Essay: Interpret Angela Merkel’s speech (2018) through different lenses of international relations theories

The study of international relations was developed as an attempt to understand the complex realm of world politics. Experts of the discipline have focused on various aspects of global politics, including the origins of conflict, the nature and exercise of power in the international system, and the changing role of different actors within that system. For this purpose, numerous theories have been elaborated, each outlining a varied, often contrasting, framework of analysis. The aim of this essay is to interpret the speech made by Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel to the European Parliament on November 13th 2018 through the different lenses provided by international relations theories. To this end, I first consider how the policy statement can be understood in terms of the main traditionalist theories of realism and liberalism. For each of these accounts, I also identify any elements that seem to contradict their theoretical assumptions. In addition, I examine the contribution that Marxist theory can give to our understanding of the speech in question. Ultimately, I argue that, despite the prevalence of liberalist resonance in the Chancellor’s appeal, a consideration of the context can highlight inconsistencies with this approach, thereby proving the importance of adopting a multidimensional perspective.
As a theory in the discipline of international relations, classical realism expresses a particularly negative view of the world system, emphasising the conflictual nature of states. Realism is based on the assumption that states, which are held to be the main actors within the system, are all equal in terms of their nature and interests. As a result, the international arena is a competitive environment, in which everyone strives for survival. Being rational decision-makers, states always act to fulfil their national interest, namely self-preservation and maximisation of power. In accordance with this realist assumption, Chancellor Merkel’s speech to the European Parliament seems to express concern for protection against other states. In fact, in highlighting the areas she believes should be a priority for the European Union (EU), she mentions first of all “foreign and security policy”, arguing that strengthening alliances among European states would increase their ability to defend themselves, along with their values and interests (Merkel 2018, p.3) This claim could be interpreted as an application of Hans Morgenthau’s balance of power theory, which focuses on the distribution of power within the system. For Morgenthau, imbalances in military capabilities are countered by the formation of alliances among weaker states seeking to protect themselves from stronger ones. In this way, alliances among states continuously form new power balances (Morgenthau 1960, p.127)
Similarly, it is possible to identify certain elements in Chancellor Merkel’s speech that are also consistent with Neorealism, another strand of the realist tradition. The main difference introduced by theorists of this strand lies in the fact that, while classical realism locates the causes of international conflict in human beings’ belligerent nature, neorealism finds its roots in the structure of the system. In fact, it asserts that there is no overarching sovereign that can control the behaviour of states and prevent them from engaging in the aggressive behaviour that is in their nature. Kenneth Waltz refers to this as ‘self-help’, stating that “units in a condition of anarchy must rely on the means and arrangements they can generate for themselves” (1979, p.111 ). As a consequence, individual states are responsible for their own survival and are forced to take their “destiny into [their] own hands”, as worded by Merkel (2018, p.3). In this regard, her call for a “fully capable, European military force for rapid deployment” and for the “development of weapons systems” can be interpreted to reflect the realist view that increasing military capabilities is necessary to guarantee protection from possible external threats.
On the other hand, the Chancellor’s words seem to deviate from realist theory in several instances. For example, in discussing the challenges that European states currently face, Mrs Merkel mentions international terrorisms, as well as global refugee and migration flows (Merkel 2018, p.1). Yet the basic assumption of realism identifies states as the main actors in the system and essentially regards non-state actors as irrelevant, in that it does not recognise them as a possible threat to the state. More importantly, realists believe the highest aim of states to be their survival and, consequently, reject the idea that states’ actions can be judged by moral principles (Morgenthau 1960, p.51). Instead, Chancellor Merkel’s address to the European parliament carries a completely contrasting message. Throughout her speech, she identifies Europe’s strength with its “willingness to compromise” and to be guided by the principle of solidarity in showing “respect for others and their interests”(Merkel 2018, pp.1-2). These statements call into question the individualist nature that realism attributes to all states. Lastly, Chancellor Merkel’s conviction of the need for Europe to take a “united stance”, since interests can no longer “be asserted at a global level by a single actor”, also challenges realist theory (Merkel 2018, p.1). In fact, although realism allows for the formation of alliances, these are only to be temporary (Mearsheimer 2001, pp.66-67). On the contrary, the speech conveys a strong belief in future cooperation, an aspect which is more reminiscent of liberal theory.
Like realism, liberalism views states as the main actors in the global arena. Yet, whereas realism asserts that all states have the same interests and behave in an identical manner to pursue them, liberalist accounts argue that the characteristics of individual states are relevant for their interactions within the international system (Oneal and Russett 1999, pp.1-3). Furthermore, liberalism is based on the conviction that states should aim to ensure the right of individuals to life, liberty and property (Doyle 1983, p.206). Arising from the argument that political systems devoid of checks on power will not be able to protect these rights, its concern is that of creating institutions that limit and constrain political power. Mrs Merkel’s claim that “freedom constantly needs to be defended anew”, and that Europe needs “freedom the same way that people need air to breathe” echoes this liberalist ideology (Merkel 2018, p.1). Similarly, in praising the European Parliament’s democratic character, she appears to share the liberalist belief that democracy is the path towards peace and prosperity. Moreover, she stresses the importance of respect, tolerance and solidarity among EU members, expressing the view that the First World War broke out due to a lack of “respect for one another” and to failed alliances (Merkel 2018, p.6). These statements comply with democratic peace theory, which argues that democratic states are unlikely to engage in war, not just because they have internal checks and balances on power, but also because democracies perceive each other as “legitimate and unthreatening” (Snyder 2004, p.56). Indeed, the very characteristics of democratic states make cooperation with other democracies more likely than with non-democracies (Doyle 1986).
It is by recognising that there is scope for collaboration among certain states that the neo-liberalist strand developed a particular outline of the structure of the world system that emerges in the Chancellor’s speech. In fact, although neoliberalism agrees with the realist perception of the world system as anarchic, it argues that the structure of the system does not lead to conflict, but rather to interdependence (Nye and Keohane 1971). Such emphasis on the profound reciprocal effects that one actor’s policies and actions have on other actors emerges in the Chancellor’s statement that “national decisions always also have an effect on the entire community”(Merkel 2018, p.2). Likewise, Merkel’s claim that “respecting and supporting others […] and pursuing one’s own interests […] are not contradictory” propagates the neo-liberalist view that state cooperation can benefit all. Essentially, in asserting the need for states to “forego […] national competences to some degree and work together”, she is suggesting that some short-term sacrifices can lead to greater long-term gains from mutual cooperation (Merkel 2018, p.5).
However, although the speech strikes as being largely compliant with liberalist theory, the context surrounding cooperative efforts between the EU and Africa, which were markedly applauded by the Chancellor (Merkel 2018, pp.2,5), brings to light certain discrepancies. The EU’s approach to migration management initiatives can be found in the 2016 Migration Partnership Framework, which identifies five priority partnership countries, including Mali (Collett and Alyyah 2017, p.1). Considering that its recent presidential elections were “marred by violence, irregularities and low turnout” (Glencorse and Kondo 2018), Mali could be classified as an illiberal state. This defies the neoliberal correlation between interstate cooperation and stable, democratic forms of government. From a liberalist perspective, democratic states will not cooperate with illiberal states owing to a lack of trust in their ability to live up to international commitments. Furthermore, the liberalist assumption that a precondition for cooperation lies in the “convergence of underlying preferences” (Moravcsik 2010) is also undermined. In fact, the EU’s goal to restrict irregular arrivals of migrants goes against the interest of African countries, such as Mali, that are largely dependent on remittances (Collett and Alyyah 2017, p.1). These conflictual goals contradict the liberalist idea that shared priorities are necessary for successful collaboration, thereby supporting the case for applying Marxist ideology to the policy statement to broaden the scope of analysis.
In fact, according to Marxist accounts, international relations should be understood in terms of the interests driven by global capital, which shape the behaviour of state and non-state actors. In this view, world politics is not governed by a struggle for power, but by a struggle for the distribution of economic resources. Specifically, the neo-Marxist theorist Immanuel Wallerstein sees all modern nation states as part of a capitalist global order. As stated in his world-system theory, modern nation states and capitalism were created to secure capitalist interests by establishing a world-economy based on unequal distribution of factors of production (Wallerstein 1974, pp.387-415). This idea may be incorporated in the Chancellor’s statement that Europe’s economic success “forms the basis of our strength” and that, without it, Europe lacks political influence (Merkel 2018, p.3). In agreement with Wallerstein’s categorisation of states and regions in terms of their access to capital and their ability to exploit other regions’ resources, Merkel’s words suggest that it is Europe’s economic status as a ‘core’ region of the world-system that allows it to pursue its interests. Her concern that “major innovations now no longer […] come from Europe” and that Chinese enterprises increasingly invest in Germany further cements this interpretation (Merkel 2018, p.4). Arguably, it expresses the worry that Europe may turn into a peripheral region, as other regions develop, prosper, and take control of a growing share of the existing capital. Moreover, the Chancellor’s positive view of the cooperation between the EU and Africa in the area of refugees for its success in establishing “more orderly, controlled and reduced movements of refugees and migrants to Europe” is relevant (Merkel 2018, p.2). Indeed, from a Marxist perspective, the control of migration is functional to the creation of unequal relations of dependency, as it restricts the access of certain groups to capital and resources (Vogel 2013). In this regard, Merkel’s positive appraisal of the constraints to migration may well exemplify the Marxist conviction that international cooperation and institutions reproduce capitalism and its inequalities.
As can be inferred from Merkel’s speech, different theories of international relations provide strikingly diverging interpretations of the meaning behind actors’ words. While liberal ideology appears to be the more prevalent in the Chancellor’s words, some of her claims reveal inconsistencies with this theory, emphasising the importance of context for an adequate analysis. Equally as important is the multilateral approach, since each theory offers a different, but nonetheless legitimate contribution to our understanding of world politics (Walt 1998). The fact that Merkel’s appeal lends itself to interpretation from the perspective of the contrasting accounts of realism, liberalism, and Marxism is evidence that these theories should not be taken in themselves to represent or explain aspects of global politics. Rather, they can be productively compared to provide a framework for a deeper understanding of interactions that occur within the international system.