If you are debating intervention in Syria ...

[Pangur Bán]

This is true, I think.

Perhaps because the media are more interested in Audimat, or viewing figures, than they are in disseminating information.

So, what's a good introductory international power politics book?

Where to start? In a sense introdutory IR / diplomacy books will only help so much, because they usually analyse international institutions, and present a series of simplistic monocausal 'schools of thought' on such issues. But as Gucumatz said, the best thing is to read is often what the people themselves say to each other in private where this is documented, which you'll find in any relevant journal article or, indeed, inl high-quality studies in written media--remembering that the people responsible are not usually politicians, who often just follow what they are 'advised'/pressured to do, but instead well-placed diplomatic, intelligence and security officials, as well industrial and corporate leaders and their officials, who pressurise and advise governtment services, and so on. Also, reading something like the two Mitrokhin Archive volumes is a good way of understanding just how different the real world is to that depicted by the press-release-orientated PR-slaves of the media.

 

[Borachio]

Just read some of the "professed masters" of Realpolitik. Start with Kissinger. Read about people like Bismarck, Metternich, etc.

Also there are always policy books released each year that no one buys from former analysts, check those out

I'm not sure I'd trust Kissinger to tell the truth. As for Bismark and Metternich I'd really like something a bit more modern (come to think of it, isn't Kissinger rather passe, too?), interesting though I'm sure those are.

What do you think of http://www.amazon.com/Policy-Paradox-Political-Decision-Revised/dp/0393976254/ref=pd_sim_b_2? Just what a pretty much random trawl through amazon has turned up.

On the other hand, while I'm sure spymaster stuff is all very interesting, I'm not so sure it's not marginal to realpolitik. I get the impression those guys shoot themselves, and each other, in the foot as often as not.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Read Fidel: My Life. That's more modern and has much about his diplomacy.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Rashiminos]

I'm not sure I'd trust Kissinger to tell the truth.

Neither would I, but he keeps getting consulted from time to time.

 

[Dachs]

Hm, is there any PM/President that stepped down "when the people asked him to"?

Nixon?

Just read some of the "professed masters" of Realpolitik. Start with Kissinger. Read about people like Bismarck, Metternich, etc.

Also there are always policy books released each year that no one buys from former analysts, check those out

Professed by whom? Idiots? And what is "Realpolitik" even supposed to mean in this context?

 

[Lord Baal]

I'm not sure I agree with you about this post. Not that I really know any better, but I have a hunch that while he was certainly shoring up his power base with the radical reforms, I also think his (and the Brotherhoods) main goal was to act on their agenda. This agenda had been oppressed for decades - and they thought they had a mandate from god to set up a theocracy something along the lines of what the Ayatollahs have in Iran. I'm don't even know if they considered that they were overreaching - after all, nothing that's done in the name of god can be an overreach, right?

That inference is certainly plausible. The difficulty is always knowing exactly what is going on inside a head-of-state's head when they make their decisions. There are often two or three different interpretations of the same action that all make sense. Usually you get to extrapolate based on their other decisions, but Mursi didn't last long enough for that.

Nixon?

He was kind of backed into a corner first, wouldn't you say?

Professed by whom? Idiots? And what is "Realpolitik" even supposed to mean in this context?

Now be fair, Dachs. Kissinger may not have been terribly bright, but he did achieve his diplomatic goals. It's unfortunate that those goals were stupid. Bismarck was an excellent politician, until he decided to deliberately sabotage the treaty with Russia in order to increase his own importance - and if it had worked, it would have ensured he remained in power, which is all he ever gave a damn about - and Metternich was talented enough. Castlereagh was better, but Metternich didn't lose his mind and slit his own throat, so that's a point in his favour.

You're completely right about realpolitick not actually working in this context under its accepted definition though.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

You're completely right about realpolitick not actually working in this context under its accepted definition though.

Admittedly, I don't know much of the exact parameters of "realpolitik" as it is quite uncommon in the US to use the term, but is it nearly the same thing as "realism"?

I believe his point was that people need to look at things from a more realistic perspective and that reading on the matter would help people gain an understanding of it.

So is an understanding of "realpolitik" not useful for the situation in Syria...? I'm confused.

EDIT:

He was kind of backed into a corner first, wouldn't you say?

I would, but I would consider the "backing into a corner" to be pressure from the people.

 

[Lord Baal]

Admittedly, I don't know much of the exact parameters of "realpolitik" as it is quite uncommon in the US to use the term, but is it nearly the same thing as "realism"?

I believe his point was that people need to look at things from a more realistic perspective and that reading on the matter would help people gain an understanding of it.

So is an understanding of "realpolitik" not useful for the situation in Syria...? I'm confused.

Realism (with a capital 'R') is a separate, but somewhat related, international relations theory. It is itself broken into several sub-theories. I personally subscirbe to Stephen Walt's "Balance of Threat" Neo-Realist doctrine.

Realpolitick is probably best described as a pragmatic foreign policy that is devoid of ideology, where the only goal is the increase of one's state's or one's own power and/ or security. A head-of-state which practiced realpolitick would sign a treaty one day and break it the next if it was to their benefit. Joseph Stalin is likely the single best example in the twentieth century of a successful practitioner of realpolitick, but once again he was ideological, he just happened to profit from that ideology.

Bismarck is somewhat legendary for his practice of realpolitick, but it is often wrongly assumed that everything he did was for Prussia's benefit or to achieve some over-arching goal of German unity. In practice, Bismarck was simply out to increase his own personal power. He was also somewhat ideological, though his ideology happened to work in his favour in most circumstances so people discount its actual effect on his actions.

Most nations attempt to practice a combination of realpolitick and Kenneth Waltz's Neo-Realist doctrine of a balance-of-power based on security (though most heads-of-state likely know nothing about either theory, they're just doing what seems to work most of the time and what everybody else is doing) but considering Waltz's theory is hogwash this doesn't really work. In practice, vested interests often steer a foreign policy in completely non-Realist directions. Liberalist doctrine is especially popular in the US, with Bill Clinton's neo-Wilsonian attitudes being the foremost example.

Realpolitick would work in regards to the Syrian situation, but first one would have to posit a goal for the foreign policy in question before one could determine the best method of achieving that goal through realpoltick.

EDIT:

I would, but I would consider the "backing into a corner" to be pressure from the people.

It was more from Congress, really.

 

[Wrymouth3]

And what is "Realpolitik" even supposed to mean in this context?

I think what was meant was that Weltpolitik is the big thing everyone is talking about these days.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I would, but I would consider the "backing into a corner" to be pressure from the people.

Nixon didn't resign until it was clear he would have been convicted during his impeachment.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Nixon didn't resign until it was clear he would have been convicted during his impeachment.

Right. Also, the USSR threatened a cruise missile attack if he didn't stop bombing Cambodia.

Right?

Maybe not.

If, however, anyone thinks that the US did not intervene in Egypt, remember the US gives $1.5 billion annually to the Egyptian military.

Sent via mobile.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Realism (with a capital 'R') is a separate, but somewhat related, international relations theory. It is itself broken into several sub-theories. I personally subscirbe to Stephen Walt's "Balance of Threat" Neo-Realist doctrine.

Realpolitick is probably best described as a pragmatic foreign policy that is devoid of ideology, where the only goal is the increase of one's state's or one's own power and/ or security. A head-of-state which practiced realpolitick would sign a treaty one day and break it the next if it was to their benefit. Joseph Stalin is likely the single best example in the twentieth century of a successful practitioner of realpolitick, but once again he was ideological, he just happened to profit from that ideology.

Bismarck is somewhat legendary for his practice of realpolitick, but it is often wrongly assumed that everything he did was for Prussia's benefit or to achieve some over-arching goal of German unity. In practice, Bismarck was simply out to increase his own personal power. He was also somewhat ideological, though his ideology happened to work in his favour in most circumstances so people discount its actual effect on his actions.

Most nations attempt to practice a combination of realpolitick and Kenneth Waltz's Neo-Realist doctrine of a balance-of-power based on security (though most heads-of-state likely know nothing about either theory, they're just doing what seems to work most of the time and what everybody else is doing) but considering Waltz's theory is hogwash this doesn't really work. In practice, vested interests often steer a foreign policy in completely non-Realist directions. Liberalist doctrine is especially popular in the US, with Bill Clinton's neo-Wilsonian attitudes being the foremost example.

Thanks for the clarification on the difference.

It was more from Congress, really.

Even though it wasn't necessarily doing it there (I don't know much Nixon's approval ratings at the time) but you know, Congress represents and imposes the will of the people and all that

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

If, however, anyone thinks that the US did not intervene in Egypt, remember the US gives $1.5 billion annually to the Egyptian military.

Considering the Egyptian military holds ultimate power in Egypt and the government mainly just works for them, providing the military consistently with funding is not necessarily an intervention.

 

[Dachs]

He was kind of backed into a corner first, wouldn't you say?

That's the point.

Now be fair, Dachs. Kissinger may not have been terribly bright, but he did achieve his diplomatic goals. It's unfortunate that those goals were stupid. Bismarck was an excellent politician, until he decided to deliberately sabotage the treaty with Russia in order to increase his own importance - and if it had worked, it would have ensured he remained in power, which is all he ever gave a damn about - and Metternich was talented enough. Castlereagh was better, but Metternich didn't lose his mind and slit his own throat, so that's a point in his favour.

You're completely right about realpolitick not actually working in this context under its accepted definition though.

Eh. Not really my point.

1. Realpolitik is a poorly defined term that is most often used for "hard-nosed" or "ruthless" diplomacy, as though that even means anything.
2. It is also applied embarrassingly inconsistently, such that Bismarck was supposedly a practitioner of Realpolitik while Gladstone supposedly was not. It is applied both to men who claimed that moralistic principles meant nothing in diplomacy compared to power relationships (like Kissinger) and to men who claimed the opposite (like Metternich). It means everything to everybody, and in the process means nothing to anybody.
3. This problem is exacerbated by people who associate Realpolitik purely with diplomats who are regarded as having been skillful practitioners of the art of international relations. Hence the "idiots" line.
4. I'm not totally sure that an understanding of Concert diplomacy or of Bismarck's Circus-Rider of Europe shtick will meaningfully assist anybody to work their way through the myriad of modern diplomatic relationships anyway. How much does the Dreikaiserbund tell anybody about NATO? Nothing at all.

For the record, I regard both Bismarck and Metternich as excellent diplomats. I don't really know if Kissinger was any good but I strongly dislike his constructions of diplomatic history. (I also tend to dislike self-professed Realists on principle because Realism sucks donkey balls, regardless of which particular brand somebody happens to be professing at any given time.) So the comment wasn't about the particular diplomats Gucumatz named, and more about how Realpolitik is stupid.

 

[Rashiminos]

Considering the Egyptian military holds ultimate power in Egypt and the government mainly just works for them, providing the military consistently with funding is not necessarily an intervention.

How so?

1. Realpolitik is a poorly defined term that is most often used for "hard-nosed" or "ruthless" diplomacy, as though that even means anything.

A term which made reference to amorality (with morality being a pretext when it's invoked) in foreign policy actions would probably be closer.

EDIT: Uh, that was directed at Dachs, and I somehow forgot to quote him.

You could have said both.

 

[Lord Baal]

The problem is mainly that there really isn't any agreed-upon definition for realpolitick. It's usually classed as simply 'bing good at diplomacy,' but often the effects of a diplomatic policy aren't actually clear until years, or even decades after the fact. You converted me a long time ago to the idea that the victory of the German Confederation over France in the Franco-Prussian War was actually a net loss for Bismarck's Prussian regime, since it didn't allow Bismarck the central power he wanted over the new German state.

If one accepts realpolitick as pure pragmatism, which is the definition most-often used by IR theorists, the term is useful, but only if one has an actual goal to work towards pragmatically. It's also somewhat redundant, as you could just call the policy in question 'pragmatic' and be done with it.

Kissinger was a shockingly good diplomat, actually, It was a theorist that he was rubbish, and since he conducted his diplomacy according to those same theories... Well, you get the picture. He achieved all his goals, it just so happens that all his achievements meant absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

Realism is a useful IR doctrine - or rather, several Neo-Realist theories, such as Hedley Bull's 'Anarchich Society' theory and Stephen Walt's 'Balance-of-Threat' theory are useful - but you'd be very hard-pressed to find a modern IR theorist who believes that Realism or Neo-Realism adequately explain geopolitical relations. Balance-of-Threat is by far the closest, and even Walt has stated that it works merely because it speaks to the "perceived interests" of a state, rather than its actual interests, as most other realist doctrines claim they can do. If Walt ever tried to expand the theory beyond 'states try to limit threats to their own security in whichever way they think is best' it would break down very quickly. It also avoids even trying to explain the occasional national suicide that takes place, like Germany in WWII and Paraguay in the War of the Triple Alliance, since you can't explain crazy. You need a combination of the many different IR theories to explain state behaviour on an international scale, and most theorists have realised that by now.

EDIT: Uh, that was directed at Dachs, and I somehow forgot to quote him.

 

[Rashiminos]

If one accepts realpolitick as pure pragmatism, which is the definition most-often used by IR theorists, the term is useful, but only if one has an actual goal to work towards pragmatically. It's also somewhat redundant, as you could just call the policy in question 'pragmatic' and be done with it.

The type of pragmatism or realism so espoused does not absolve their practitioners from wishful thinking.

The problem is mainly that there really isn't any agreed-upon definition for realpolitick.

People acting in their own self-interests may have an interest in perverting the term for their own purposes.

 

[Commodore]

This is just more parroting of the same propaganda. In elections, people get elected with opposition. Obama got elected twice with nearly half the country voting against him. People in the US protest his government. Likewise, people protest Morsi. But the difference was that instead of just protesting his decisions, the military (who never wanted him anyway) overthrew and started killing both his supporters and the supporters of democracy. Just because the military claimed they were doing it in the name of the people, and just because the US backed this overthrow, doesn't mean anything. Of course they did. Neither wants Islamist rulers who weaken their authority.

All those words and you didn't refute or really even address a single point I brought up.

 

[Rashiminos]

I also guarantee I have access to a lot more accurate information on the matter than you by virtue of my former employment and friends that are still in that line of work.

He did say you were a propaganda parrot.

 

[Commodore]

He did say you were a propaganda parrot.

Oh silly me, I forgot that vetted intelligence reports are considered propaganda by the rabidly anti-US crowd these days.