welcome to this lecture entitled uh realism on War and Peace uh here what I'm aimed to show is how the realist school of thought which is the the the dominant school on on global politics uh informing policy practices State behavior and international diplomacy how it is that realism understands or takes up categories of War and Peace and and what I also aim to show here is that as the dominant mode of theorizing global politics and by implication informing policy practices uh realism uh is uh bent on foregrounding a type of knowledge production and knowledge dissemination
that tells us everything about War as a matter of practice and almost nothing substantive about how to achieve a lasting Global Peace in other words realism promotes War indeed glorifies War to the detriment of Peace So what I aim to show in a sense is uh how realism really how realism enables a kind of a war prone understanding of politics wherein war is conceived as the subject and object of analysis WI a v peace that kind of an argument and I want to show you with specific examples how this is the case realism is informed
by certain Chief assumptions nearly all realists as as any other Approach to Global politics or theoretical understanding of global politics we're not talking about a singular Camp there are many different phases of realism but nearly all of them are grounding their assumption on on certain uh uh certain arguments if you wish and and all of which starts with the hsian understanding of state of nature so politics life Global relations are all understood Visa the category of state of nature or what Hobs called state of nature that that condition of the war of everyone against everybody
else wherein according to Hobs life is uh brish nasty and and short so they they take that assumption as as given and hence what you see on the board here Hans morgant one of the chief architects of contemporary realism speaking about politics that International politics like Society in general he wrote in in his seminal work that International Society like politics in general or politics like Society in general is is based on objective laws that have roots in human nature that's the starting point objective laws that have roots in human nature some weeks ago I spoke
about how hubs conceived this objective knowledge about state of nature having lived through the English Civil War and the 30 Years War compel him to come up with a historically contingent ontology of human beings and its environment again ontology by that we mean nature of being a historically ontology conception of human beings and its environment wherein life is nasty short and broish and and we know that that knowledge what he calls science is is based on objectivism sense and memory the product of what the researcher feels senses and sees as when holding him when we
see a fact doing or remember it done you know in his seminal Leviathan and so that understanding of state of nature is taken up by by realists it is not only a pessimistic understanding of human nature and our environment who we are and our environment it is also a a miserable knowledge construct a miserable knowledge construct in the sense that it promotes The View that every man is Every Man's enemy and and because every man is Every Man's enemy after the killing of that first enemy that man is again in the like danger of another
enemy it is in that Insidious Perpetual cycle in which humanity is born and and lives their life and and here I always have to intervene and and assure you that I conceived no one here as my enemy just to show you how limited this knowledge construct is unless I am proven otherwise of course but here is another counter knowledge to this type of a knowledge that has been taken up as as the true understanding of human and state relations for eternity so that's one that that understanding of human nature is shared the hsian state of
nature is shared by all realists to the extent to the extent that the epet Hoban is is used commonly to reference the structure of international relations and and you see this argument surfacing itself later down the road when when I expound how realist understand categories of War and Peace next to the concept of state of nature is is this category that we call statism statism is taken up by realists it is understood in in several ways on one level we can understand statism as a Doctrine if you wish a Doctrine a doctrine that tells us
that state is the primary unit not just for understanding global politics but for understanding life life and so we call it the doctrine because it privileges the category of State over International organizations and even human beings doesn't matter if the human beings are collateral damage here it is about what is called the hand the health and strength of the state the very raon the thought reason of state but statism is also understand as an ism as an ideology as an ideology that that takes up the Hoban notion of sovereignty as the building block of international
relations and and with that comes a a nation Centric understanding of the world wherein the people of the globe are groups in are grouped into uh distinctly separated Nations so nationalism and statism and state sovereignty go hand in hand in the sense that when you reference nationalism what you have in mind is the sovereignty of the particular units in this case States the sovereignty of the particular units in this case State and then nationalism or or Nation the idea of Nation becomes an ism because he's you're talking here about the exaltation of one privileged Nation
over all others and so it's an exclusionary Maxim because it Taps into perniciously constructed prejudices that enables binary divisions uh massive binary divisions between who we are as a nation and who we are not massive binary divisions that enable the distinction between Fatherland slm motherland and the foreign land and Strange Land inside races versus outside races inside sties religions versus outside ones by tapping into Humanity's politics of identity by creating these perniciously constructed prejudices we're also tapping into politics of difference it's never about uh Unity or diversity or as the case may be unity in
diversity it is all about difference the grouping of humankind into various Nations who end up feeling themselves different than each other it is these prejudices that continue to shake the limbs of humanity and and so long as they exist so share War misery and and conflict in in this sense nationalism has become a kind of a force amplifier that has sanctioned states to extract significant resources from their their their territories as well as Manpower in order to wage uh Total Wars with each other Total War is a the kind of a war that is about
political existence is at it stake here when you speak about Total Wars it is that pernicious idea that that informs this thing that we call statism with statism also comes the idea of Anarchy which is another perniciously constructed idea if you ask me uh it it it begins with the assumption that the category or Norm of sovereignty can only be applied to State relations what we reference as Anarchy above the level that is the state that is to say in international politics there exists a condition of Anarchy and by Anarchy we simply mean absence of
a high Authority absence of a global Sovereign that can uh uh coordinate State relations or or even medicate Wars among them so it's a it's a jungle likee environment and we have decidedly decided that this condition of Anarchy cannot be transcended and and part of the reason that we have decided as such perhaps has to do with the knowledge impoverishment that underpins international relations studies in particular realism uh I mean we have been able to land on the moon Transform Me atoms to agents of immense destruction travel faster than the speed of sound but we
have not been able to come up with a political pellin to remedy the condition of an a condition that we ourselves have created as events by the Treaty of lolio and the birth of the modern State you know so State therefore we say and you have Kenneth Waltz here and and here in I want to go over the work of several leading lights of realism and more contemporary ones Kenneth Waltz one of them hunts morgant another and mm in order to understand how categories of War and Peace have been construed here Kenneth Waltz the the
the realist theorist who has given arguable arguably the most systematic attention to the puzzle of warfare speaks about it states in the world are like individuals in the state of nature states in the world are like individuals in in the state of nature and then he concludes they're never controlled by law so the principle of Anarchy cannot be transcended to the International System or at the international level at that level there is a condition of of a Perpetual war of everyone against everybody else he calls it KET Walt's International state of nature I come back
to the actual cult player International state of nature so Anarchy in this sense become the fundamental fact of international relations Robert Jervis for example speaks about it and Robert art Anarchy as the fundamental fact of international relations you see they're all commenting on this John mme John Meiner speaking about Anarchy too in the anarchic world of international relations he wrote it is less to be Godzilla than Bambi in the anarchic world of international relations it's best to be Godzilla than Bambi her in order for you to understand how global politics is reduced to a Disney
like Enterprise or a cartoon like Enterprise you have to understand how they understand how the realists understand the category of politics in relation to science itself H Mor politics is an art and not a science you know just like that politics is an art and not a science it is that kind of observation that gives them the green light to conceive international relations as a battlegr between Godzilla and Bambi such knowledge fundamentalism at war with science linguistically repressive epistemically resistant to change intellectually unsound theoretically Warr violently masculine and and irly opposed to the cause of
global peace really is is then sanction by the concept of power which is understood as this category as this concept that is unrelenting brutal and and corrupt in its scope and capacity and in the real school of thought power is understood as a a biological category a biological imperative that is all about a universal urge to survive it is the greatest commodity you can have in international relations or for the state have to have in international relations when they speak about power mimer and morgant speak about it as the ultimate aim of international politics in
that you get the sense that international relations is reduced to a struggle for power and nothing else and also the immediate aim of international politics when you speak about power power is never given to you in this theoretical order of things it must be acquired actively pursued you must go after acquiring power because nobody gives it to you it's it's a it's a kind of relational entity you always have to gge to gain it in relation to other counterparts that is to say in relation to other states it is not or never readily available to
you as such and so in this because power is elevated as the immediate aim of international politics power in and of itself becomes about survival why because there is a jungle like condition of Anarchy that we have conceived to say or we have conceived to be non-trc it cannot be transcended we have decidedly decided for that point but at this juncture in history it is inevitable that we need something like a global Sovereign if you're are really serious about or if we have the political will to mitigate Warfare that would come about I am almost
con convinced out of either Global elaboration or a global like or I should say another Global like catastrophe but that power is about survival has everything to do with that you need to have in a condition of Anarchy of course you need to gain a position of dominant power over all other states again because states are the building unit so the focus is on the state you need to develop a position or you need to gain a position of dominant power over all other states because having having dominant power ensure survival your first task is
to survive for otherwise what good is prosperity what good is development if you cannot survive in an anarchical international environment in Anarchy survival becomes the key and the key to gaining it is power having a dominant position of power relative to your counterparts in relation to other states and so here another principle is exalted and that is a condition that is called self-help International System is predicated upon the principle of self uh self hope why because in Anarchy there is always uncertainty you don't know what's going to happen to you down the road you don't
know who will be allying against you down the road in a condition of energy and so International System is conceived as a Perpetual domain that is replete with uncertainty really and so here and and mimer has written about it states must must remain Vigilant he wrote states must remain Vigilant and never never subordinate survival to any other goal and I'm coding him including Prosperity like that that states must remain Vigilant and never subordinate survival to any other goal including Prosperity I mean so far as this pernicious knowledge relation informs Global practices look no further than
how North Korea is conducting itself the population is starving but the North Korean state is is increasing the awesome might of its nuclear arsenals on a continuous basis all we need to do is to Resort back to m sher's h that states must remain Vigilant and never subordinate survival to any other goal including Prosperity forget about prosperity of your nation have become collateral damage in this case survival is the key and the key to survive is your military might and so a selfhelp mentality according to Kenneth Walt they're all pitching in here on on this
notion of self-help a self-help mentality dominates or should or must dominate because those who do not help themselves end up suffering and by suffering he means sees to exist and so how do you how do you help yourself here how do states help themselves the key concept here is security uh to the point that because the category of the state is exalted as the main unit in international relations studies State interests national interests and the idea of self-interest become much the same thing that in order to survive you need to acquire power and perhaps here
I should add the military power is understood as the most important power resource in global politics the most important power resource in global politics it's about counting guns is what it is that's how War prone the understanding is that if you want to become more secure you have to manufacture more guns because military power is the most important power resource in global politics that can ensure your survival if no other reason so that's how you can help yourself and so in in in anery so goes the argument security becomes the highest end here so in
this sense a militarized national security Paradigm would ensue here that is that is or perpetuates a a a global arms race look no for than how much the United States spent on its military just this past year in 2023 mind modling 916 billion dollar to understand how these ideas literally inform policy practices how these pernicious ideas inform warmongering understanding of global politics and so we come back again to the point it's it's a recycling of power here glorifying power as this thing that merily dominates and exploits it it never produces it does it doesn't it
never does anything useful it just destructs that's the kind of power that we have come up with and theorized and exported to policy practices you see so states must gain a position of dominant power because having dominant power ensures survival uh M speaking here states must gain a position of dominant power it is the global arms relace literally and practically because having dominant power ensures survival so therefore with the self self-help mentality and we're now getting close to the question of warfare here with the self-help mentality predicated upon the Relentless pursuit of maximizing power in
order to survive creates a Perpetual condition or I should say another Perpetual condition Anarchy is one but here is another one and it is called security dilemma it is called The Dilemma it is important to point out because it can never be solved or resolved hence why we call it dilemma it's perpetual under the status quo in international relations of course a security dilemma you need to REM remember these two injunctions that military power is the most significant power resource in politics and that states must gain a position of dominant power over all others because
having dominant power ensures survival now a security dilemma kicks in because the self-help mentality predicated upon the condition of uncertainty leads to maximization or increase in your power as a state you must do everything you can to have leverage over all others and that leverage again is counted in the number of guns you have but instead of bringing about a more secure world you see the increasing insecurity of Global Security because it leads to a security dilemma here where we're talking about a dead end situation in security dilemma where the actions taken by estate to
increase its security leads to the insecurity of one or several other states which in turns decreases the level of security globally so because let's focus on on on the Global's arms race military power you know this this manifestation of uh Power politics in international relations let's focus on that because military power is the most significant power resource in global politics and because the logic goes you need to uh gain a position of dominant power over all others the original state what does it do I need to increase my security in order to survive how would
I do that I would take up my military might up and Notch now one or several other states are looking and and they feel insecure here because more guns are acquired here and they need to do the same same thing but they cannot just match it because the logic is about gaining a position of dominant power we can take it up a notch now the original state feels even more insecure and does the same thing and the same thing and the same thing we literally have some insecure Personalities in States when you're insecure you're controlling
when you're insecure you're compulsive when you're insecure you're obsessive when you're insecure you're obsessively compulsive you lack confidence you look for trouble you're prone to conflict and now we enter this domain that is called political psychology and I say we have some deeply insecure Personalities in States here in lies a receed for catastrophe because War becomes and we finally get to the point of warfare because here War becomes an undeniable and recurring feature of global politics kenet wals writes about it the security dilemma continues and and warfare comes into play uh because there are miscalculations
and so Warfare in this sense becomes a recurring aspect of global politics um a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy really you know and and now how Warfare is understood here see your eyes and turned into a matter of policy let's go over the rhetoric in particular kenet and here John mimer it starts with recycling the hsian notion of state of nature and and who we are as human beings conflict prone nasty rudish self-interested you know it is as if this is all that defines us there is no hope about us that kind of a mentality that
there is no possibility of improvement the understanding of the past present and future in much the same light that's all you get here but starts with the point that states in the world are like individuals in the state of nature conflict prone nasty brish which really is all about the condition of a war of everyone against everybody else and so Walts continued that therefore the locus of the important causes of war is found in the nature and behavior of men and because human beings and states are likened as much the same entity whatever characteristics we
exhibit in being self-interested nasty and rudish is also exhibited by the state so goes the argument you know that that kind of an idea and so the Crux of the matter has to do with who the states are it's just their that way and there is nothing you can do about it and so now you get to an explanation of warfare with many sovereign states with no enforceable laws among them kenet wal WR in his seminal man State and War conflict leading to war is just bound to occur in a condition of Anarchy war is
a normalized activity and so here there is a Nostradamus like kind of Prophecy that is given to you in M mimer here that the cycle of violence will continue into the New Millennium and and hope for peace and prosperity will probably not be realized he you know that kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy it is like you're you're you're wearing a gloomy like lens about the world and this is how you see it how can you see it any other differently you see and so what I'm trying to suggest here is that there is a mode
of knowledge fundamentalism embedded in this school of thought a kind of knowledge fundamentalism that exalts Warfare as the chief object and and and subject of analysis and and policy practice Vis are V peace what I'm trying to say is that there is a kind of knowledge domination embedded in the school of thought that is about csing us to submit to the Timeless conditionality of war and and in order to understand this I want to give you a linguistic interpretation of how War peace relationship is articulated in Kenneth Walt's seminal work man State and War man
State and War how he linguistically orders War and Peace relationship in this case by exalting War to the detriment of a lasting Global Peace and he starts with the axal that war and the threat of War he wrote in his seminal work man State and war war and the threat of War stimulate speculation upon the condition of Peace War and the threat of War stimulate specul ation upon the condition of Peace linguistically ordering Warfare in in in this way or patterning ensures that rather than peace it is war that is conceived and I want you
to be here with me rather than peace it is war that is conceived as that which can promote the internal Unity of the state it is mindboggling how unity and War are associated with each other here and is wordss War and the threat of War stimulate speculation upon the condition of Peace leading to the fact that war promotes the internal Unity of each state peace is excluded here but what is much more mindboggling here is that war and unity are associated with one another an observer once wrote uh the well-being of humankind its peace and
security cannot be achieved until and unless its Unity is firmly established but it seems like here we're getting a distorted version of reality that that somehow war is related to this means that only after only after war is conceived as the overarching truth about the conditionality of human beings only after war is understood as a Timeless condition of human beings and our environment only after its practice as a matter of State policy is conceived to be natural normal and habitual we can only then say that here it is in war there is no Victory but
only various degrees of defeat only then kenet wals tells us that the real interests of all people are fored by peace rather than war and you see the contradictions here if if in war there is no Victory but only various degrees of defeat then how can it lead to the internal Unity of the state the Manifest discourse in in international politics therefore is really no more than the repressive presence of what it does not say in this case about condemnation of war and and this not set is a hollow that undermines from within all that
is said about peace and and once peace once war is is conceived as the uh truth of reality a Perpetual condition of human beings and and its environment it's it's uh knowledge uh normalized as a habitual and and practice the the project of theorizing in in international relation studies really comes to an end in which or by which I mean there are no more empirically substantive statements evidence or knowledge relations that might question it the will to knowledge is suppressed here in that uh uh all we can say is just to confirm to the Timeless
conditionality of War hence kenet Walt's axom that International politics is is a realm in which anything goes his words so there is international politics is a realm in which anything goes search for no more things and there is an ending in the theoretical order of War peace relationship in in international relations at this point all we can imagine postulates Stanley halfman are really Oasis of real peace uh the time must come I have no doubt the time must come when those who preach the the the the Dogma the false god of realism will be held
into account for their political moral and intellectual stewardship uh the contribution of their theories to the gods of Global Peace is the normalization of a Perpetual armed race baptized as a means of human salvation their incense the anguish of War tone Nations their incantations a Timeless message of War accompanied by warn out Insidious axioms their sacrifice the endless desolation of mothers and fathers whose Offspring never returned from the battlefield they venerate the nation and Dey the state and so doing so exalt both above Humanity very disenchanted and agonized a harass Humanity looks on as hsian
institutions plunge the world deeper into a state of an anxiety we are right at the end of the lecture everyone and uh the floor is open I understand that some of you have questions so please
