Essay: Analyse and compare Classical Realism and Classical Liberalism

This essay will focus on critically analysing and comparing two of the complex theories of International Relations: Classical Realism and Classical Liberalism. The analysis will be made in terms of their concepts and their international dynamics. Also, how the respective scholars perceive the causes of war, how they have tried to prevent conflicts and if their theoretical base was strong enough in achieving the ultimate international goal: lasting peace among nations. Ultimately proving that the classical realists view is more applicable in the contemporary international relations problems.
First of all, Classical realist scholars such as Thucydides, Niccolo Machiavelli and J. Morgenthau were very concerned with the causes of war. In their view the roots of conflict were the struggle for power in international relations, competition, order, justice, morality and the perpetual desire of human nature to break limits and to become superior over the others.
The pessimistic but realistic view of the first cause of conflict is human nature as being ruthless in the competition for power. Why? Because classical realists support the idea that if the majority of people desire war, battles and domination the state will lust for the same. Their concerns were not lacking reason if we were to consider that a state nucleus is constituted by its people and if the people’s main goal is to become more and more powerful so they can exert certain constraints over others that will reflect on how that nation will act in the international relations arena. Here Thucydides’ explanation of the underlying cause of the war between Athens and Sparta as being the ‘growth of Athenians power and the fear which this has caused between the people of Sparta’ prevails as a great example. (Lebow, N. 2007)
Classical realists understand that great powers are often their own worst enemies because success and hubris encourage governments to see themselves outside of and above their community, and this in turn blinds them to the need for self-restraint. For example, the Bush administration hubris in the face of Sadam Hussein where the US overestimated their ability to take control over the Middle East. Thus leading to continued conflict in the Iraq area to this day. (Carr, E.H. 2001)
The word “community” plays an important role not only at a domestic level but at the international one as well. Here, the belief of Classical realists that the lack of order and restraint upon the community will be seen as cause of war pays off if we are to consider past events. When the communal bounds of Periclean Athens and Greece were strong and laws, rules and norms were imposed, a certain peaceful restraint was brought. When the community decided to break down and escape from this restraint as happened in 420s in Corcyra the international order became chaotic. As a consequence, the classical realist theory of imposing order and justice in the ‘community’ proves it results in preventing war at an international level. (Jackson, R.& Sorensen, G. 2003)
The balance of power theory that was highly praised by the contemporary realists is considered by the classical realists to be a “double-edged sword” that has proved to be successful when handled with care.  The former consider the increase in military capability, the advancement of weapons and the creation of alliances are the very foundation of security. It is true to a certain extent that if a state feels that its security is out of any imminent danger it is highly unusual that it will provoke a war with other nation states and therefore peace is going to be preserved. In addition, it is natural for states with similar communal goals to try and make alliances between themselves so they can protect and help each other develop and therefore a certain international progress can occur. So why try and oppose human nature? (WOWTE, 2011)
Classical realists recognise that The Balance of Power theory may present itself as weak in the situation of Rising Powers that are usually tempted to go to war when they think they have an advantage and Status quo Powers to launch preventive wars against rising challengers. However, if we are to consider the period after the 1970 with the easing of geo-political tensions between the Soviet Union and the United states, the emergence of Japan, China and West Germany as possible third forces and the effects of Vietnam on US power that had made both superpowers more cautious and tolerant of the status quo it is safe to declare that the balance of power theory is a strong based and realistic concept of the international relations that helps prevent war and brings the states closer to international peace. (Dunne, T. & Schmidt, B. C. 2007)
For Machiavelli and other classical realist scholars, justice and influence represent powerful crucial concepts for achieving peace among nations. The lack of them has proven in the past to lead to violent conflict and as history can not be ignored because it has a bad habit of repeating itself over and over again it is not in our power to disregard it but to learn from it.
Firstly, justice is important because it determines how others understand and respond to you. If a state community is based on fair and strict laws, equitable orders and boundaries the state is viewed in the international arena as having a powerful aura of legitimacy. Consequently, this helps to reconcile less powerful actors to their subordinate status making them aware of the irrationality and danger of going to war against a stronger nation. (Vasquez, J. 1999)
A critique of this theory may appear here as many believe that influence can also be bought through bribes or compelled by force. However, this is unsophisticated thinking because influence obtained this way is expensive to maintain, tenuous in effect and usually short-lived. By contrast, a demonstrable commitment to justice of a state can create and maintain the kind of community that allows actors to translate power into influence in efficient ways.
Secondly, justice provides the conceptual scaffolding on which actors can intelligently construct interests. Above all else, a commitment to justice is a powerful source of self-restraint, and as has been presented in the previous paragraphs laws and restraint are necessary in avoiding wars and attaining peace.
In contrast with the realists’ view of the causes of war and peace are the classical liberalists theories. These are the “democratic peace” theory the “collective security” and the liberal economic theory. Based on strong beliefs of free trade among nations, the creation of superior alliances and the idealistic hope that peace is a natural state the classical liberalist framework opens up a new and controversial dimension of peace in the international relations arena. These concepts will be thoroughly discussed in the following paragraphs with the goal of pointing out that the liberalist approach is too utopian and its concepts are too fragile for the anarchical system of international politics. (Dunne, T. 2007)
First of all, the liberalists scholars especially Emanuel Kant identify the rigidity of the economic market as being a principal cause of war. As such, they very idealistically propose the creation of the ‘liberal economic theory’ based on the free trade of labour, goods and monetary exchange between countries as being the solution in order to prevent states going to war over material goals. Indeed, a theory based on these principles would facilitate international peace if it had not been completely demolished by the First World War. The fact that Britain and Germany had highly interdependent economies before 1914 seemed to confirm the fatal flaw in the association of economic interdependence with peace. (Berridge, G. 1992)
There is nothing wrong in wishing to unchain the world economy and make free trade between nations possible, but the liberalists have not taken into careful consideration a major issue. Free trade creates hierarchies of wealth and power, so instead of promoting equality and freedom their theory actually encourages the enslavement of smaller, weaker nations because of their lack of economic strength. The Great War stays in the history as a solid example, Europe has stumbled into a horrific war, fought mainly on economic expansionist basis and bringing an end to three empires and also contributing to the Russian Revolution of 1917. Therefore, the liberalization of the market while indeed a very noble goal it lacks stability and veracity as most liberalist theories do.
Secondly, the unforeseen and devastating end of WWI made the liberal scholars admit that after all peace is not a natural condition of human nature but is one that must be constructed. They initially believed that all humans are born peaceful and not harmful to one another only to reach the more realist conclusion that without a higher authority an anarchical system is taking control over the international arena. This had led to the creation of the ‘collective security’ theory in which Woodrow Wilson fourteen points played a major role. He argued in the Congress of January 1918 that ‘a general association of nations must be formed’ to enhance the chance of a forever lasting peace. Thus, the League of Nations was created with the goal of promoting a visionary arrangement where ‘each state in the system accepts that the security of one is the concern of all, and agrees to join a collective response to aggression. (Ludwig, V.M (1985)
Although I agree with the moral objective of this theory I can not help myself in criticizing its childish naivety when it comes to “one for all and all for one” paradigm. Again, the liberals choose to ignore the reality of the human nature as being all self-centred and a hard example of this is the decision of USA’s not to join the institution it had created and so bringing the League of Nations to a disastrous end.
The last aspect that this essay is going to cover the causes of war through the classical liberalist viewpoint resting on their theory of ‘democratic peace’. Basically, they chose to deny the possibility of war between two or more democratic states simply on the following two ideas. Firstly, they argue that a democracy is mostly led by its people and that a war is unthinkable regarding the fact that the citizens are assumed to be cost-sensitive and risk-averse and so they will avoid going to war by all means. If we are to contrast this with the classical realist approach, people will choose to ignore the preservation of their security and peace if the possibility of achieving power and influence arises as history clearly portraits.  (WOWTE, 2011)
Secondly, the alternative explanation for democratic peace lays on the premise that liberal states tend to be wealthy and therefore have less to gain and more to lose by engaging in conflict with other democratic states with which they hold amity relationships. This theory is controversial and to an extent falsifiable if we are to consider the Sicilian Expedition at the end of the Peloponnesian War. During this, the democrats of Athens warred against the democratic state of Syracuse and as Thucydides notes ‘the Syracusans and Athenians would have been better employed fighting together against the Lacedaemonians’ but once again the selfishness and insatiable thirst of human nature chooses to ignore the community and optimism, going to war against all liberalist expectations. Why? Because human beings are complex forces that are very hard to understand but mostly will always pursue their own interest over the collective one. (Ludwig, V.M 1985)
In conclusion, this essay has thoroughly critically analysed both concepts of classical realism and liberalism in terms of the causes of war and the achievement of peace. Demonstrating in the end that although the liberalists promote very noble ideas of freedom of the individual, international cooperation and market liberalisation their theory lacks stability and veracity. Resulting in the end to a fair conclusion that the classical realist view although being perceived as a pessimistic theory and considering that they applied orders and justice that may be perceived as harsh ultimately these rules benefited the whole community they increased the likelihood of lasting peace.