Realism and Security: A Deep Dive into Classical and Neo-Realism
Realism and Security: A Deep Dive
Realism remains highly effective in explaining security-related issues. It presents two main varieties: classical realism and neo-realism.
Classical Realism
Classical realists assert that the survival of a state depends on its capacity to protect its population, institutions, or territory. Military capabilities are the main source of power, and can be used to pressure other states into taking actions that they would not have taken. They believe the pursuit of national security always takes precedence over ideological principles and motives. They assert the global security structure conditions (but does not always determine) the choices and behavior of security organizations and national leaders. State leaders often choose to go to war to maintain the balance of power between states or to establish a new configuration of power amongst the stronger members of the state system, in which dominant imperial powers tend to become the enemy of all others.
Neo-Realism
Neo-realists criticize classical realists for oversimplifying the motives of states. They assume that each state is a unitary and rational actor. Due to the absence of a singular governing authority regulating the global security structure (i.e., anarchy), states have the ability to employ force whenever they consider it necessary. This makes it impossible to guarantee the absolute security of any state, which in turn enforces states to prioritize security. Accordingly, states form alliances to protect themselves, creating a military power configuration. Neo-realists assert that a change in the global security structure occurs when there is a shift in the military and economic power capabilities of the states. Therefore, they focus on the significance of the global security structure over the role of individual actors. In contrast, classical realists focus on internal factors that influence a state’s behavior.
Phases of Global Security Developments
After World War II, there were a series of security developments in the global security structure that can be divided into three phases.
Phase 1: Cold War Bipolarity (1945-1973)
This phase was characterized by a bipolar distribution of power and wealth between the United States and the Soviet Union. The U.S. formed a military alliance with Western Europe and Canada —the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—; in contrast, the Soviet Union organized the Warsaw Pact alliance with Central and Eastern European socialist states. Each superpower tried to create political spheres of influence among newly independent African countries. The most intense crisis between them during the Cold War came with the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Afterward, mutually assured destruction (MAD) became one of the foundations of U.S. and Soviet national security policies and military strategies; it stated that no rational leader would start a war if the costs of engagement vastly outweighed the potential gains.
Phase 2: Weakening of Bipolarity (1973-1991)
By 1973, President Nixon’s National Security Adviser H. Kissinger believed that the international security order was shifting away from bipolarity to multipolarity due to the redistribution of political and economic power. A crucial part of multipolarity was a series of negotiations on arms control between the two superpowers, in order to maintain balance in nuclear weapons; they were known as the SALTs (Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty). The structural shift toward multipolarity continued through the presidencies of Carter, Reagan, and Bush. Carter made the advancement of human rights a fundamental principle of his foreign policy, which some interpreted as a rejection of realist values. Nevertheless, the second oil crisis of 1979, the Iranian Revolution, and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan (thus breaking one of the major rules of détente —peaceful coexistence—) presented challenges that forced Carter to set aside his focus on human rights. Reagan’s doctrine was characterized by a strong neo-liberalist and anticommunist sentiment. He fought to reclaim U.S. military, economic, and political supremacy over the Soviet Union. Therefore, the Reagan Doctrine implied a return to bipolarity. Nevertheless, Bush embraced multipolarity again.
Phase 3: Post-Cold War and Global Security Instability
This phase responds to the end of the Cold War and the global security structure instability, in which Bush finally discarded multilateralism. His neoconservative advisors wanted the U.S. to act unilaterally as a benevolent, morally-superior global hegemon, promoting democracy and capitalism. Globalization played a significant role in reshaping the global security system into a less structured system with more flexible rules and more non-state actors threatening security. By the mid-1990s, technological innovation had made conventional weapons more lethal. The 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon and the Twin Towers made terrorism substitute communism as the major threat. The Bush administration turned its attention to removing Saddam Hussein from power, arguing that he had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), although they were never found. In the end, Bush’s efforts to establish a unipolar hegemonic order were unsuccessful. During the Obama administration, the global security system continued to shift towards a multilateral structure between the three major nuclear superpowers —Russia, China, and the United States—, along with other nations including Germany, Great Britain, France, and Japan. In his first year in office in 2009, Obama reset relations with Russia. Nevertheless, when Putin won the 2012 presidential election, things changed; even though he shared an interest with the United States in fighting terrorism and preventing nuclear proliferation, he had reasons to resent the West. Putin wanted to reestablish Russia as a major power with a role in negotiating international political and economic issues, thus leading to the Crimean War. In addition, throughout the rest of Obama’s presidency, the Middle East continued to be a very violent region where scores of groups with religious, tribal, or national identities engaged in conflict (Arab Springs, ISIS, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Syria, mainly). Once Donald Trump —a nationalist with authoritarian leanings— got elected, he had to address a number of important issues along with the leaders of the other major powers, all related to the management of the global security system: North Korea’s nuclear weapons, Middle-East conflicts, the rise of China, Russia’s military actions, terrorism, cyber weapons, and global climate change.