A Quest For Peace

Morgan Silva

Professor Shirk

International Politics

17 September 2017

Hobbes and Realism

In class thus far, we have been discussing various political philosophies and philosophers; John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes believes that human nature is inherently brutal and therefore the “only” form of reasonable government is a sovereign who will control everything and everyone [in order to prevent lawlessness]. The realist perspective has adopted the Hobbesian perspective of human nature and produced their quintessential form of government hat focuses primarily on military strength and an economy that can support a strong military. While I personally share Hobbes’ view of human nature, I think that realist’s miss a key component of Hobbes’ argument that could potentially change their entire view.

            In my power, order and justice class we are talking in great deal about Thomas Hobbes; a man who was born in an era of war, conflict and lawlessness. We have discussed that the reason he may believe that mankind is brutal is because that was all he has ever been exposed to. Realists acknowledge this idea and use events like the Holocaust, World Wars and other catastrophic [human] events to support this claim. However, we have also discussed in the course the underlying message in Hobbes argument: working for peace. Thomas Hobbes is dicsusted by mans’ innate brutish character and the purpose of a sovereign is to gain peace. We give up all of our rights to work for peace.  Now, imagine if realists realized this key component and how drastically their views would change. How can having a strong military, an economy only focused on sustaining a military and citizens totally engrossed by their country’s militaristic ways, helping to promote peace? While I understand that security is important, I would like to imagine a world where no country had a military. Any anxiety about attack would be gone, and wars would be virtually impossible. While realists claim that the one way to feel truly safe is by having a good and prosperous military, I would argue that I would feel safer knowing that military wasn’t needed in our world. World leaders are too quick to use the big red button with “WAR” engraved on it rather than talk it through. If realists truly wanted to live according to Thomas Hobbes, I think they would advocate for having no military at all.

            After looking at Thomas Hobbes’ philosophy in its entirety, I think he would advocate that the role of the government is to give meaning to their citizens lives. Think about it, how do phycologists plan to tame a wild child? Let them run, keep them busy, give them something else to live for besides beating each other up all the time. Imagine if we could take the inherent “wildness” that is human nature and turn it into something useful and productive, how amazing and progressed the world could be? Instead, we tell citizens that if they want to do something meaningful they should give up their lives and their able body to a machine run by those in power as a means of continuing problems that should have never started in the first place. This isn’t to say that soldiers shouldn’t be admired for their bravery and patriotism, I just personably believe that Thomas Hobbes would advocate that the human spirit is worth more. Our world should strive for peace, and the only way to truly achieve this is by giving citizens a reason to live. Providing them with reasons to want to do better and be better and contribute positively to society.

Realism and North Korea

Taylor White

International Relations

Professor Shirk

September 17, 2017

                   

North Korea the Epitome of a Realist State

            Realism is a political theory that emphasizes the role of the state and believes that each state is driven by national interest. No state’s security and survival is guaranteed, so each must build its military to protect itself. A state’s economy is important solely because it helps to build the military. Also, in order to show the world that it is secure, it will employ its cultural power to project a positive image. North Korea is a country based upon realism. Through the nation’s proliferation of nuclear missiles, its delegation of 22% of its GDP to the military, and its extravagant displays of a citizenry dedicated to their leader Kim Jon-un, North Korea proves to be the epitome of a realist state.

            North Korea constantly flexes its military might. It seems that each week there is another headline stating that the country has launched another missile. While to the rest of the world the country’s actions seem unwarranted or unnecessary, such displays of force highlight the country’s realist manor. North Korea is constantly worried about its security. A major point in the realism philosophy is the security dilemma. Essentially one state’s security is another state’s insecurity. Since the United States performer join military exercises with South Korea’s military near its border with North Korea, North Korea is therefore threatened by the South’s relative power. As a result, North Korea creates and launches missiles, to show that it too is a dominant force. Since North Korea views its military as its key to survival, it dedicates a large amount of money to it. In order to increase their military power and to protect themselves, the country must invest in its military. North Korea and its leader are so dedicated to their security that they spend at least 22% of their GDP on their military. The country’s willingness to spend so much on its military shows other countries just how far the state is willing to ensure its survival. The country’s displays of patriotism play into its realist identity. On the country’s birthday, news outlets report crowds of people outside celebrating. During these celebrations, the military is always seen marching, another show of its dominance. Also, citizens are always seen  praising Kim Jon-un on camera. The country wants its citizens to appear dedicated to their leader in order to show the world that they are a stable and unified state.

            North Korea is the definition of a realist state. Its military, economic, and cultural power is all meant to provide security and ensure survival. While North Korea’s actions seem unpredictable, after analyzing the features of realism, it is understood that their actions are not so unpredictable after all. 

            

IR Blog Post

            “The Promise of Institutionalist Theory” by Robert O. Keohane and Lisa L. Martin and “Six Principles of Political Realism” by Morgenthau are two very different articles that pertain to international politics. In Keohane and Martins article they are mainly coming from a more liberal point of view while in Morgenthau’s article he is more realist. While these two are two very different political ideas I tend to agree with Keohane and Martins article than Wendt.

            In Morgenthau’s article he writes about how interest is defined in terms of power. This is basically saying that countries as a whole will act on the idea that they will gain power in their actions. This differs from Keohane and Martins point of view because they believe that states will act not to gain power but to maintain peace. I agree with Keohane and Martins point of view because I believe that the reason the modern world is peaceful with only minor conflicts is because every country is not trying to take over each other. I believe that it is human instinct to become as powerful as can be but people need to realize that it is not for the best. I believe that America could easily become the most powerful country in the world and rule many other states. I do not believe that it is in their best interest because it would lead to death and suffering. America needs a way to maintain peace among the other powerful countries in the world.

            I also do not agree with Morgenthau’s principle 4 about how morality will come after a state surviving. This is a very realist point of view because it is dealing with a situation that the realist is presented. I do not agree with this because being moral is always something humans should follow. I believe that this situation is no different than what caused the holocaust. Hitler led the people of Germany to believe that the German empire was not surviving because of Jews and their only solution was to exterminate them. The people of Germany who were realists and listened to Hitler did not care that they were killing millions of Jews because it was the only way for Germany to survive. This a great example of why realism does not work because many lives were taken for the belief of realism.