National security is not determined in vacuum. It is underpinned by a variety of analytical languages which provide a conceptual framework upon which national security and foreign policy decisions are analyzed and explained. Whilst there are a plethora of analytical languages and theoretical perspectives, including Marxist, constructivist, idealist and liberal internationalist which provide competing explanations of world affairs, realist notions of state conflict and international relations have dominated foreign policy agendas and perceptions of national security.
Realism
The adoption of a unified realist theory is a difficult task given the existence of a variety of strands to such an approach but a core set of common values can be relied upon.The realist account of world affairs is centered on the notion that the state holds supreme power and authority which helps assure order and security “internally” for within states “human nature usually is tamed by hierarchical political authority and rule” (Waltz 1979 & Donnelly 2000). Realists claim that the “the state of nature is a state of war” which encourages the worst in human nature and results in states being forced to operate in total anarchy and chaos (Waltz 1979).
Realists take the view that other institutions and instruments, such as the United Nations and International Law, cannot be relied upon to secure peace and guarantee a state’s survival and security since in an anarchic order “self help is necessarily the principle of action” (Waltz 1979). Realists like Morgenthau oppose the use of a “legalistic” or “moralistic” approach to national security (Simpson 2005). They maintain that international law can only exist in circumstances where there is a balance of power between states (Jütersonke 2006). According to Oppenheim in circumstances where states cannot keep one another in check, no rules of law will have any force, since in a unipolar world the most powerful State will always act in accordance to its discretion and as such disobey the law (Jütersonke 2006).
Thucydides
The extent to which national security should be influenced by issues of “morality” and “law” has been the issue of serious debate amongst scholars and foreign policy officials alike. This issue was discussed in an exchange between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in 1793 where Jefferson maintained that the US was legally compelled to support France in its war against England whereas Hamilton maintained that no legal obligation could require the US to jeopardize its national interest (Moore 1973).
However, the inception of this debate is generally accredited to Athenian historian and political philosopher Thucydides (460 – c. 400 BC). Perceived by many scholars as the father of political realism, Thucydides raised the question whether the norms of morality and justice should prevail or dictate relations among states as opposed to power and brutal force. In his History of the Peloponnesian War Thucydides provides an account of the dialogue that took place between the representatives of Athens and those of the island of Melos just before the Athenians were to instigate an attack on the island (the Melian Dialogue).
The Athenians demanded Melian submission and royalties appealing to the reality that they were a superior military power and as such claiming that it was in the interest of the Melians to surrender to their demands. According to Thucydides, the Athenian’s articulated the belief that “the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept”.
The Melians rejected such argument themselves relying on the notion of decency and morality. It was their view that there is "such a thing as fair play and just dealing" and that they were standing "for what is right against what is wrong". Ultimately the Melians refused the Athenian demands and were defeated. This resulted in all male Melians of military age to be killed and all women and children sold as slaves.
Moral Chaos
The repeated failure of international law and the United Nations to deter and punish illegal wars of aggression (i.e. punishing Turkey for its illegal invasion and continuing military occupation of Cyprus) may, to some, give credence to the realist account of the world. However, the question remains whether such account should always endure or whether international society must finally recognize that to achieve peace all nations must adhere to the rule of law and common standards of morality. Lasting peace and stability cannot be achieved without justice, accountability and reconciliation for to borrow Dutch humanist Erasmus’s words, justice “restrains bloodshed, punishes guilt, defends possessions and keeps people safe from oppression”.
The History of the Peloponnesian War was written by Thucydides in Athens more than 2,500 years ago. It is time to re-visit the questions Thucydides first posed in this book and understand the dangerous practice of abandoning morality in international affairs. Moral chaos breeds an international society drunk with desire for more power and wealth ultimately leading to continual failure, misanthropy and brutality.
by Vasilis Giavris (Lawyer & Political Scientist)
http://vasilisgiavris.blogspot.com.au/
