nations, Among to the study. The second first appeared book, which importance in three editions. in 1948, has been published its theoreti? However, remained almost the same. To facilitate cal positions for references in the latest, was the one employed the reader, the third edition, the study. Morgenthau's and Politics to Morgenthau's and articles, essays respect of facilitating reference caused the writer purpose of articles, previously collections Morgenthau's published The Decline cals. Of these collections, of Democratic the most valuable. With Morgenthau's upon two general of concept assumptions: international relations the same to employ in periodiPolitics is Of books

Politics

theory

is based

. . . first, that for theoretical purposes international relations is identical with international politics; second, that a theory of inter? national politics is but a specific instance of a general theory of politics (Morgenthau, 1959, p. 15). to Morgenthau, A theory of international relations, according As a totality of social phenom? is a theory of international politics. no like domestic relations, relations, ena, international requires to explain it. Any theoretical less than a general system sociological effort, short of a general system, is bound to focus upon a specific of international Theories relations. relations element of international of theoreticians. interests as the intellectual could be as numerous that in a particular adds, however, Morgenthau period of history, one 222 perspective is likely to assume primary importance. Background, Vol 8, No. 4

Today most institutions and students have turned to the study of international relations because of their interest in world politics. The primacy of politics over all other interests, in fact as well as in thought, in so far as the relations among nations and areas are concerned, needs only to be mentioned to be recognized (Morgen? thau, 1962c, p. 125). Consequently, perspectives international international politics and becomes the focus relations. takes of any precedence theoretical over other to

approach

The second that from Morgenthau's belief stems assumption for power, is the same in both international politics, being a struggle and domestic The issues that confront a general political spheres. a theory of international theory also confront politics: . . . the nature of a theory of international relations and the intel? lectual and political functions a theory of international relations performs and ought to perform are not in essence different from the nature of general political theory and the functions which such theories have performed since the beginning of history (Morgen? thau, 1962d, p. 77). the environment However, takes place is different from within which the environment international of domestic politics politics.

What sets international society apart from other societies is the fact that its strength?political, concentrated in its moral, social?is members, its own weakness being the reflection of that strength (Morgenthau, 1959, p. 23). international for the relations, then, must account of its subject matter. In applying the general principles peculiarities of politics to the international them to fit scene, it must modify the distinctive of international quality politics. theory that a theory Morgenthau suggests needs a central concept. international, of politics, domestic or A of

For a general theory of politics, the concept of interest defined as power serves as the central focus, while a theory of international politics must be focused on the concept of the national interest (Morgenthau, 1962f, p. 79). makes it clear that introducing However, Morgenthau power as a central concept does not mean that only power relations control action. Power serves as a criterion that distinguishes political politics 223

from other spheres. outline of politics, 1959, p. 17). Theory,

it "provides a kind of rational Furthermore, a map of the political scene" (Morgenthau,

to Morgenthau, must serve as according It must ". . . bring order and meaning standing. . . ." (Morgenthau, unconnected material 1962d, task is "to reduce the facts of experiences mary of general instances . . ." (Morgenthau, propositions While an "ideal can show

a tool of under? into a mass of p. 72). to mere 1959, Its pri? specific p. 20).

theory can also be serving as a guide to understanding, for action." a map of the political scene that It presents the shortest and safest road to a given objective (Morgen? in as an "ideal for action," thau, 1959, p. 18). Theory, operates the following way: . . . we can say that the situations in Laos, Cuba, and Berlin pro? vide American foreign policy with a limited number of rational choices. . . . What a theory of international relations can state is the likely consequences of choosing one alternative as over against another and the conditions under which one alternative is more likely to occur and be successful than the other (Morgenthau, 1962d, pp. 69-70). func? In addition, four different discusses Morgenthau practical that a theory of international relations can perform. First, of the for the decisions theory can provide a theoretical justification of can develop a coherent Second, system theory policy-makers. of foreign whose the actual conduct standards by thought policy of intellec? the function may be judged. Third, theory can perform of the sound prin? tual conscience which reminds the policy-makers of foreign policy and points out their failure to comply with ciples for a new inter? them.1 Fourth, the ground theory can "prepare tions national order . . ." (Morgenthau, 1962d, p. 75).

as a warns theory against Morgenthau employing political for political action" 1962h, p. 1). Theory "blueprint (Morgenthau, elements whose contingent is limited by the very nature of politics of theoretical obviate the possibility understanding. The most formidable difficulty facing a theoretical inquiry into the

1To illustrate these three functions, Morgenthau (1962d, pp. 73-75) refers to his personal experience as a theoretician of international relations with the administratrons of Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy. 224 Background, Vol 8, No. 4

nature and ways of international politics is the ambiguity of the material with which the observer has to deal. The events he must try to understand are on the one hand, unique occurrences. . . . On the other hand, they are similar, for they are the manifestations of sociai forces. . . . But where is the line to be drawn between the similar and the unique? (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 18). Morgenthau be satisfied tobecorrect" answers that here "we can only play by ear and must with a series of hunches which may or may not turn out 1959, p. 20). (Morgenthau,

this line of thought, attacks theoretical Following Morgenthau endeavors "to reduce international to a system of abstract relations with a predictive function" 1962d, p. propositions (Morgenthau, "world affairs cannot lead to reliable Theory predictions; 65). have surprises in store for whoever tries to read the future from his knowledge of the past and from the signs of the present" (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 21).

relations theory is modeled Morgenthau's concept of international Mor? discussions, entirely after his own theory. In all his theoretical never loses sight of his theory. Thus, he states that inter? genthau focus for the study of national should be the theoretical politics international relations and that national interest should be the central of international relations theory, in theory. Morgenthau's concept which other words, the standard any theoretical provides against different should theoretical be judged. Thus, approaches inquiry fashionfrom Morgenthau's which he calls "the presently approach, about international relations," (Morgenthau, theorizing for theoretical to "fail both as guides p. 65) are doomed for action" and as precepts 1962d, standing (Morgenthau, able 1962d, under p. 66).

Prediction concept. plays an insignificant part in Morgenthau's seems inconsistent. stand on prediction Furthermore, Morgenthau's in he warns against reading the future, he does not hesitate While the Two examples, taken at random, clarify offering predictions. conditions "may end point. He says that war under contemporary or in both" (Morgen? in world domination or in world destruction At another point, he predicts that "the devel? thau, 1960a, p. 363). future will opment of the world balance of power in the immediate nations will take" largely depend upon the course . . . uncommitted Are such statements reliable 1960a, pre? (Morgenthau, p. 352). from theory or are they intuitions? dictions stemming Morgenthau's lends to the latter that theory will not support predictions assertion 225

If they conclusion?that such statements are "series of hunches." between are, there is, indeed, not much difference arising judgments derived from and judgments from a theory of international relations stand on prediction, sense. In short, Morgenthau's simple, common evaluated and precept appears to be a weak point in his by practice characterization of international relations theory.

Morgenthau's

Theory

of

International

Relations

"A political frame? in nothing but an empirical science inclosed in "is a contradiction work," writes Morgenthau (1962g, p. 31), the terms and a monstrosity." observer Indeed, every approaches scene with certain preconceived ideas, a certain philosophy political To understand and interpreted. which facts are viewed through the philosophical then, one must understand theory, Morgenthau's to It is very difficult from which framework the theory springs. and his differentiate between philosophy Morgenthau's political of the a clue may be found in Brecht's definitions theory. However, . . . tries to explain words "theory" and "philosophy." "Every theory not something, but everytries to explain, something. Philosophy thing . . ." (Brecht, 1959, p. 15).

is his political claims that realism Morgenthau philosophy. word. No thinker would is not a self-explanatory Realism, however, as being unrealistic. of his philosophy or theories conceive Wright so far as to say, (1952, p. 120) goes . . . "realism" and "idealism" have functioned as propaganda terms . . . The terms do not, in other words, throw light on the policies, or theories which they are used to institutions, personalities, qualify. . . . of realism, aware of the ambiguity Undoubtedly Morgenthau has tried to clarify what he means by the term. In the first chapter he writes that his theory has earned the of Politics Among Nations, name of realism by virtue of its "concern with human nature as it as they actually take is, and with the historic actually processes He goes further to discuss six 1960a, p. 4). place" (Morgenthau, Since these principles are the of realism. fundamental principles will be presented essence of Morgenthau's they philosophy, political in the following (l) 226 Realism discussion. maintains that politics is governed by objective laws

Background,

Vol 8, No. 4

that stern from human nature. The laws "by which man moves in "there the social world" are eternal; 1946, p. 220) (Morgenthau, laws no other eternal aside from the laws of mathematics, are, of ob? The existence besides these" 1946, p. 220). (Morgenthau, leads to two conclusions. First, a theory of jective laws of politics is not necessarily a virtue in is possible. Second, "novelty politics nor is old age a defect" 1960a, p. 4). theory, political (Morgenthau, in the concept Realism finds its main guide (2) in terms of power defined 1960a, p. 5). (Morgenthau, that political actors act and think in terms of interest power. This concern with interest and power leads realism the preoccupation with both the motives and ideological of political actors. of interest It assumes as defined to eschew preferences

meaning (3) Realism does not claim an absolute and permanent for its concept of power 1960a, p. 8). Environment (Morgenthau, role in shaping the interests that determine plays an important to the must be adapted action. The emphasis political upon power circumstances. Thus, changing the times tend to depreciate the element of power, it [political science] must stress its importance. When the times incline toward a monistic conception of power in the general scheme of things, it must show its limitations. When the times conceive of power primarily in military terms, it must call attention to the variety of factors which go into the power equation. . . . (Morgenthau, 1962a, p. 47). When how? He believes, to morality. (4) The realist is not indifferent at best but moral principles cannot be realized, ever, that universal the tension between He is aware of the ever-present approximated. of morality and the requirements of successful political requirements action. of a par? Realism "refuses to identify the moral aspirations the universe" nation with the moral laws that govern of all nations as political 1962c, p. 11). It conceives (Morgenthau, in terms of power. defined their interests, actors pursuing (5) ticular The a distinctive intellectual constitutes approach. (6) Realism and moralistic in sharp contrast is with the legalistic approach of politics vis-a-vis Realism advocates the autonomy approaches. the "political human action. While it recognizes that other spheres of it is man" is a myth, it holds that in order to understand politics 227

to free the study to other spheres. appropriate necessary

of

politics

from

standards

of

thought

in human nature belief that political laws originate Morgenthau's and that this nature is susceptible to theoretical inquiry constitutes the central The social world, theme of his political philosophy. of to Morgenthau is "but a projection according (1962c, p. 7) human nature onto the collective ..." This world is one of plane unceasing struggle between good and evil, reason and passion, life and death, health and sickness, peace and war?a struggle which so often ends with the victory of the forces hostile to man (Mor? genthau, 1946, p. 206). them" of opposing and of conflict among interests In short, it is an evil world. In such a 1960a, p. 4). (Morgenthau, we act with reference "whenever to our fellow men, we world, Guilt is so ubiquitous must sin . . ." (Morgenthau, 1946, p. 201). and the actor and the bystander, the oppressor that it covers "... . . ." (Morgenthau, the murderer and his victim the oppressed, It is "a world 1946, p. 202).

Conflict and evil can be traced to human nature, and particularly to two human traits: selfishness and the lust for power. Selfishness and struggle leads to competition because "what the one wants for or wants, the other already possesses too" (Morgenthau, himself, irrational: is not completely 1946, p. 192). Selfishness, however, ... the typical goals of selfishness, such as food, shelter, security, and the means by which they are obtained, such as money, jobs, marriage, and the like, have an objective relation to the vital needs of the individual; their attainment offers the best chances for survival under the particular natural and social conditions under which the individual lives (Morgenthau, 1946, p. 193). Selfishness, be satisfied. man against This in other words, can is not without limits. Its demands alone explain the war of every It cannot, therefore, every man.

in the other, and more im? is to be found explanation The for power. desire and evil: man's root of conflict portant, is of the very fact which is an "all-permeating lust for power Unlike essence of human existence" 1962b, p. 312). (Morgenthau, concessions. it has no limits and cannot be appeased selfishness, by man in tends to act with regard to other "whenever It is present 228 Background, Vol 8, No. 4

men" (Morgenthau, The desire for power "besides 1946, p. 194). and beyond any particular of purpose, selfishness or other evilness of evil in human constitutes the ubiquity action" (Morgenthau, 1946, p. 194). In Scientific the Man vs. Power Politics, discusses Morgenthau desire for power as an irrational In a later work, human impulse. however, says that it is man's effort to escape his loneMorgenthau liness "which gives the impetus to both the lust for power and the for love . . ." (Morgenthau, 1962j, p. 8). Yet Morgenthau longing does not label love as evil. Neither does he explain why the desire for power with its "innocent" and "rational" of overcomobjective irrational should as completely be regarded ing man's loneliness, and evil. In his belief in the desire for power as an all-important human "I is a true follower who stated: of Hobbes Morgenthau impulse, and restof all mankind inclination a perpetuall put for a generall of Power less desire after power, that ceaseth only in Death" selfishness between 1947, p. 49). Even in his distinction (Hobbes, and the lust for power, Morgenthau ideas. Striving reflects Hobbes' for power, according to Hobbes, may be rational as well as irrational that "only the 1952, p. 10). Hobbes however, believed, (Strauss, irrational than striving after power, which is found more frequently the rational is to be taken as natural human appetite . . . striving, of the irrational 1952, p. 10). Morgenthau's (Strauss, description drive for power is identical that with that of Hobbes. His statement the individual's lust for power "would if the last be satisfied only man became an object of his domination ..." 1946, (Morgenthau, recalls Hobbes' "have all the statement that men would p. 193) world, if they could, to fear and obey them" f Strauss, 1952, p. 10). In politics, the desire for power "is not merely blended with aims of a different dominant of the kind but is the very essence the very life-blood of the action . . ." (Morgenthau, intention, It follows, is a struggle for 1946, p. 195). then, that "politics over men, and whatever its ultimate aim may be, power is its power immediate 1946, p. 195). goal . . ." (Morgenthau, writes Morengthau "Power," any? (1960a, p. 9), "may comprise that establishes and maintains the control of man over man." thing to this definition, "covers all social relationships According power which serve that end, from physical violence to the most subtle 229

ties . . ." (Morgenthau, psychological is more narrowly defined. however, Political power is a psychological exercise it and those over whom it is control over certain actions of the which the former exert over the 1960a, p. 29).

1960a,

p. 9).

Political

power,

relation between those who exercised. It gives the former latter through the influence latter's mind (Morgenthau,

Political from the actual exer? then, must be distinguished power, cise of violence. its signifies an actuality, "When violence becomes the abdication or pseudoof political in favor of military power 1960a, pp. 28-29). military power" (Morgenthau, Since power is the immediate aim of political action, it is always an end in itself. Nonetheless, can be a means to other ends. power As Morgenthau puts it, the end-means relation is ambiguous and relative . . . in that whatever we call "means" in view of the end of a chain of actions is itself an end if we consider it as the final point of a chain of actions. . . . Actually ... the totality of human actions presents itself as a hierarchy of actions each of which is the end of the 1946, (Morgenthau, preceding and a means for the following p. 184). The difference domestic and international between poli? politics tics is derived from the difference in the context of each. National societies show a great degree of sociai cohesion. Cultural uniformity, unification, external pressure, technological and, above all, a hierarchic political organization combine to make the national society an integrated whole set apart from other national societies. In consequence, the domestic political order is, for instance, more stable and less subject to violent change than is the international order (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 38). The factor that accounts for instability in international relations the existence and for stability within states is the state itself. Without of the state, the struggle for power will be on the loose. The state, of peace and order. in itself cannot assure the preservation however, of the society, the state is dependent As the compulsory organization on the society by which it was created. Thus, the reason for internal of a society whose to be found in the existence stability is ultimately whose are neutralized conflicts loyalties, by overriding intergroup of justice, and of sociai change the expectation provide processes 230 Baekground, Vol. 8, No. 4

unorganized formity on different Thus, can keep

whose

forces groups.

of

compulsion

are

able

to impose

con?

on the domestic plane, the state, with the struggle for power within peaceful

the aid of society, bounds: insti? These chan? them

Society has established a network of rules of conduct and individual power drives. tutional devices for controlling rules and devices either divert individual power drives into nels where they cannot endanger society, or else they weaken or suppress them altogether (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 102).

On the other hand, there is no centralized above the authority state on the international scene; the drive for power is given a free rein. The state which delimits of individual manifestations power onto the drives within its borders these manifestations projects in the projection international scene. People participate process be? for the frustration of their power drives within cause it compensates to the state. Thus, power drives are not suppressed but extended the international the individual's scene where lust for power has "not only in imagination the world as its object" but in actuality (Morgenthau, 1946, p. 198).

to Morgenthau, action seeks to keep every political According to increase power, or to demonstrate power, power. To these three on the international three patterns, plane: correspond policies status quo, imperialism, and prestige. The policy of status quo tends of toward the distribution rather than changing keeping power in its favor. The policy of imperialism seeks to acquire more power The policy of prestige existing power by reversing power relations. of maintaining or in? for the purpose seeks to demonstrate power, creasing it.

molds which maintains that the dynamic force Morgenthau is to be found in the states* drive for power international relations which manifests itself in one of the three basic policies. The clash of these policies?A trying to maintain the status quo, to an unending B trying to change it at the expense of A?leads struggle for power which characterizes all international relations (Morgenthau, 1962i, p. 168). believes that interest is the essence of all politics. Morgenthau On the international scene it is therefore only natural that each state in terms of power> its national interest. follow Defined should 231

national policy

based

interest should be the sole guide to foreign policy. A foreign failure. on any other standard will inevitably encounter

has of national interest that the concept argues Morgenthau "one that is logically and in that sense elements: required by circumstances" necessary, and one that is variable and determined The survival and security of a nation 1952, p. 972). (Morgenthau, The constitute the irreducible minimum of the necessary element. in a element of the national interest can be determined necessary for it "encompasses of the nation's concrete the integrity situation, of its political and of its culture" institutions, territory, (Morgen? interest of the national The variable element thau, 1952, p. 973). "all the to precise determination because is much less susceptible two cross sectional interests, opinion, personalities, public and moral folkways" and political politics, (Morgenthau, partisan 1952, p. 973) are brought to bear upon its determination. currents is not of national interest holds that the concept Morgenthau To understand this position, one must of "moral dignity." devoid that ideas on ethics. examine believes Morgenthau Morgenthau's there is no escape from evil and sin. The best that man can do, is to choose "among several possible since evil cannot be escaped, actions the one that is the least evil" (Morgenthau, 1946, p. 202). On the international scene, a nation's moral duty to choose the is no There its national interest. lesser evil compels it to follow which can preserve order and realize international society integrated a moral In this situation, becomes moral values. self-preservation duty. In the absence of an integrated international society, the attainment of a modicum of order and the realization of a minimum of moral values are predicated upon the existence of national communities capable of preserving order and realizing moral values within the limits of their power (Morgenthau, 1.951, p. 38). Thus, What appears in the abstract to be a principle contrary to morality, Morgenthau designates as moral, and he assigns it a higher value than such universal principles as liberty or economic well-being for all nations (Magill, 1962, p. 7). In a world by states 232 followed and clashing of unending struggle policies what is the fate of peace? their own interests, pursuing Background, Vol. 8, No. 4 of

that peace can be preserved maintains by two devices. Morgenthau One is the balance of power. The other is the normative limitation of international and world public opin? law, international morality, ion (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 23). for power, The struggle as carried out in the clashing policies of imperialism of power and the status quo, leads to the balance through which nations try to defend themselves against each other. of power is not an adequate device to prethe balance However, of a serve peace. Its uncertainty, the disappearance by aggravated moral consensus, leaves the balance of power open to restraining question as a peace-maintaining device.

until it has reached a point International has declined morality to preserve where it cannot exert any substantial pressure peace. was conof the international aristocratic The destruction society of nationalism over internationalism. with the triumph comitant Nations no longer oppose each other . . . within a framework of shared beliefs and common values. . . . They oppose each other now as the standard-bearers of ethical systems, each of them of national origin and each of them claiming and aspiring to provide a supra? national framework of moral standards which all the other nations 1960a, p. 256). (Morgenthau, ought to accept . . . in the sense of a force transcending World public opinion, in spontaneous national and asserting reactions itself boundaries the world, does not exist. "Modern history has not recorded through an instance of a government having been deterred from some foreign of a supranational the spontaneous reaction public opin? policy by An effective world ion." 1960a, public p. 261). (Morgenthau, a society and a common ..." morality (Mor? "presupposes opinion neither of which exists today. 1960a, p. 270) genthau, in its legislative law is beset by decentralization International as well as in its enforcement. In other words, and judicial functions on the international there is no central authority plane, comparable or to the state on the domestic plane, that can create, or interpret, international law can impose but a the law. Consequently, impose restraint upon the struggle for power. negligible and nonnormative to devices both normative With inadequate of peace, what is the value of other attempts, the maintenance classifies these at keeping actual and proposed, peace? Morgenthau 233

attempts in three categories: peace through limitation, and peace through accommodation. transformation, The

peace

through

judicial

first category collective includes disarmament, security, and international settlement, government. change, peaceful on disarmament stems from the belief that Morgenthau's position "men do not fight because they have arms. They have arms because He to fight" (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 408). they deem it necessary of the settlement satisfactory disarmament" (Morgenthau,

that a "mutually concludes, therefore, contest is a precondition for power 1960a, p. 411).

Collective the existence security cannot be made to work without of three factors: an overwhelming aggresstrength against potential in the of security shared by the participants sors, a single concept collective to and a desire on the part of the participants system, subordinate their interest to the common good. That is to say,

Only on the assumption that the struggle for power as the moving force of international politics might subside or be superseded by a higher principle can collective security have a chance for success (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 414). says that nothing in the reality of international Morgenthau warrants this assumption 1960a, p. 414). (Morgenthau, relations

cannot end war, because "the disputes which Judicial settlement are most likely to lead to war cannot be settled by judicial methods" Those disputes are not legal; they are 1960a, p. 434). (Morgenthau, of the status quo vs. its Their issue is "the maintenance political. This issue cannot overthrow" be 1960a, p. 434). (Morgenthau, of to the defense settled by any court because courts are committed the status quo. war by devising of peaceful at forestalling schemes Attempts is possible cannot to go very far. Peaceful change change aspire of three factors: within the state because of the existence (1) the ability of public opinion to express itself freely, (2) the ability of sociai and political institutions to absorb the pressure of public opinion, and (3) the ability of the state to protect the new status quo against violent change 1960a, (Morgenthau, p. 435). With those factors absent from the international change are not likely to succeed. scene, schemes of

peaceful 234

Baekground,

Vol. 8, No. 4

International to the does not provide the answer government of peace. For international to be operative, problem government should characterize the relations harmony among the great powers which are responsible for directing it. Yet historical experiences show that this harmony is hard to achieve. All attempts at inter? The present national government have failed in maintaining peace. United cannot to do what its forerunners Nations be expected could not. Like the conflict between Great Britain and Russia within the Holy Alliance, like the conflict between Great Britain and France within the League of Nations, so the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union within the United Nations resolves itself into diametrically opposed standards of judgment and action, which virtually incapacitate the international organization to act at all in political matters (Morgenthau, 1960a, pp. 497-498). Peace through transformation includes schemes of a world state a world community. and attempts at creating and desir? Necessary able as it may be, a world state is unattainable. There is no shirking the conclusion that international peace cannot be permanent without a world state, and that a world state cannot be established under the present moral, social, and political condi? tions of the world (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 513). A world state must be based on a world community which at in The cultural as embodied does not exist. present approach, of a world com? to the establishment does not contribute UNESCO, is a moral and political of world community "the problem munity; one" not an intellectual and esthetic and 1960a, (Morgenthau, economic and technical The functional approach?i.e., p. 520). to people the world?cannot assistance help in estab? throughout assistance and technical either. Economic world community lishing " of international . . is likely at best to leave the problem . peace where it found it . . ." (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 536). or impracticable, With all these schemes rejected as inadequate the only hope rests with peace through accommodation; i.e., diplo? "can make peace more secure than it is today ..." macy. Diplomacy Furthermore, 1960a, by mitidiplomacy, p. 569). (Morgenthau, of a to the growth contributes and minimizing conflicts, gating state which whose foundations a world world community upon would 1960a, ensure p. 569). 235 permanent peace could be erected (Morgenthau,

cannot perform its vital role without however, Diplomacy, nine rules, the first four of which are fundamental, ing by of compromise: the remaining five are prerequisites 1. 2. Diplomacy should be divested of the crusading spirit.

abidwhile

must be defined Foreign policy objectives of national interest and must be defended quate power.

with

in terms ade-

3.

look at the political should Diplomacy the point of view of other nations. should to be willing Nations issues that are not vital to them.

scene

from

4.

compromise

on

all

5.

A nation should of worthless give up the shadow in favor of the substance of real advantage. rights A nation should never put itself in a position from it cannot retreat which face and without losing cannot advance without great risks. A nation should sions for it. The not allow a weak ally to make deci?

6.

7.

8.

armed forces must be the instruments policy and not its master. The should be government and not its servant.2 opinion the leader

of foreign of

9.

public

Yet human

rules are meaningless of rare without the existence statesmen. has a somewhat beings: Morgenthau mystical of great statesmen who possess belief in the intuition knowledge man moves of "the eternal in the sociai world" laws by which these scientific 1946, p. 220). Unfortunately, knowledge (Morgenthau, of a different is not enough; there must be "insights and higher kind" (Morgenthau, 1946, p. 212). The fate of peace and humanity in the last analysis, upon "the insight and the wisdom is dependent, man elevates his experiences into the by which more-than-scientific nature" laws of human universal 1946, p. 220). (Morgenthau, It is hard genthauian to escape the conclusion analysis, peace permanent that, according can never be to the Moron

achieved

2For a detailed discussion of the nine rules see Morgenthau, 1960a, pp. 561-67. 236 Background, Vol 8, No. 4

earth, or it can be achieved only through alone, can bless the world with wise, intuitive,

this

divine grace which, and great statesmen.

Critique

of Morgenthau's

Theory While raised

This section attempts a critique of Morgenthau's theory. the theory, the section discusses the various points criticizing critics. by Morgenthau's

makes it clear that his theory is based on his con? Morgenthau of human nature. This conception is beset by many diffi? ception nature is culties. Besides the obvious that, since human objection for all human actions, Mor? it really explains nothing, responsible of human nature is unscientific. Science "consists genthau's concept of theories or hypotheses whose truth or reality has to be established or testing" critical experiment 1959, p. 67). Mor? by (Wasserman, is based not on such hypotheses but on absolute theory genthau's laws (Wasserman, essentialist and unverifiable 1959, p. 67). The purpose of a theory is the deduction of meaningful generali? Such generalizations result from the careful zations. investigation of the facts. Morgenthau reverses the order; he starts with certain which he holds to be timeless and immune to change. generalizations of fulfilling its His theory seems to fall in the awkward position purpose merely with its promise.

One could his theory It is a power. offered not as is Morgenthau that force the

if Morgenthau have little objection stated indeed, is the conclusion seek that all men, and states, is when the proposition different matter, however, to be demonstrated. a conclusion but as a statement of his assumptions. These assumptions the prisoner and conclusions to be in line with his advance analysis

For if one starts with the conviction that all men seek judgments. of unendas battlefields one will see international relations power, of peace will be accounted for as of power. Periods clashes ing from the rule. deviations Morgenthau national politics in, or recovering is in statement active in inter? states (1960a, p. 38) that "nations involved are continuously for, actively preparing in the form of war." This from organized violence with Morgenthau's direct agreement assumptions. Yet it is hardly more to be rejected as incorrect. It is too general that "Every person has been sick in than the statement meaningful 237

The

is presently sick, or will be sick at one time in the future." is that it becomes very difficult at times to know whether point in is trying to describe reality or is simply looking Morgenthau for an illustration of his preconceived ideas. reality the past, can have is their claim Morgenthau's assumptions his of "more-than-scientific" men. To support "insights" from philresorts to quotations, mainly Morgenthau assumptions, he quotes The trouble is that the philosophers cannot osophers. The be validity to easily, then, oppose who from thinkers by offering quotations is an occasional for power phenomenon human than an essential trait. rather created by circumstances as if it were a discusses the lust for power, however, Morgenthau He admits, for example, that self-evident fact, beyond questioning. seem have shown that certain primitive peoples "anthropologists to be free from the desire for power . . ." (Morgenthau, 1960a, as if this fact were in support of, rather p. 33). Yet he proceeds Morgenthau's that assert position the desire than contrary to, his assumptions. have an exclusive claim to insights. One can

of human diffi? nature leads to further Morgenthau's concept from If human the laws derived nature does not change, culties. it are beyond change, as well. They are offered as truths applicable do not always Yet events at all times under all circumstances. remarks to these laws. Waltz conform (1959b, p. 531) that there in of determinism and indeterminism is an uneasy juxtaposition of is the natural Determinism outgrowth theory. Morgenthau's since nature concept the human trary to his nature. Indeterminism, for events which the determinist of course, act con? cannot is introduced to account however, laws cannot explain. Thus, man,

Professor Morgenthau's determinist theory of power does not lead to continuous war only because indeterminist elements are incorporated into it in order to make the formation of a balance of power possible (Wasserman, 1959, p. 60). is derived from, and closely conMorgenthau's power concept the service that nected with, his concept of human nature. Indeed, the human nature concept renders to the theory is that it introduces the concept of power. Morgenthau, by virtue of his human nature is enabled to take power for granted. concept, Once the struggle, urge, or drive for power is postulated as the basic motive for state action, it remains only to illustrate it, to discuss its forms and sources, and to inject it as the crucial variable in all relationships (Snyder, 1961, p. 40). 238 Background, Vol 8, No. 4

This is the moved from

is first difficulty Power with the concept of power. the realm of assumptions about human nature and is as the moving relations. force of international Thus, the postulated is central framework which the whole theoretical concept upon constructed is one which is not to be subjected to testing or verification. from the human nature concept, power becomes a timeDerived less concept, beyond change. No distinction "inheris made between ent or instinctive of the 'power drive,' and the situational aspects or accidental The result is ones . . ." (Hoffmann, 1961, p. 423). a static universe There which treats concept of separate essences" international (Hoffmann, relations 1961, as "a frozen p. 423).

are difficulties of power. is Power with the definition so broadly from other that it fails to distinguish politics of power, Given it is definition Morgenthau's types of action. difficult to imagine whatever that does not involve any relationship in families and businesses, too, for power. "Power can be exercized defined Yet, "there must be some reason why family affairs are example." not regarded as political" 1957. p. 13). Morgenthau's (Kaplan, power concept would not take notice of when an activity involving does not provide a criterion and, therefore, power becomes political of the political in the direction indicated by Kaplan. The influence We relation remains of the concept of power to those of control and

unclear.

do not know whether power refers to a symmetrical or asymmetrical relationship or both, whether control implies no freedom of choice for the party who is controlled, and whether control is limited just to some properry or characteristic or be? havior of the controller, or whether influence covers any change in the behavior of the influenced regardless of the source of change or the psychological mechanisms involved (Snyder, 1961, p. 40). in the definition is that power is result of the imprecision to mean different things at different times. Morgenthau defines Yet when he says that "power, relation. power as a psychological is the value however limited and qualified, which international as supreme" the 1946, p. 101), politics recognizes (Morgenthau, reference is to power as a capacity. When he discusses national power a total sum of different he refers to power as a quantity, elements. as a precise analytical tool and be? Thus, power loses its strength The comes an ambiguous term which is accommodated to many evidences. 239

used

of other vari? Furthermore, power "is a most complex product ables which should be allowed to see the light of theory instead of in the shadow hidden of power" 1961, remaining (Hoffmann, In Scientific does not discuss these variables. p. 423). Morgenthau irrational Man vs. Power Politics, he describes power as an inherited human drive. In another work, he says that power, like love, is the of man's loneliness.3 are Yet both of these explanations product ele? the question about the different oversimplifications; complex ments that go into power remains unanswered.

admits that power are not the only ele? relations Morgenthau in a political ments involved action. Yet he is concerned only with with the He goes so far as to eschew relations. concern power The result motives and the ideological of statesmen. preferences Mor? is what Hoffmann calls a "power monism." (1961, p. 423) on power, virtue of its excessive genthau's theory, by emphasis it is a single-factor becomes theories, theory. Like all single-cause the fact that no single cause can account for all the by challenged phenomena under investigation.

in interest to define national theory Morgenthau's proceeds terms of power and to designate it as the sole guide for foreign to This writer finds it still impossible, after many efforts, policy. in terms in "defining interest what really is signified comprehend "a broad of power." the intent has been only to provide Perhaps or a way of approaching intellectual foreign category policy" who to find many 1960, Anyone expects (Thompson, p. 37). of the national answers regarding and realization the determination in Morgenthau's is bound to be disappointed. interest discussion "the focal point in the debate over Morgenthau's Indeed, theory interest" on his concept of the national has centered (Thompson, 1960, p. 37).

criticism is that Morgenthau's most repeated concept of the interests National interest is ambiguous. may be quite unwho and psychologists stable and subject to change. Philosophers have agreed "interest" that it is an the concept, have analyzed one; interest does not become clear, certain, and obvious ambiguous rather than individuals because one deals with collectivities simply interest concept can be of little 1960, p. 86). The national (Aron, period when survival is always at stake and the help in an unstable The national 3See above p. 229. 240 Background, Vol 8, No. 4

most divergent for courses of action can be suggested as choices survival rather than asserting 1961, p. 423). Finally, (Hoffman, the supremacy is of the national the important interest, question "the evaluative and one of deciding are legitimate which interests will best serve them" the pragmatic one of deciding what policies (Waltz, 1959a, p. 38).

These criticisms are not without but they may miss the validity, has never claimed that his concept cleared away point. Morgenthau in defining all the ambiguities and difficulties involved the national He acknowledges interest. the limitation of his concept. The concept of the national interest is similar in two respects to the "great generalities" of the Constitution, such as the general welfare and due process. It contains a residual meaning which is inherent in the concept itself, but beyond these minimum require? ments its content can run the whole gamut of meanings which are 1952, p. 972). logically compatible with it (Morgenthau, One may be inclined to agree with Whitaker's but wish, at the same time, for a clearer statement expression: (1961,

p. 447);

If he (Morgenthau) has posed, rather than solved, the problem of defining the national interest, it is more appropriate for the academician to work on the solution than to complain of the legitimate question. of ambiguity, there is a moral argument against The essence of the argument is that Morgen? Morgenthau's concept. of the "moral dignity" of his assertion thau's position, particularly be the national is immoral. Tucker interest, may (1952, p. 221) on the moral argument: cited as a representative spokesman Beside the charge . . . Professor Morgenthau's concept of moral obligation amounts to to the statement that men ought (i.e., are morally obliged) behave as they actually do behave. Hence there is no possibility of conflict between man's interest, or his actual behavior, and his moral obligation. (So considered, the whole idea of moral obligation becames meaningless . . .) Tucker (1952, p. 223) further states:

It must be understood that once we deny the binding character of international moral obligations and assert the moral supremacy of the national interest, no action on the part of the state can the viewpoint, of course, of the particular be considered?from be immoral. Thus the logical conse? state's national interest?to quence of asserting the moral supremacy of the national interest is to assert the moral inferiority of all other national interests. 241

This argument of Morgenthau's is based on a misunderstanding views on both ethics and the moral dignity of the national interest. Some writers have argued the point that, despite its apparent amoralis based on moral foundations ity, Morgenthau's (Thomp? position son, 1960, p. 146; Fox, 1949b, p. 215). Two writers, Magill (1962, have studied in some detail Mor? p. 7) and Good (1960, p. 640), of morality and its application to the national genthau's concept is anything interest and have concluded that Morgenthau's position but immoral. as indifferent to moral has often been described Morgenthau It is true that Morgen? values. This, indeed, is an unjustified charge. Thus thau's pessimistic views of man color his concept of morality. "man cannot hope to be good but must be content he states that But to diswith being not too evil" (Morgenthau, 1946, p. 192). of morality is one thing, to charge agree with Morgenthau's concept is immoral is another. Morgenthau that his position p. 169) (1946, "he fman] is a moralist because he is a man." The believes that of political success the requirements tension unavoidable between is a theme that is repeated of morality and the requirements again One may go so far and again throughout writings. Morgenthau's with the as to assert that no other writer on international relations, to the moral so much attention of Niebuhr, has devoted exception problem. idea of the "moral dignity" of the national interest Morgenthau's The ultimate good, as represented is neither immoral nor ambiguous. in this world. cannot moral be realized universal by principles, either to try, in vain, to are faced with two alternatives: Nations an endeavor which could lead to follow abstract moral principles, to the or to limit themselves war and endanger their very existence, holds that the second alternative defense of themselves. Morgenthau is to be preferred, morally and politically.

The only relevant question is, however, what the practical alter? native is to . . . imperfections of an international society that is based upon the national interests of its component parts. The attainable alternative is not a higher morality realized through the appli? but moral deterioration cation of universal moral principles, through either political failure or the fanaticism of political crusades (Morgenthau, 1951, p. 30). in 'national interest' Furthermore, incorporates "Morgenthau's that by its nature must transcend its design a notion of responsibility takes pain to 1960, p. 640). Morgenthau (Good, pure self-interest" 242 Background, Vol 8, No. 4

the national interest concept He argues with moral content. that a nation should look at the political scene from the point of view of other nations. in his concept, is a live-and-let-live Implicit to Tucker's the supremacy of the na? Contrary philosophy. charge, tional interest and try to that a nation consider should implies respect other nations' interests.4 It might be illuminating at this point to digress briefly to look of the national at an alternative interest offered by two of concept assert that critics. Cook and Moos Morgenthau's p. 129) (1954, of the national is dangerous: interest Morgenthau's concept If we desire to avoid statism at home and to seek and ensue our purposes both there and abroad, we must reject the concept of national interest as the national power of an organismic . . . state engaged in a struggle for success through triumph by means of power politics. Cook and Moos offer another interest. of the national version the policy of the United While States, they say that the discussing United States' interest is to pursue and further the principles upon which this country rests. on which the United States, The proposition that the principles or for that matter any country, rests are of universal applicability of uni? Even were these principles is both puzzling and irritating. should there is no reason why other countries versal applicability, Cook and to them. To make things worse, to adhere be willing outcome: Moos pursue their idea to its inevitable That commitment [to freedom] compels us to combat all types of totalitarian tyranny, by ideological warfare when possible, by force when necessary. It requires a refusal to ally ourselves with such regimes . . . and, under certain conditions, even an inter? vention in their own lands to prevent oppression by them and to aid in their overthrow . . .5 version There is no doubt, in this student's mind, that the crusading interest is not only less expedient of the national than, but also interest. to, Morgenthau's morally inferior concept of the national that have been advanced the criticisms against Morgen? Among variables thau's theory is that it leaves out important and, therefore, 4In our opinion, Tucker's clear objections have not been met here or elsewhere. After many years, the problem still maintains its importance. Ed. 5Italics added; Cook and Moos, 1954, p. 130. 243

invest

scene. an adequate of the international explanation to discuss for failing criticizes Sprout (1949, p. 407) Morgenthau the objectives of national p. 123) notes the policy. Wright (1952, absence of values and their effect on policy in Morgenthau's theory. an international lawyer's McDougal p. 378)6, (1955, representing point of view, objects to Morgenthau's concept of law as "a static of rigid rules." Furthermore, the relation the theory neglects body It also fails between and policies 1960, p. 88). ideologies (Aron, to examine and social structure on the effects of a state's political offer its foreign policy (Sprout, 1949, p. 409).

does

not

in the theory The list of things that should have been included or another. could go on. Every critic can point out one omission This is a type of criticism that appears in almost all the reviews of The factors that should have been included works. Morgenthau's and theor? to his own predilection vary with every critic according how to do his work is one To tell a theoretician etical orientation. about and less fruitful of the less challenging aspects of theorizing "for not doing things unfair to chide authors theory. It is manifestly of doing" 1961, p. 38). In the case they had no intention (Snyder, in for the omissions there is a valid explanation of Morgenthau, his theory: Morgenthau is more concerned with interstate relationships and with the mechanisms, tried and proposed, for regulating such relationships, than he is with the basic conditions and forces out of which interstate relationships and consequent regulatory prob? lems arise (Sprout, 1949, p. 406). to the with regard more relevant has been raised point How can a theory be labeled of Morgenthau's theory. "reality" and with reality? both with itself "realist" if it is inconsistent remarks: Tucker (1952, p. 216) A On the one hand, we are given laws which supposedly determine ihe actual behavior of states. On the other hand, there is a most persistent . . . exhortation by the author that American foreign policy ought to follow these laws, apparently for the reason that it has not always done so in the past. Waltz (1959b, p. 531) makes a similar remark:

At times Professor Morgenthau's writing is purely descriptive, intended to make comprehensible what does happen. At other times 6For a detailed criticism of Morgenthau's concept of law, see McDougal's article "Law and Power," The American Journal of International Law, 49 (January 1952), pp. 102-114. 244 Background, Vol. 8, No. 4

his writing becames persuasive, intended to convince the leaders of states that they ought to act in certain ways and not in others. concenWasserman p. 57), whose critique of Morgenthau (1959, trates on the theme of inconsistency, makes the same point: Morgenthau claims that his theory is based upon what actually happens yet he complains that what actually happens does not conform to his theory. While he maintains that all international. politics are of necessity power politics his reason for writing is to combat the prevalence of misguided "legalism" and "moralism" not only in the theory, but also in the practice of international politics. can be traced to two main sources. inconsistency Morgenthau's of empirical elements and normative First, there is a juxtaposition in the theory. Second, there is a conflict between Morgenthau's pessimistic views and his implication that man can, in? deterministic deed, influence his own fate. The realist under close examination, to be as theory proves, normative and value-oriented as theories which do not claim "real? ism." Indeed, Morgenthau's are norms. Thus, when he assumptions that "we assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest says defined as power . . ." (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 5), he is presenting not only an observable fact but also a norm to be attained. It could for experience not be otherwise is that not all statesmen have thought in these terms. Morgenthau's of a completely rational for? concept is another norm. His schemes of the balance of power eign policy of norms. are other examples is aware of the gap which separates however, Morgenthau, from reality. He argues that, in view of the rationality theory the theory, this is inevi table: Hence, it is no argument against the theory here presented that actual foreign policy does not or cannot live up to it. . . . Far from being invalidated by the fact that, for instance, a perfect balance of power policy will scarcely be found in reality, it assumes that reality, being deficient in this respect, must be understood and evaluated as an approximation to an ideal system of balance of power (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 8). does not only presume to describe reality, Actually, Morgenthau also to alter it. The laws to which but Tucker refers, then, are offered not only as rules to which to some realities do conform as norms to which realities extent, but, in addition, approximate 245 his of Professor

should theory, able.

conform. many of

discovers basis of the the normative understandinconsistencies become Morgenthau's Once one

inability

The other source of inconsistency is to be found in Morgenthau's if to stick to his pessimistic views. deterministic Indeed, were true to his lack of faith in man, he would treat Morgenthau his own theory as an exercise in futility. In Morgenthau's "man finds himself to the scheme pinioned rock not so much because he has willed evil, but because this seems to be his fate" (Good, of human will is 1960, p. 88). The element Man is destined to live with "unresolvable absent. conspicuously in the are inherent which and conflicts discord, contradictions, nature of things and which human reason is powerless to solve" (Morgenthau, 1946, p. 206).

in its The age of science, according is mistaken to Morgenthau, The a better future. belief that humanity is progressing toward of science forgets the tragic sense of history and life. age There is no progress toward the good, noticeable from year to year, but undecided conflict which sees today good, tomorrow evil, prevail; and only at the end of time, immeasurably removed from the here and now of our earthly life, the ultimate triumph of the forces of goodness and light will be assured (Morgenthau, 1946, pp. 205-206). to social problems Man's efforts to apply scientific knowledge are doomed to failure; past and contemporary history "offer abundant proof of the irrelevance, for success or failure of social action, offer" (Morgenthau, of the kind of knowledge the social sciences 1946, p. 211). On the contrary, the reliance upon factual knowledge of the art of politics" "has actually to the decadence contributed (Morgenthau, 1946, p. 213).

tries to escape in Politics Among Nations However, Morgenthau, Man vs. in Scientific from the prospect of doom he put forward He realizes that on the domestic Power Politics. plane "organized scale of political action on an extensive as an instrument violence On a rare exception" has become 1960a, p. 38). (Morgenthau, have used nations he says that "when the international plane, of preventing for the purpose war, they have often sucdiplomacy ceeded" Furthermore, 1960a, p. 568). Morgenthau's (Morgenthau, of status quo nations which seek just of the category introduction 246 Background, Vol. 8, No. 4

not

to maintain their power constitutes a departure from, the original

an important to, if qualification that all states seek assumption

power. in two most clearly reveals itself inconsistency Morgenthau's his most vital thus and statesmanship, diplomacy concepts: in his theory. these concepts the most vulnerable rendering points "the is, in the words of Morgenthau Diplomacy (1960a, p. 569), which a society of sovereign nations best means of preserving peace has to offer." of for the revival However, Morgenthau's hopes are highly unrealistic; here perhaps is the one point in diplomacy the theory when the normative element becomes blind completely to the empirical one. of have noted, own analysis writers of Morgenthau's international realities of a remakes his discussion contemporary an exercise in wishful vived diplomacy thinking (Wasserman, 1959, pp. 57-58; Waltz, 1959b, 1949, p. 1025). p. 531; Pettee, of Morgenthau's rules for diplomacy can be applied in a None world characterized inflexible and inspired by by the bipolarity moral force of nationalistic a world that Morgenthau universalism, himself has described in the following words: As many The moral code of one nation flings the challenge of its universal claim into the face of another, which reciprocates in kind. Com? promise, the virtue of the old diplomacy, becomes the treason of the new. . . . Thus the stage is set for a contest among nations whose stakes are no longer their relative positions within a political and moral system accepted by all, but the ability to impose upon the other contestants a new universal political and moral system recreated in the image of the victorious nation's political and moral convictions (Morgenthau, 1960a, p. 256). is another vital, and equally vulnerable, Statesmanship concept. One is confronted with a circle. The struggle for power will continue to characterize in relations often exploding nations, among is the only hope for mitigating con? the form of war. Diplomacy of the foundations flicts, making peace more secure, and building a world state which could ensure permanent Yet diplomacy peace. cannot be made to work without statesmen. Here is the greatest of the theory. What is a statesman? To say that he is a weakness moral and intellectual "extraordinary qualities" person possessing How does not solve the problem. 1960a, p. 569) (Morgenthau, a statesman between and a Hitler? There can one tell the difference How can humanity statesis a more important produce question. 247

men? Morgenthau rules out education and does not suggest any alternative. the peace, then, remains a haphazard Preserving process. there are enough statesmen there will be peace. Humanity Whenever cannot do more than wait, and perhaps pray, for statesmen. The foregoing leads to the conclusion that Morgen? analysis thau's theory has two elements: and mystical or religious. empirical, The empirical of con? element is evident in Morgenthau's analysis international of world relations. his discussion Thus, temporary 1960a, pp. 335politics in the mid-twentieth century (Morgenthau, is marred neither by any unconvincing human nature explana386) The mystical element usually tions nor by a vague trust in statesmen. in Morgenthau's reveals itself, however, references to the concept of statesmanship. If humanity cannot, education, through produce there remains but God's will to do the job. Although statesmen, does not admit it, this position is not dissimilar to the Morgenthau the help of that man cannot save himself without religious position in his is undoubtedly aware of the two elements God. Morgenthau theory. Thus, in more than one place, he asserts that religion, phil? osophy, and even art, no less than science, can prove reliable sources of knowledge 1960b, p. 8; 1946, p. 123). (Morgenthau, a theory clusions yet be so This is question. "we are say that one" and that "a How can be so weak in both its assumptions and con? in its empirical discussions is a puzzling convincing what led one of Morgenthau's critics to perhaps for offered not so much a theory as the materials

of the complex interrelations of careful statement is still wanting" variables 1959b, p. 529, 530). (Waltz, important writer says, with an authoritative Another tone, that Morgenthau's work and that his most decisive theory is in process of unfolding remains before him (Thompson, 1959b, p. 133). It is the

of this student that there is a clear difference opinion Politics Man vs. Power and Politics between Scientific Among is placed on In the first of the two books, heavy emphasis Nations. reference is still human nature and the role of statesmen. Although in Politics Among Nations, made to human nature and statesmanship If this observation has and with much less emphasis. it is sporadic tried to shift gradually it means that Morgenthau any significance, stand. If, indeed, and philosophical the from his previous mystical in the future, it is to follow work of Morgenthau most important less pre~ could well be predominantly and, consequently, empirical than his present works. tentious and less vulnerable 246 Background, Vol 8, No. 4

Morgenthau's

Contribution

to the study of his critics have or either praising one is told that writers on world and that he is "our most 1959b, politics" p. 134) (Thompson, theoretician" 1961, p. 81); on the other hand, prominent (Singer, influ? one is warned that so long as Morgenthau's theory remains in the scientific ential "there is unlikely to be progress study of relations" international 1959, p. 70). (Wasserman, To try to assess Morgenthau's contribution international most of relations is a task which avoided. Rather, these critics resort to statements on the one hand, Thus, criticizing Morgenthau. of our contemporary is "the greatest Morgenthau The assessment is difficult for more than one reason. The mere writer over whose works is a contemporary fact that Morgenthau an a great deal of controversy has raged cannot help but introduce of his contribution. emotional tone to the discussion Furthermore, has been growing relations so rapidly the study of international that it becomes exceedingly difficult to measure the impact of any one of the worth of all the individual. With so few adequate appraisals works in international the assessment theoretical relations, present different is bound to be unand comparison theories between, of, certain and tentative.

as the task of evaluation Yet, difficult and uncertain is, a study of Morgenthau could not be considered without at least complete his impact on the field. Morgenthau's con? some effort to measure cannot be made clear unless one looks at his theory in tribution efforts which preceded view of the theoretical it, and those which a perspective, it. To suggest the study of international followed will be divided into three schools of thought, each reprerelations the idealist school which an historical period: (1) senting roughly of the twentieth clominated the field from the beginning century in the the realist school which emerged early 1940's, (2) dominant until the mid-1960's, and (3) the and remained school which seeks to prevail in the field today. systemic to the 1940's as a separate field of study was created relations International war and initiating of eliminating an era with the visionary hope nations. It seemed of law and order in the relations among quite of some intellectual effort coupled with that the exertion possible zeal could abolish the evil of war. Not even the great a missionary of the First World War shattered the utopian hopes. disillusionment of war gave impetus to the reformOn the contrary, the experience 249

under? international ing spirit. "To the prewar trinity of democracy, and arbitration were added national self-determination, standing, This and collective 1949a, disarmament, security" (Fox, p. 70). to the did not limit itself to research but extended reforming spirit relations. teaching of international In the universities, a number of student generations were taught international relations as moral principles of world peace, the potential splendors of the League, the wickedness of departure from Wilsonian doctrines, the evils of imperialism and dollar and the efficacy of popular demands for a better world diplomacy, and for a change of heart (Cook and Moos, 1954, p. 95). has so The idealist relations stage in the study of international discussion here would be superoften been analyzed that a detailed will be directed to one aspect only: fluous. Attention, therefore, It is, indeed, difficult to detect a clear theory in the idealist scheme. in the works of the idealist period. One can? framework theoretical The idealist era was characterized not speak of an idealist model. by a striking poverty in theory. This period even failed to emphasize relations deals with a system characterized the fact that international was of central the real world Thus, by the absence authority. from an ideal world common? in terms of its deviation described In characterized wealth 1949a, p. 77). by permanent peace (Fox, short, the idealist 1951, school p. 44). "has been anything but theory-minded" (Wolfers, Realism

is "the impact of thinking which, in the upon wishing of its first visionthe breakdown of a science, follows development and marks the end of specifically utopian period" ary projects, of the realist school was a The emergence 1961, p. 239). (Carr, in the gradual process which started in the 1930's and culminated the Second World War, late 1940's. Following the study of international politics replaced the study of inter? ... national organization as the central point of reference in interna? tional relations. An approach was made to recurrent world problems not with a view to praise or condemn but to understand them (Thompson, 1959a, p. 213). of for the introduction all the credit To give Morgenthau to be unfair to the many authors who contributed realism would realism might have been as the process. Yet, without Morgenthau, It is the contention as was idealism. orientation lacking in theoretical has been to give first contribution of this paper that Morgenthau's to realism. The realist reaction was transformed form and direction 250 Background, Vol. 8, No. 4

into a distinctive It is no wonder, school of thought. by Morgenthau of realism in international there is a discussion then, that whenever is made inevitably reference to Morgenthau. relations, Obviously, is not the only realist author. Yet it seems that he was Morgenthau the first to develop a realist model. It is a testimony to Morgenthau's in the study of international relations that contribution outstanding "realism" and "Morgenthauism" can be treated almost as synonyms.

of inter? still goes on today whether Debate a macro-theory national relations is possible. Of course the final answer depends on one's definition of theory and of what one requires in terms of for all its shortand prediction. Yet, description, explanation, a general or macro-theory comings, theory represents Morgenthau's of international relations. It is not to be forgotten that Morgenthau wrote a book which had a clear theoretical focus. He demonstrated Mor? could be systematic. that the study of international relations seeond contribution, then, lies in the fact that he provided genthau's from idealism the necessary to the systemic transition study of international relations. in the field the dominant school Realism, today, is no longer of Morgenthau's of international The weaknesses relations. theory have already It is sufficient to say here that the been considered. of relations international study outgrew Morgenthau's simply The use of the word is its successor. school The systemic theory. an agree? because "school" it implies is very misleading, however, which exists. The present ment on fundamentals hardly stage in the study of First, there tionists with tion that the ploited. the study relations has three general characteristics. international relainternational is a growing dissatisfaction among there is a rising convicthe state of the field. Seeond, of other disciplines must be exconceptual equipment there is a clear trend to make and most important, Third, of international relations as scientific as possible.

Today, workers in the field talk of quantifying data, of building models, of testing hypotheses, of verifying constructs, of comparing abstract and empirical formulations; they have, in short, acquired a new language, the language of the scientific method (Rosenau, 1961, p. 7). to justify these broad trends, there is hardly anything Beyond the present stage. This stage the use of the word school in describing has not yet found its Morgenthau. Thus, there are almost as many 251

movement theoretical The systemic focuses as there are theorists. of theory. has not yet even managed to agree on a definition If we could say what theory is, we could probably give definition to the conditions and trends of a science or study of international relations, but we cannot. If we had one or several general theories of international relations, we would know what we meant by special and middle-range theorizing, but we do not (McClelland, 1960, p. 304). It is no wonder, then, that international over the nature of their discipline. relationists are still divided

F. S. C. Northrop believes that international science. Quincy Wright believes it can become Thompson is convinced that it is not a science, mann thinks it never can be (Whitaker, 1961,

relations is now a a science. Kenneth and Stanley Hoff? p. 439).

are divided over if scholars in international relations However, with of theory, they are united in their dissatisfaction the definition the state of their study. Lacking in the present trend is Morgenthau's of the eternal laws of politics. belief in the simple discovery Presumably no social scientist is ever fully satisfied with the progress of his discipline. Yet, few seem to be more self-conscious about the state of their studies, to be searching more keenly for newer and better foci, concepts, data, and methods than those who specialize in the area of international relations. It is painfully obvious to most of them that there is need for a clearer sense of purpose, for greater clarity of concepts, and for progress toward of more specific propositions, the development hypotheses, and theories which will unify a field of inquiry whose boundaries are 1961, p. 8). vague and whose content is diffuse (Sondermann, of this growing dissatisfaction can, with reasonable is no dominant There chaos. be termed intellectual justification, and critics on each side. Rather in the center with admirers figure there are different decision-making, Kaplan's approaches?Snyder's and Liska's General McClelland's System approach, system-analysis, Each of these some notable to mention examples. equilibrium, as the single most useful focus for the study is presented approaches relations. of international The result It should be clear from what has been said so far that Morgen? thau is a stranger in the present stage of the study of international of the the language is a far cry from His language relations. since his theory He has no reason to be dissatisfied ferment. systemic 252 Background, Vol. 8, No. 4

to present all that is worthwhile about inter? knowing purports national is unlikely to relations. The inter-disciplinary approach have an appeal to Morgenthau. Has itself: point a very important presents question relations to the study of international contribution Morgenthau's of an advanced realist theory which been limited to his formulation an idealist the necessary transition between provided period and a systemic one? In other words, does Morgenthau's theory already to the past? This question How? is very difficult to answer. belong it seems that there are three possibilities. the present First, ever, in producing thus pushing trend could succeed scientific theories, atnonscientific to the background. Second, theory Morgenthau's could at synthesis, which so far have been vague outlines, tempts a revised of incorporating thus providing the possibility materialize, of Morgenthau's as a part of a general version power approach theory. prove there which theory. focus could the present trend toward the systemic of producing results. In that eventuality, incapable impressive is a possibility of the emergence of a neo-Morgenthauism would "rediscover" revitalize and, perhaps, Morgenthau's Third, At this

REFERENCES

ARON, RAYMOND. "The Quest for A Philosophy of Foreign Affairs," in Stanley Hoffman, editor. Contemporary Theory in International Relations. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc, 1960, pp. 79-91. BOULDING, KENNETH E. "Theoretical Systems and Political Realities," Journal of Conflict Resolution. 2 (December, 1958), pp. 329-347. BRECHT, ARNOLD. Political Theory. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1959. CARR, EDWARD HALLETT. The Twenty Years' Crisis. London: Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1961. COOK, THOMAS L, and MOOS, MALCOLM. Power Through Purpose. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1954. FOX, WILLIAM T. R. "Inter-War International Relations Research: The American Experience," World Politics. 2 (October, 1949a), pp. 67-79. 253

"The Reconciliation of the Desirable and the Possible," American Scholar. 18 (Spring, 1949b), pp. 212-216. "The Uses of International Relations Theory," in William T. R. Fox, editor. Theoretical Aspects of International Relations. Notre Dame: Univer? sity of Notre Dame Press, 1959.

GOOD, ROBERT C. "The National Interest and Political Realism: Neibuhr's Debate with Morgenthau and Kennan," The Journal of Politics. 2 (December, 1958), pp. 577-619. HOBBES, THOMAS. Leviathan. London: J. M. Dent and Sons, Ltd., 1947. HOFFMANN, STANLEY N. "International Relations: The Long Road to Theory," in James N. Rosenau, editor. International Poltics and Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc, 1961, pp. 421-437. KAPLAN, MORTON A. System and Process in International Politics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 1957. McCLELLAND, CHARLES A. "The Function of Theory in International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution. 4 (September, 1960), pp. 102-114. MacDOUGAL, MYRES S. "Law and Power," The American Journal of International Law. 46 (January, 1952), pp. 102-114. . "The Realist Theory in Pyrrhic Victory," The American Journal of International Law. 49 (July, 1955), pp. 376-378.

MAGILL, SAMUEL H. "Neither Utopian Nor Realist," Worldview. 5 (September, 1962), pp. 6-9. MORGENTHAU, HANS J. Scientific Man vs. Power Politics. Chicago: The Uni? versity of Chicago Press, 1946. _. Knopf, 1951. . "Another 'Great Debate': The National Interest of the United States," The American Political Science Review. 46 (December, 1952), pp. 961-988. "The Nature and Limits of a Theory of International Relations," in William T. R. Fox, editor. Theoretical Aspects of International Relations. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1959, pp. 15-28. Politics Among Nations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960a. The Purpose of American Politics. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960b. . The Decline of Democratic Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962. "The Commitments of Political Science," pp. 36-52, 1962a. "The Escape from Power," pp. 311-317, 1962b. 254 Background, Vol. 8, No. 4 In Defense of the National Interest. New York: Alfred A.

. .

"The Intellectual and Moral Dilemma of Politics," pp. 7-14, 1962c. "The Intellectual and Political Functions of a Theory of International Relations," pp. 62-78, 1962d. "International Relations as an Academic Discipline," pp. 113-126, 1962e. "The Problem of the National Interest," pp. 79-112, 1962f. "The State of Political Science," pp. 16-35, 1962g. . The Restoration of American Politics. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962h. "International Relations," pp. 167-175, 1962i. "Love and Power," pp. 7-14, 1962j. PETTEE, GEORGE S. "Review: Politics Among Nations" Review. 49 (September, 1949), pp. 1025-1028. American Economic

ROSENAU, JAMES N. (editor). International Politics and Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc, 1961. SINGER, J. DAVID. "The Level-of-Analysis Problem in International Relations," World Politics. 14 (October, 1961), pp. 77-92. SNYDER, RICHARD C. "International Relations Theory?Continued," tics. 13 (January, 1961), pp. 300-312. World Poli?

SONDERMANN, FRED A. "The Linkage Between Foreign Policy and International Politics," in James N. Rosenau, editor. International Politics and Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc, 1961, pp. 8-17. SPROUT, HAROLD. "In Defense of Diplomacy," World Politics. 1 (April, 1949), pp. 404-413. STRAUSS, LEO. The Political Philosophy of Hobbes. Translated from the German manuscript by Elsa M. Sinclair. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1952. THOMPSON, KENNETH W. "American Approaches to International Politics," The Year Book of World Affairs. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1959a, pp. 205-235. . . Christian Ethics and the Dilemmas of Foreign Policy. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1959b. Political Realism and the Crisis of World Politics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1960.

TUCKER, ROBERT W. "Professor Morgenthau's Theory of Political 'Realism,'" The American Political Science Review. 46 (March, 1952), pp. 214-224. WALTZ, KENNETH N. Man, the State, and War. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959a. . "Review: Dilemmas of Politics," The American Political Science Review. 53 (June, 1959b), pp. 529-532. 255

WASSERMAN, BENNO. "The Scientific Pretensions of Professor Morgenthau's Theory of Power Politics," Australian Outlook. 13 (March, 1959), pp. 55-70. WHITAKER, URBAN G., JR. "Actors, Ends, and Means: A Coarse-Screen MacroTheory of International Relations," in James N. Rosenau, editor. International Politics and Foreign Policy. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc, 1961, pp. 438-448. WOLFERS, ARNOLD. "The Pole of Power and the Pole of Indifference," World Politics. 4 (October, 1951), pp. 39-63. WRIGHT, QUINCY. "Realism and Idealism in International Politics," World Politics. 5 (October, 1952), pp. 116-128.

256

Background,

Vol 8, No. 4