马克思主义和自由主义研究

国家政治应该如何，大家众说纷纭。虽然自由主义和马克思主义在整个名族国家盛行，在国际政治舞台上，冲突连续不断的情况下，合作，相互依存和霸权主义将有助于缓解紧张的政治局势。

然而，现实主义不否认合作，霸权，和相互依存的可能性，这些选择都不会持续很久，而这样做的原因只是存在人的本性中。几乎每个人天生具有权力意志，这实际上意味着，伟大的权力是由一心想主宰自己国家的人主导的。（米尔斯海默，2007：72）

卢梭指出，“如果和谐是在无政府状态存在，，不仅要我是完全理性的并且能够承担，其他人也一样。（华尔兹2001：169）在这篇文章中，我认为理性的问题不会在国际政治中存在；民族国家不信任对方，这种恐惧是持久的，因此民族国家必须警惕，并采取措施维护自己的利益，而不是允许他人这样做。

There are divergent views about how the international politics should be. While the liberals and the classic Marxist felt other than seeing the individual nation-states as the anchor of authority in international arena thereby resulting in continuous conflicting situation, cooperation, interdependence and hegemony will help ease off the tension inherent in the system. 

Realism while not denying the possibility of co-operation, hegemony, and interdependence, states however, that these options do not last and the reason for this are simply found in the nature of man. "Virtually everyone is born with a will to power hardware into them, which effectively means that great powers are led by individuals who are bent on having their state dominate its rivals".(Mearsheimer, 2007:72)

As Rousseau states, "if harmony is to exist in anarchy, not only must I be perfectly rational but must be able to assume that everyone else is too". (waltz 2001:169). In this essay, I am going to argue that the issue of rationality does not exist in international politics; nation states do not trust each other, the continuous fear of one taking advantage of the other is perpetual and so nation state must watch and take such advantage of situation which to it is in her own interest rather than allowing another do so.

Realism can be viewed as an explanation of the human condition regardless of what others considered to be pessimistic nature of that view point. According to Gilpin (1986:290), all realist writers, are they neo, classical, structural, share three basic assumptions pertaining politics. These assumptions are: Firstly, they all believe that the international arena is chaotic and lack any form of central government as it is in nation states and as a result of this, it is in a state of "anarchy." Secondly, they all share the view that the nucleus of 'social reality' is the group, with the emphasis that the individuals are merely a building block of the said social group unlike what the liberals and the classical Marxist will have us believe. And thirdly, all realist writers believe the supremacy of power is security and the core foundation of all motivation. This however, did not jettison the importance of beauty, truth and goodness to human kind. The realist emphasis here is that all these more noble goals will amount to nothing without security and power to sustain them. (Keohane 1986:304-305).

Be that as it may, our major concern here is to critically assess realism's conceptualisation of 'the state' as the principal actor in international relations. Realism seems to have direct answer to the challenges of order and effective central control in international relations. Lebow opined that the arena, that is international, is a brutish one where every state seizes every opportunity to its own advantage undermining if necessary, the interest of others. And for the state to do this it relies on her own means and capabilities and alliances with others which she thinks serves her interest. (Lebow 2007:55). This notion was equally echoed in the writings of Waltz (2001:191-192) when Rousseau uses the allegory of the stag-hurt and the hare. Here, he depicts man in the state of nature where everyone will think of himself first ahead of other's interest even if that other's interest would have been to the general good of all.

The general idea of sovereignty simply means the principal source of authority in the society or community. (Haggue, Harrop 2007:16). What this portends here is that the nation-state is the highest and final arbiter and according to the realists, there are no supra powers in international arena challenging the sovereignty of individual nation- states.

The realists believe that establishing of moral principles that justify the nation-state surrendering part of its sovereignty to a superior body in the international arena is unattainable; this philosophy of realism earned it pessimistic posture. What this amplifies is that state has to completely depend on her strength and strategic positioning to navigate her way through the maze called international arena to ensure her survival. (Baylis, Smith, Owens, 2008:93).

Morgenthau (1984:156) states "the main bulk of the rules of international laws own its existence to the sovereignty of the individual nations" and the main reason was not to contain the powers of the individual nations rather to enhance their powers in relation to other nations. He further stressed that this continuous conflicting and problematic situation in the international arena is as a result of the unending quest of "human lust" as he puts it for power. While realism emphasises on the mistrust, fear and disharmony in the international arena for reasons why the nation-states should continue to play the leading role in order for it to safeguard her interest, liberalism or idealism emphasises that international norms, interdependence among state and internal cooperation will help douse off such fears and mistrust.

What the critics of the non-realists sort to do, is "reinterpreting sovereignty". According to Keohane( 1986a :24 in Tim Dunne) "challenging the validity of the state as actor" .(Baldwin 1993:1). He Baldwin (ibid: 5) however pointed out that both the realist and the liberals agree on the importance and significance of cooperation amongst nation-states , the arena of divergent is on the sustainability of cooperation. The realists, neo or classical, believe that "it is harder to achieve," more difficult to maintain and dependent on state power". The whole issue of the states to sustain cooperation takes us back to the nature of man from the example given in Waltz (2001:167-168). Dishonesty, mistrust, is a feature of international politics, for the institutions set up to oversee these issues are usually weak and readily taken advantage of by the more powerful nations in the arena. How many times have the five permanent members of the Security Council agreed on anything? Often times than not, sanctions fail because one out of the five members disagreeing with others because the choice made was not to her national interest. According to Axelrod and Keohane (1993:85) "harmony requires complete identity of interest". In the case of international politics, disharmony abounds, so the state has to step up her acts to be heard and to stand out.

One other aspect of policy formulation that could help the problem brought about by anarchy in the international politics is the interdependence of states claimed the liberals and idealists. Interdependence according to Keohane and Nye (2001:5), "affects world politics and the behaviour of states," however, governments actions of the nation-state involved equally influence patterns of interdependence". This sense of reasoning is so because interdependence does not simply imply that nation-states involved have some sort of mutual benefit.

The intricacy of interdependence shows that some nations involved could gain more than others all depending on how strategic the particular issues the nations are depending on each other for are (ibid :9). Interdependence was supposed to help tighten the effect of cooperation but as events shows, nation-state will always act in what is in their own best interest than getting involved in issues that will not be to their advantage. Furthermore, the realist believe that military rather than non military problems will continue to take the top shot for the states even those non-military problems which are secondary in this sense will only come up because of" their politico-military implications" (ibid:25).

The non-realists have tried to downplay the issue of the economy as an area that the realists have not put into consideration in its analysis of how best to keep the nation-state secure. They (non-realists) particularly, take on Thucydides and Morgenthau for the non-mention of the subject in their works, this assertion has however been refuted by Gilpin (1993:294) "contrary to Ashley's allegations, economic aspects of international relations have always been a major concern of realist writers".

Further to Gilpin's statement, it is now an open secret that when states decided to overlook the activities and approaches of the private actors, for example, the banks and other financial institutions, the consequences of such act do always have far reaching impact on the security and stability of nation-state as was recently witnessed in the world financial meltdown of which many are still grappling with.

There were suggestions from some quarters in the West that the state should allow the economy events of the time take its course, suggesting that the state should not intervene but we now know from the benefit of hindsight that the only remedy was the timely state intervention, not only for her home-state but giving stability even to states that the way out of the quagmire was long way in sight. Though the control limits of private firms differ from country to country, the involvement of big firms not under the direct control of the state has become a norm (ibid:22). This however, could have devastating effect as we have observed earlier. No one puts it more directly like Gilpin when he states "whereas economists regard markets as self-regulating mechanisms isolated from political affairs, specialists in INTERNATIONAL POLITICAL ECONOMY are interested in the fact that the world economy has a considerable impact on power, values, and political autonomy of nation-states". (Gilpin 2001:77). And no one is more aware of this fact than the state that will do all within its power to regulate the market to its advantage.

Terrorists are non-state actors, being groups of individual unleashing their frustration on other freer societies than theirs with the intention to disturb the way of life of that society under attack. I however, beg to differ, with due respect to Mearsheimer where he observed that "realists do not have a lot to say about terrorism". The point here is that terrorists are private army in the arsenal of the states that cannot by themselves stand against other states they considered as threat. Barnaby (2007:24) did mention the president of the US, George W. Bush in the state of the union address on the 29th January,2002as being the first to describe the government that are sponsors of terrorists as "axis of evil". This statement in my view shows that terrorist(s) groups do not operate on their own but on behalf of states that chose unconventional methods to execute war. Terrorism as we all know presents a very big threat to all democratic societies.

The approach of dealing with terrorism differs significantly between an authoritarian regime and a liberal society. Whereas the former will do all within its powers to uproot the menace from its borders, the later however will rely on the rule of law in doing so. According to chalk in (Barnaby 2007:57) "Any liberal response to terrorism has to rest on one overriding maxim; a commitment to uphold and maintain the rule of law". He further stressed that "terrorism can be minimised, if not entirely eliminated, by any state that is prepared to use their fullest extent the entire range of coercive powers at its disposal".

States whether liberal or authoritarian will indeed want to use such force at its disposal. The method again differs for while authoritarian regime with reckless abandon, the liberals will simply send forces to those flash points as is evident in the US and Britain's operation in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East. For in this jungle,(international arena), states will take every necessary step to protect its interest no matter that step may cost. Waltz (2001:173) states, "the end of the state is the preservation and prosperity of its members".

There has been tremendous change in the world since the times of Thucydides what has not changed however is the hostility. Take for example, technology advancement has made the entire globe smaller than it once was, Americans would care nothing about Afghanistan as some sort of security threat. According to Ignatieff (2003:21),"Nowhere after all, could have been more distant than Afghanistan, yet it was in this remote and desperate place that the attacks of 9/11 were prepared. Terror has collapse distance and with this collapse has come sharpened forces in imperial capital on the necessity of bringing order to the barbarian zones".

The international system as Brown and Ainley (2005:42) put it is a "self- help system". Since they cannot trust their security to anyone else, they have to do all within their power to secure themselves and to see other nation-states not on the same page with them interest wise as potential threat. Realists do not deny the potentials of other actors as the liberals or the non-realists will have us believe. It is a common knowledge that the Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs) though private, do work wherever they are to further the interest of their home-land. These so called private actors actually act as proxy for the governments. The state is equally as involved in financing their programmes and when problems and challenges arise while discharging their duties; it is always the state that will be in the fore- front for their rescue.

In conclusion, I will like to submit thus: that realism, though termed pessimist because of its stand to present unequivocally international political situation "as it is" rather than "what it ought to be", the facts however remains that the "state" is the principal actor in international politics. This is the so because there are lots at stake for the state to pretend that the suggestions made as a way of inhibiting the anarchical nature of international system will suddenly demystify reality and make others in the system rational especially with all the forms of threats ranging from chemical terrorism, Christian fundamentalist terrorism, cyber terrorism, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism... (Barnaby 2007:42-55). If the states were to act in line with the liberals' agenda, economy advancement and social development presently experienced will amount to nothing. It could be logical then for one to ask if this craze for world political harmony is not just another ploy by the dominant "states" of the world to further dominate others all in the name of peace and harmony that we all know will never exist. (Carr :75) For as long as some have in abundance and others do not, the prospect of world peace and harmony will continue to be a mirage. For this singular reason, maintaining a balance in how states operate in international politics will be significant to the states' survival, "for when the forces of disequilibrium sets in, the possibility of a decline is just a matter of time". (Kissinger 2001:43).