International relations have been existed long time ago. They also exist now. The beginning of the international relations can be counted to the time, when boundaries were relative and wild tribes, dressed in rough fells and with arms in they hands, played the role of people. Arms… How strange… Many years have passed, but even now it has an influence on the relations between people. And it doesn’t matter whether it is simple one or a modern neutron bomb.
Can it really be true, that a man who underlived science – technical revolution, a lot of different changes now remains a savage. It is more like a philosophic question rather than a practice one and the answer is the understanding of a human being. To be closer to a practice of realistic approach to international relations. Let’s appeal to specialists of these questions. Here’s one them.
Gans Morgentaw (1904-1980), a well-known profession from Chicago University is a founder of a theory of political realism in international relations. His book, named “Politics among nations. The struggle for Power and Peace” was published firstly in 1948. It is considered to be a classical one in the theory of international relations. You can find essential changes which look place on international scene in the period between 40-th years up to 50-th. of the XX century in this book.
Break-up of the League of nations and the beginning of the Second World War and forthcoming “cold war” caused a crisis of idealist approach as to international relations. Illusion of building up an international system based only on universal values and mutual interests of states became visible.
Morgetaw wrote that he didn’t deny any necessity of creating of peaceful international system. He wrote about international relations to be far from ideal ones. He defined international policy as “continuous effort, which are directed at preservation and extension of strength of your own nations and also as weakening of strength of another nations.
Gans Morgentaw formulates main principles of political realism in his well-known work “Political relations between nations”.
History of political ideas is a constant struggle of two points of view on the nature of person, society an policy.
Representatives of this idea believe that it is possible to keep rational and at the same time moral political order. They believe in virtue of human nature and also consider it possible to improve society within the help of reforms and education.
Representatives of another point of view –the conception of political realism – consider the world to be incomplete. It is necessary to take into account incomplete nature of human while creating rational political order. The modern world has character features of conflicted interests, so a principle of existing of all pluralistic societies are based on the balance of interests.
The first principle of political realism has connections with political activity in international relations G. Morgentaw considers political realism as political doctrine, when all discrepant sides of human nature are taken into account. Possibilities for building of just political order are limited. Political realism are also based on the point of view that any action as to improvement of society is a kind of return activity.
The second principle of political realism is the principal of national interest, which are understood in definitions of power and strength.
A conception of national interest help to understand international policy as a sphere, independent from such kind of spheres as economics, religion, ethnic relations. Morgentaw marks that it is impossible to create new policy without such theoretical assumption. He also says that this conception of interest helps to understand international relations and internal policy only if it is interpreted with the help of definitions “power” an “strength”.
The third principle of political realism has then idea that political realism saves the theory of international relations from two kinds of delusions. At first, from the principle of investigation of motives and intentions which are the basis of political actions and the second, from investigation of ideological preferences of subjects. The point of view, when a key to understanding of internal policy is considered to be in different motives of a political person is wrong. Internal policy shouldn’t be regarded through philological phenomenon.
Studying of motives and intentions directs to phicologism in investigation. Mortengaw says, that historical experience shows absence of synonymous correlation between motives and real results of internal activity. “Good intentions” of political leaders don’t guarantee morality and affectivity of internal policy. Only analysis of real political activity and the results of this activity as to the affectivity and necessity are relevant for real political investigation. The theory of international relations should be focused on studying of such kind of individual quality as intellect, will and actions, which are different from abstract reasoning about morality and intentions of political leaders.
And Mogentaw gives some historical examples. He thinks that Chemberlan more than any other British