Politics Among Nations

by Hans J. Morgenthau, Kenneth W. Thompson, David Clinton

Hans Morgenthau's classic text established realism as the fundamental way of thinking about international relations. Although it has had its critics, the fact that it continues to be the most long lived text for courses in international relations attests to its enduring value. Someone has said the study of international relations has for half a century been nothing so much as a dialogue between Morgenthau, those who embrace his approach, and those who turn elsewhere for enlightenment. After 50 years, the dialogue between Morgenthau and scholars from around the world continues more or less as in the past something with more intensity even in an "age of terror." The new edition preserves intact Morgenthau's original work while adding a 40 page introduction by the editors who explore its relevance for a new era. What follows the introduction are the perspectives of a dozen statesmen, scholars, and observers each offering insights on Morgenthau's concepts and ideas as they relate to current crises on every continent. They bring up to date the dialogue that began in 1948.

Genres: Politics, International Relations, Nonfiction, Political Science, History, Philosophy, Academic

752 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1948

About the author

Leading twentieth-century figures in the study of international politics. He made landmark contributions to international relations theory and the study of international law, and his Politics Among Nations, first published in 1948, went through many editions and was for decades the most-used textbook in its field in U.S. universities. In addition, Morgenthau wrote widely about international politics and U.S. foreign policy for general-circulation publications such as The New Leader, Commentary, Worldview, and The New Republic. He knew and corresponded with many of the leading intellectuals and writers of his era, such as Reinhold Niebuhr, George F. Kennan, and Hannah Arendt. At one point in the early Cold War, Morgenthau was a consultant to the U.S. Department of State when Kennan headed its Policy Planning Staff. For most of his career, however, Morgenthau was an academic critic of U.S. foreign policy rather than a formulator of it.

Reviews

[Clif · Rating 5 out of 5]

Can a textbook be good reading? YES!

This book has been used for centuries, well for decades anyway, as a college text. I checked at Amazon and, typical of textbooks, even used copies are pricey. Libraries typically do not have textbooks for the simple reason that any copies would always be checked out, hogged by some student wanting to save money.

My copy is the fifth edition dating to the late 1970's. I used the "look inside" feature on Amazon to see if the table of contents has changed and, not unexpectedly, there are major changes. This makes sense because the Cold War world is gone. That world was the one Morgenthau had to address in my edition. I'd love to compare the book I have with the work produced by those who have taken over for Morgenthau. I never took a course that required this book, it was purchased simply on the reputation it had (and still has).

Morganthau's ideas are the foundation of the realist school of international politics. The acquisition of power is the basis of behavior. Nations are either trying to protect what they have (status quo) or they are trying to add to what they have (imperialism). This all arises from the basic human desire to have power.

As individuals we express this desire for power in our daily lives, through advancement in our jobs, the collection of money, the purchase and display of things. Were it not for an authority over us (the government) some would always be taking from others in one way or another, the only protection being self-defense.

The central theme of Politics Among Nations is that there can be no overarching authority on the international scene that would provide the kind of domestic tranquility we enjoy within stable nations.

The reason there can be no such authority comes from the lack of a consensus that brings all nations together in agreement on what is just and moral. Morganthau points out that the 13 American colonies shared such a consensus even before they became a nation. They shared a language, a common origin in England, the same religion, the same ideas on what was lawful. A nation was present in the shared mindset of the colonists before the formality of the Constitution.

Though pre-Napoleonic Europe had a consensus that was expressed by the professional diplomats who served the royalty that held power over the entire continent, it could not survive the divisions brought on by the collapse of monarchic rule.

There is no way the family of nations can now decide upon an authority to rule above them. The best that can be hoped for is a system of diplomacy that will strive at all times to settle disputes short of war, but diplomacy is no longer used as it was. Instead there is grandstanding and much symbolic action on the part of national governments addressing the world from the seats of government, playing to the international audience while little substantive action goes on behind the scenes.

Diplomacy has fallen far from when secret negotiations that sought to persuade, compromise and employ national power in the background, kept the international scene to an acceptable low boil. These days, foreign embassies are primarily data gathering sites that simply relay information back home. Ambassadors and foreign service professionals are largely ignored by secretaries of state and presidents who take foreign policy as their personal prerogative (think Henry Kissinger).

An example of what background diplomacy can do was the secret talks held between Iran and the United States that resulted in the current negotiations over Iran's nuclear capabilities. This has so far avoided the war that would have been inevitable with the public bellowing indulged in by Israeli PM Netanyahu and the warhawks in Congress.

Morganthau wrote my edition during the Cold War and he correctly saw that it created a bi-polar world of ideological competition with even the most petty disputes in the most remote places on earth becoming symbolic of the East-West zero-sum game. The disaster of Vietnam, with the false domino theory said to justify it, demonstrates the truth of Morganthau's ideas, though he hardly speaks of that conflict, just ended at the time of publication.

The reader gets a wealth of examples from history to back the author's assertions. An in depth treatment of the League of Nations and the United Nations shows how neither organization has a chance of achieving what the architects hoped for - a world government. Nevertheless, the UN does provide an outside party that, through the Secretary General, can wade in to international issues with legitimacy.

I'd love to know what Morganthau would say about the present situation of the United States standing unchallenged militarily.

You'd think this book would be very dry reading, but I did not find it so. I was in my twenties when I first read it and recall being somewhat overwhelmed. This second reading at age 63 was a delight that I happily consumed.

By all means get a copy, just be aware that not all of what you find in the latest edition is by the great man himself.

Anyone interested in the subject of this book might find this essay by Richard Falk of interest.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the fountainheads of the classic realist view of international politics. He disagrees with the idealist view of world politics, defined as (page 3) belief "that a rational and moral political order, defined from universally valid abstract principles, can be achieved here and now." He accepts the realist view, based on the following assumption (page 3): "the world, imperfect as it is from the rational point of view, is the result of forces inherent in human nature. To improve the world, one must work with these forces, not against them."

Normally, I hesitate to quote too much, but the essence of the realist theory is encapsulated by Morgenthau in a handful of central precepts (pages 4-11):

"1. Political realism believes that politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature. . . .
2. The main sign post that helps political realism to find its way through the landscape of international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power. . . .
3. Realism does not endow its key concept of interest defined as power with a meaning that is fixed once and for all. . . .
4. Political realism is aware of the moral significance of political action. It is also aware of the ineluctable tension between the moral command and the requirements of successful political action. . . .
5. Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral laws that govern the universe."

This classic work spends considerable time examining international politics as a struggle for power (the title of Part II). One wonderful aspect of Morgenthau's book is its historical sweep, as he uses examples from history in considerable abundance. This part of the volume explores the nature of power, imperialism,, power and prestige, and the like. Part III focuses on national power, including chapters on the essence of national power, the elements of power, and the evaluation of national power. Part IV is one of my favorite components of this volume--a sweeping consideration of the balance of power in history. No need to continue part by part (there are ten parts and 32 chapters in all).

This is still worth reading and thinking about, many years after the volume's publication. It has a hard-headed analysis of world politics, based on principles of realism. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Morgenthau's perspective, it is well worth while to read and think about his views.

[Audrius Slanina · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sunki ir nelengva knyga. Tačiau nors ir (nepilnai) skaityta studijų metais, ją galima atsiversti naujai ir įsitikinti, kad kai kurios diplomatijos ir karo taisyklės nesikeičia, kad ir kaip liūdnai tai skambėtu...

[Mihai Zodian · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hans Morgenthau’s Politics Among Nations was the major book on international relations and still finds its place in modern courses. It's a lengthy book, based on several philosophical principles, and treats subjects like power, the balance of power, diplomacy, and war. For me, it's a must-read and I leaf through it once per year, along with other classics of this domain. A warning: I was part of the team who translated the book into Romanian so I may be subjective.

Hans Morgenthau’s work was a handbook, and it offers a review of many topics in international politics. I would recommend it to the reader who is interested in these issues and wants to find out more about Realism, the conservative and pessimistic perspective on war and diplomacy. The main drawback of Politics Among Nations is that the arguments based on human nature may seem obsolete today.

For Hans Morgenthau, power was a psychological reaction, in which certain resources were used. This is one of the main points of his argument and offers a certain subtlety to his approach. It means that never mind how good our methods are; some uncertainty will always remain in politics. In Politics Among Nations, his main hope was that other people would make more mistakes than us because the perfect observer is a legend.

The elements of power range from geography to diplomacy. The components are diverse and contextual, as are the groups and situations for which they are to be used. For Morgenthau, their significance was unequal, some resources matter more than others. Politics Among Nations is almost lyrical in terms of politics and diplomacy, the brain, and the main driver of foreign relations at peace. The main hopes for a better future are to be found here, in the rational pursuit of interest, based on power, which stimulates clarity, perceptiveness, and the ability to find a good bargain. 

Many ideas are still relevant, up to a point. The struggle for power is again important in international relations, with war, great power politics, and alliance diplomacy making a comeback though impossible in the 1990s. The tension between power as mean and power as a goal may simply be a feature of politics, instead of Morgenthau’s inconsistency, with the US elections certainly leaving that impression. I still recommend Politics Among Nations today. 

[Casey Hollingshead · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Big One.

"Politics Among Nations" is arguably the most important text in international relations. If you wish to understand the intricacies of diplomacy and the power struggles between nations, read this book. It is an immense tome of collected arguments well defended by nuggets taken from every nook and cranny of political history. Impossible would be the task of compiling all that is in this book in one review. Morgenthau covers just about every topic imaginable, including some that new-students of political theory probably did not know existed. If a summary could ever be made, it would be that political forces behave in favor of their interests, ultimately abandoning the legal/moral paradigms when the inevitable time comes.

One might recognize his foretelling of the errors and uselessness of the U.N. in diplomatic affairs, and the political cinema that is the unmoving, unproductive U.S. Congress in Morgenthau's attack on public diplomacy: "No man [who has to argue their side] before the attentive eyes and ears of the world can in full public view agree to a compromise without looking like a fool and a knave. He must take himself at his public word and must stand unyieldingly 'on a principle,' the favored phrase of public diplomacy, rather than on negotiation and compromise [...] this degeneration of diplomatic intercourse into a propaganda match is, then, the inevitable concomitant of the publicity of the new diplomacy." Think about that the next time you see a dictator waving his hat around before the U.N., or the next time Congressmen sign moral pledges to do this or that, sacrificing compromise for the sake of scoring political points.

The book has often been accused of supporting power-struggles, war, and economic oppression. Amoral or immoral charges have also been laid on Morgenthau's theories. To some measure, this is fair. "Political realism" became so widespread in its recognition halfway through the 20th century that essentially every notable political entity on the planet had put it to use. It does not take much imagination to know where watching the actions of "political realists" on the 20th century stage would lead observers. Many post-Morgenthau realists have also been more conflict-prone, such as Henry Kissinger and John Mearsheimer. This is unfair to Morgenthau himself, of course, who had a very strong hand on the moral vein that pulses through politics in general. Morgenthau, who opposed the Vietnam War -- a classic "political realist's" conflict -- argued that morality was simply political prudence on a national level. What is moral to the individual is not inherently moral to a political state which must seek to preserve the individuals who have entrusted it with their safety. "Ethics in the abstract judges action by its conformity with the moral law; political ethics judges action by its political consequences." Note, too, how frequently some of the ugliest, bloodiest conflicts were spearpointed by moralism touted on a national stage.

These sort of nuanced arguments, of which I did not even begin to give proper service to, are on every single page of this book. Hans Morgenthau's "Politics Among Nations" still retains relevance in a world that has moved far beyond the era of its writing.


Related and worth reading for modern political theory: Reinhold Niebuhr's "Moral Man and Immoral Society" and Michael Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars"

[Will · Rating 5 out of 5]

Politics Among Nations lays out Morgenthau's vision of realism as based on human nature, and the manner in which a "will to power" is hard-wired into both people and states. He adopts a positivist approach, asserting that international politics is governed by objective laws. He argues that although here are obvious moral implications to international politics, neither analysts nor practitioners should allow themselves to be guided solely by abstract moral goals, but instead, must address power as it exists and is exercised. He defines power primarily as psychological, stressing it as "the mutual relations of control among the holders of public authority and between the latter and the people at large", which represents itself through the balance of power. He briefly analyses morality, international law, international justice, and world public opinion, but argues that even when they exist, their impact is secondary to the interests of great powers and the balance between them. He argues that such a system will inevitably have conflict within it, and that the overall goal of international politics should be to create a system whereby this conflict is not permitted to take place. He discusses three potential approaches to this, peace through limitation (disarmament, security agreements, judicial settlements) but asserts that they will not be able to remove the underlying insecurity felt by states. Second is peace through transformation (into a world state), but he asserts that a prerequisite of a world state is an international community with agreement on the meaning of justice. The only way to build this is through the third means, peace through accommodation. In this, he argues that diplomacy must be used to slowly build an international society through deft political calculations of power. The last section reads like a realists attempt at optimism, or a how-to guide t becoming a liberal over an extended period. The discussions on international society set the stage for the English School.

[Matt · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book took a really long time to get through, and though it dragged a bit at parts, I think it was mostly due to the subject matter, and not due to the presentation style or organization. The book presented a lot of thought-provoking information, and arguments were made very clearly and methodically.

I don't have enough knowledge of history or geopolitics to really agree or disagree with most of the specific topics or examples provided in the book, but I can at least say that issues were discussed in good detail, from a large variety of viewpoints. For example, when talking about international organizations, the authors would talk about the history and establishing conditions of a specific organization, then examine its goals and how much it succeeded or failed in reaching each of those goals, and the major reasons why it succeeded or failed, giving specific examples and looking at each of these items through several lenses. Then they would move on to the next organization and repeat the examination again etc. This level of detail would be applied over dozens of topics. The whole thing felt extremely thorough.

Overall I felt that I gained a lot of context about world politics, and about how nations have interacted with each other in the past, as well as what types of alliances and organizations have been tried. I also picked up a lot of useful tools for examining various geopolitical interactions, which will probably change how I view current news.

[Truls Ljungström · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lika bra som alltid. Morgenthau är en av de skarpa individerna i västvärldens politiska tradition. Han förklarar tydligt och enkelt. Jag rekommenderar den varmt för samhällsnördar.

[Ricardo · Rating 5 out of 5]

A masterpiece!! This book must be read by all people interested in foreign affairs. Even though the last publication of this book was in the 70's, it applies perfectly to today's international relations.

[Claire · Rating 3 out of 5]

Morgenthau is as pretentious verbose as he is intelligent which makes for a difficult read. however, his conservative/realist's perspective give a nice balance to a liberal education.

[Preetam Chatterjee · Rating 5 out of 5]

What more can one contribute to this classic?

I have a very bizarre habit [a habit for which I am censured by peers and juniors alike] while reviewing an old text, or a classic for that matter. I always go back to the earliest reviews of the tome.

I hit upon a 1949 review of this tome, by one Professor John Whitton of Princeton University. This is what he says about the tome:

’This is the most mature and scholarly book yet to appear in its field. And it is the one most likely to convince even the skeptic that world politics has now come into its own as a distinct branch of learning. The author accomplishes the feat of turning upon the subtle and complicated problems of international relations the light that is available from all pertinent disciplines. Bringing to his subject a fresh approach, he sets out with admirable clarity, and with an insistence at times verging on redundancy, to destroy many well- rooted myths (for example, reliance on public opinion as an effective sanction, the supposed virtues of "open diplomacy," and collective security as a bulwark of peace)…’

And my 21st century mind effortlessly agrees with him. That is the mark of a classic, Ladies and Gents.

This is roughly how the tome has been structured:

Morgenthau paradigms his prototype of world politics around state power as its dominant force. After giving a description of power, and studying its spirit and indispensible rudiments, he gives us his individual assessment, connecting the character of power in the drama of political, conceptual, imperialistic, and martial contentions. Thereafter we get a segment on global politics in the mid-20th century. We also get a segment on demilitarization, security, judicial settlement, nonviolent change, and international government. In this unit, readers are familiarized with harshest disapprovals of international organizations. In the concluding section of the book, we are introduced to the wisdom of Morgenthau. Herein he delineates the rudiments of Realism -- his main thesis. He says that if the world is ever to reach the happy state of peace and security, it will be through an invigorated and rehabilitated diplomacy.

Morgenthau is the father of the Realist school. And in this tome he has explained six principles of his Realist Theory. These together constitute the essence of his Political Realism.

Please follow this write-up with patience. I have tried to be as lucid as I can.

1. First Principle: Politics is governed by Objective Laws which have roots in Human Nature: The first principle of political realism holds that “politics, like society in general, is governed by objective laws that have their roots in human nature.” It is as such necessary to understand these laws and build a rational theory of international politics. “These laws cannot be refuted and challenged. Taking these as the basis, we can formulate a rational theory of International Politics; Political Realism believes that international politics operates on the basis of certain objective laws.”

As such, the first principle of Morgenthau’s Realist Theory of International Politics holds that politics is governed by some objective laws which have their roots in human nature. By understanding these objective laws, we can understand and study International Politics. For knowing these objective laws we have to study the history of human relations. Through this an empirical and rational theory of foreign policy can be formulated which can guide the actions of states in international relations.

2. Second Principle: National Interest defined in terms of National Power:

(i) The master key and the core of Morgenthau’s Realism is its second principle. This principle holds that nations always define and act for securing their national interests by means of power. It is this aspect which highlights the autonomous character of International Politics. Nations always try to secure the goals of their interests which are always defined in terms of power.

(ii) National Interest is always secured by the use of National Power. Each nation conceptualizes its national interests in terms of power and then acts to secure these by means of power. History fully supports this view. A national interest not backed by power exists only on paper and in imagination. The only correct way to conceptualize and define national interest is in terms of power.

History tells us that nations have always acted on the basis of power. Foreign policy- makers always regard power as the central fact of politics. Foreign policy decisions makers always formulate policies on its basis. Political realism assumes that “statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears out this assumption.” This principle helps us to analyze realistically all steps that state-men have taken or are going to take in future.

(iii) Little concern with Motives and Ideological Preferences. Political realism avoids two popular fallacies in respect of the behaviour of statesmen.

These are: (a) The concern with motives, and (b) The concern with ideological preferences.

(a) Little concern with Motives. A study of foreign policy through a study of the motives of the statesmen is bound to be futile and deceptive. It would be futile because motives are most deceptive and distorted by the interests and emotions of both the actor and the observer. There are many instances which reveal that good motives have very often led to wrong and unsuccessful policies. Neville Chamberlain’s policy of appeasement was definitely inspired by a good motive—to prevent the outbreak of the Second World War, however, it failed. On the other hand, Winston Churchill’s policies were based upon national interest and power, and were more successful in actual operation.

(b) Little concern with Ideology. Political realism rejects the fallacy of equating the foreign policy of a statesman with ideological or philosophical or political sympathies of the statesman. Ideology is very often used as a cover or a smoke-screen to cover actions which are nationalistic and designed to secure or increase national power. A faith in the ideological preferences of the statesman as the basis for judging the actions of the state, is bound to be misleading.

Sino-Soviet conflict of 1955-65 was not really an ideological conflict, as it appeared to be. On the contrary it was a conflict of interests between these two communist states. The basis for the origin of Sino-Soviet conflict was neither the clash of ideologies nor the personalities of Mao and Khrushchev. It was really a clash of interests in world politics.

(iv) National Interest and National Power as the Determinants of Foreign Policy. No doubt personality of the statesman, his ideas and prejudices do have some impact on the nature of foreign policy, yet in the main, the foreign policy of a nation is always based upon considerations of national interest conceived in terms of national power. A rational theory of foreign policy seeks to present a theory based upon experience and actual facts and not upon motives and ideological preferences.

Political realism is not totally opposed to political motives and moral principles in international relations. It accepts that these play a role in international relations. However, it regards national interest and national power as the key determinants of all decisions and policies. In it, the approach is that of a photographer who photographs whatever he actually sees and not of a painter who imagines the pose and paints the portrait.

III. Third Principle: Interest is always Dynamic: Political realism believes in the universal validity of the concept of interest defined in terms of power. The policies and actions of a nation are always governed by national interest. The idea of national interest is the essence of politics and is unaffected by the circumstances of time and place.

The same observation applies to the concept of power. The national power of a nation is always dynamic and it changes with the changes in environment in which it operates for securing national interests. For example, security has been always a primary part of India’s national interest but the nature of security that India has been trying to secure from time to time has been changing. Similarly, the national power of India has all also been dynamic.

IV. Fourth Principle: Abstract Moral Principles cannot be applied to Politics: Political realism realizes the importance of moral principles but holds that in their abstract and universal formulations these cannot be applied to state actions. The moral significance of political action is undisputed but the universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states, unless these are analyzed in the light of specific conditions of time and space. Moral principles do not determine policies and actions of states. These are simply a source of some influence.

V. Fifth Principle: Difference between Moral Aspirations of a Nation and the Universal Moral Principles: Political realism refuses to identify the moral aspirations of a particular nation with the moral principles that govern the universe. It refuses to accept that the national interests and policies of any particular nation reflect universally applied moral principles. Each nation tries to cover its national interests under the cloak of several moral principles. An identification of national policies as the true manifestations of moral principles is bound to be misleading and politically pernicious. The US anti-terror policy is governed by its own national interest and not really based on the concept of making the world safe for freedom and democracy. A foreign policy is always based on national interest and national power, and not on morality,

VI. Sixth Principle: Autonomy of International Politics: Morgenthau Political Realism accepts the autonomy of International Politics as a discipline. On the basis of the above five principles, it is ascertained by Morgenthau that there exists a real and profound difference between political realism and other approaches and theories.

Political realism has its distinctive intellectual and moral attitude towards political matters. It maintains the autonomy of the political sphere.

To sum up the essence of this tome, we can delineate the following points:

1. Political Realism regards international politics as struggle for power among nations whereby each nation tries to secure its national interest. It seeks to build a rational and realistic theory of International Politics and for this, regards the concept of “interest defined as power” as the benchmark.

2. It emphasizes the study of factors and consequences of political policies and gives secondary importance to motives in international relations. It refuses to use universal moral principles for judging state actions and instead advocates dependence on prudence for analyzing policies and facts of international politics.

3. Further, political realism believes that the foreign policy of each nation is really based upon national interest and not upon moral principles. The latter are used as covers to buttress the goals of national interests. Finally, political realism accepts and advocates the autonomy of international politics as a discipline studying national interest defined in terms of power.

4. It defines international politics as struggle for power. Regarding the question of securing peace, Morgenthau advocates recourse to peace through accommodation. For this he accepts diplomacy and devices of power management as the ideal and effective means.

Give it a go.

[J.R. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I powered through this entire book in like 4 days, so my reading probably wasn't as careful as it could have been. That being said, Morgenthau makes the case that all politics is about the maximization of power, and that power politics has always been at the root kf international relations. A proponet of realism, the author offers explanations of why foreign policies appear in the manner they do, describes various policies that can be pursued within realism, and elaborates on why realism has remained the most influential framework within international relations. It's a foundational text for those interested in learning of IR.

[Ali Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a very good book for understanding the basics of international relations and politics e.g. theories, the policymaking process, bureaucracy, and the nature of international organizations.

[Vince]

Seminal.

[Alexandros Potapidis · Rating 4 out of 5]

If Kenneth Waltz is the Diego Maradona of Realism, then Hans Morgenthau is its Pele. But classifying Morgenthau as a pure classical Realist is to misread his greatest work, Politics Among Nations. His starting point is how human nature leads to the pursuit for power and how anarchy allows for conflicts among nations. Going into great lengths to analyse the sociological foundations of individuals within states and the states within the state system, his conclusion is that what works in one sphere can not function in another. Precisely this obsession with the sociological elements of societies takes him away from a realist objectivity. For example, Morgenthau admits that the policy of prestige that nations pursue is the result of beliefs and not objective reality (p. 86-87). This subjectivity is closer to a constructed social reality rather than a rigid Realist approach. Morgenthau’s stance toward the balance of power is ambiguous. One the one hand he acknowledges its usefulness but on the other hand he is very critical of some of its features. in his own words, “but, while nobody can tell how many wars there would have been without the balance of power, it is not hard to see that most of the wars that have been fought […] have their origin in the balance of power” (p. 230). On another note, his cynicism about moral values as a pretext of ideological motivations does not stop him from admitting that morality has a place in international politics (p. 274). He attributes the moral and material decline of the Western countries to ethical questions of a postcolonial modern world (p. 372-77). Morgenthau is also a vehement critic of a world public opinion, or more accurately he does not recognise one. But in the era of globalisation, of internet and of social media, a world public opinion can have voice that transcends national borders. We mentioned above Morgenthau’s constructivist leanings when it comes to the policy of prestige. Similarly, his approach to the solution of how to understand and deal with nuclear weapons is a post-modern outlook. He stresses the importance of language, truth, and the politics of nuclear weapons. For him, the language and meaning we use in the nuclear context (concepts such as “weapons” and “war”) are obsolete and new vocabulary is needed to underline the destructiveness of nuclear weapons (p. 442). The second part of his book is devoted to ways of overcoming war and bringing a permanent peace. His proposal is a world state as the only vehicle that can realise a permanent peace. But because a world state to be formed requires a world society, he rejects the notion that one day we will have a world state because of a lack of a world society. In this respect his second best solution is the implementation of diplomacy as “peace through accommodation” (p. 565, 593).

[Michael Holm · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very persuasive argument against the idea that a world government is possible in our current world. Morgenthau explains the ramifications of the current nuclear arsenals and offers very faint hope for a nuclear-free world war in the future. In today's geopolitical climate, preserving the status quo is everyone's ambition and almost every conflict in the world has the potential of engaging additional countries, including the major powers. The discussion of power exerted for self-interest recalls Machiavelli's works and rings true in the frequently cited examples in history.

He paints a very bleak picture about the prospects of nuclear warfare. It is paramount to find a way to avoid any nuclear warfare. But he realistically does not see any solution except continued intelligent and masterful diplomacy. He argues that a world court would always uphold the status quo although many conflicts challenge the status quo. The United Nations is paralyzed by the face-off between the Security Council members (US, Russia, China). Major powers will never willingly surrender any privilege or advantage. A world government is not possible yet because there are too many cultural differences which make a moral consensus impossible. The moral consensus is essential for the government to be effective. The people must value order over selfishness. It is in their self-interest to have order.

This seems to be an academic textbook in political science. It is very thorough and has been through many editions. A very worth-while read for world citizens.

[Lissa · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book introduces the concept of political realism, presenting a realist view of power politics. This concept played a major role in the foreign policy of the United States, which made it exercise globe-spanning power in the Cold War period. The concept also called for a reconciliation of power politics with the idealistic ethics of earlier American discussions about foreign policy.
"The statesman must think in terms of the national interest, conceived as power among other powers. The popular mind, unaware of the fine distinctions of the statesman's thinking, reasons more often than not in the simple moralistic and legalistic terms of absolute good and absolute evil."

"Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states (...). The individual may say for himself: "Let justice be done, even if the world must perish", but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care. (...) While the individual has a moral right to sacrifice himself in defense of such a moral principle, the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of (that moral principle) get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival."

[Andrew Hard · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting explanation of the Realist school of thought in international relations. The text has a classical style, and many of the ideas are frequently reiterated. As someone who struggles to reconcile realist and idealist political tendencies, this book helped me to clarify some of my own reasoning. Read this if you like to understand the historical development of theories. For something along the same lines that is more contemporary, I would suggest the Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

[Vheissu · Rating 5 out of 5]

An old professor of mine, W.T.R. Fox, once told my class that Morgenthau was so annoyed by the constant criticisms of his work, which nonetheless became the standard text used by almost every college professor in America, that when he appeared at a conference he would simply say, "Okay. You know what I think. Let's have the complaints."

[Fran · Rating 5 out of 5]

Note to self: A classic reference/reading for International Politics course under Prof. Leszek Buszynski (London School of Economics 1980), Fall Term 2004, an elective course from the International Relations Program, International University of Japan.

[Alsandri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Actually, I have the first edition.

[Alex Fabish · Rating 5 out of 5]

The geopolitical Bible. Or, at least the New Testament.

[Eppofahmi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Buku ini salah satu buku yang wajib dimiliki anak HI (hubungan internasional). Bukunya sih emang bagus...

[Abhirami Sumam · Rating 5 out of 5]

Its a very good analysis on the realm of International Politics, from a realist perspective... I anjoyed reading this....

[Zahid Abdulla · Rating 5 out of 5]

a book that shaped my political views. its bible of realist theory of international relations.

[NinaCD · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great primer for IR theory.

[Owen nye · Rating 5 out of 5]

Professional textbook, has almost what u need to understand and research IR

[Ahmed Faiq · Rating 5 out of 5]

كتاب السياسة بين الأمم: الصراع من أجل السلطان والسلام، للكاتب الألماني الامريكي هانز مورغنتاو، الكتاب المهم والمرجع في علم السياسة الحديث، الذي كان قد صدر في الخمسينات من القرن الماضي أبان الحرب الباردة، وترجم للعربية وصدر في الستينات في ثلاثة مجلدات، هي المراجعة هي للنسخة العربية ترجمة خيرى حماد.

طبعا وفي هذه الايام العصيبة في بلدي العراق، الذي كان ولا زال دائما ساحة يتخاصم فيها الخصوم الأكبر، نظرا لبيئته السياسية الهشة، رأينا قبل ايام أحد البرلمانيين العراقيين، الذي يعتبر نفسه ندا وعدوا لأمريكا الدولة الأقوى في العالم، شتم البرلماني، القائم بأعمال السفارة الأميركية في العراق بقوله (نضربه بمية قوندرة!!!)، مذكرني ايضا بمقولة مشهورة للرئيس العراقي السابق صدام حسين عندما تذكر أمامه تركيا في مجلس لأكبر القيادات العراقية حينذاك، فقال في وقته (دنعل ابو ابو تركيا يابو حتى أيران!).
اذن وعندما كنت امر بفصول وابواب الكتاب المتعددة، ارى كيف أن ما يسمى بالسياسة والسياسيين في العراق، هو شيء لا يمت بصلة لها بالمفهوم العلمي والنظري، فباستثناء فترة قصيرة من الحكم الملكي في العراق، ووجود طبقة سياسية او شبه سياسية بالمفهوم العلمي، التي تمثلت بالملك فيصل (الذي جاء به الانجليز من السعودية) وكذلك نوري السعيد وعدد أخر من الناس الكبار الذين تتلمذوا على يد الانجليز، فإن باقي الحقبات السياسة والحكام في العراق والى الان، كانت عبارة عن جهلة ومتخلفين، ينظرون الى السياسة وإدارة البلاد كحارة او دربونة صغيرة، يمكن أن تدار بعدة من اصحاب العضلات وزمرة من سرسرية ذوى ألسنة سليطة، اذا هددوا القوى العظمى ب(انعل ابوكم) وامثالها، استطاعوا ان يردعوهم ويبعدون اطماعهم عنا، لكي نعيش نحن بسلام ووئام!

يبدأ الكتاب بوضع النظريات، وسمى اهمها بـ(الواقعية السياسية)، وذلك مبني على مفهوم (المصلحة)، المصلحة التي هي جوهر السياسة ولبابها كما يصرح الكاتب، ومن ذلك نحو مفهوم آخر وهو أن العالم يفتقر الى الكمال، ومملوء بالشر في كل مكان، ولهذا يجب على السياسي ان يفهم ذلك الواقع المرير وبناءا عليه يحاول تحقيق الحد الادنى من الشر، بدلا من الخير المطلق الذي هو غير موجود، كل ذلك في سبيل مصلحته ومصلحة شعبه.

يأتي بعد ذلك السلطان السياسي، فالكل يبحث عن السلطان، الذي تعريفه هو: سيطرة الانسان على عقول الآخرين وأفعالهم. اذن لكي نفهم السياسة، والصراعات في كل من اوقات السلم والحرب، يجب ان نفهم الهدف الاساسي الذي هو دائما الصراع على السلطان.

ومن ثم يأتي الفصل الذي ربما يكون من أهم فصول الكتاب، الذي يبحث في مقومات السلطان، وكيف تتحد قوة وسلطان الشعوب. عناصر أو مقومات السلطان القومي، أو سلطان دولة محددة في وقت محدد هي:
1-الجغرافيا.
2-الموارد الطبيعية
3-الطاقة الصناعية.
4-الاستعداد العسكري.
5-السكان، او عددهم.
6-الشخصية القومية والمعنوية القومية.
7-الدبلوماتية.
8-نوعية الحكم.
لذلك فان هذه العوامل تتداخل في اهميتها، لكي تقرر قوة الدول والشعوب، فجغرافيا بدون سكان تضعف الدول، وسكان بدون موارد طبيعية ينتج نفس الشيء، وكذلك فالدبلوماتية او الدبلوماسية التي هي المنسق والمدير لكافة العوامل الاخرى، وهي العنصر الاهم الذي افتقده السياسيون العراقيون في الامثلة التي ذكرتها في بداية المراجعة.
وبعد ذلك يأتي فصل او فصلان يتناولان حدود السلطان بين الشعوب وتوازن القوى، وتأثير سياسات مثل (فرق تسد)، او مظاهر التسلح وعرض القوة، وكذل الاحلاف التي تنخرط فيها الشعوب. وبين تلك الفصول تأتي قصص كثيرة توضيحية وتاريخ بعضا من الاحلاف والحروب العالمية من التاريخ القديم والحديث، يستطيع ان يستدل منها القارئ على مفاهيم السلطان والصراعات.

مع الاسف فإن ثقل الكتاب والمتعة في قراءته تأتي في البداية، فالمجلد الاول هو اثقل المجلدات الثلاثة، وشيئا بعد شيء تفقد القراءة متعتها مع مرور الفصول، فالنصف الثاني من المجلد الثاني، والمجلد الثالث يأتيان على القوانين الدولية، وتاريخ تشكيل عصبة الامم ثم الامم المتحدة، وكذلك الكثير من النصوص القانونية الموضوعة في مواثيق هذه المنظمات. هذه القوانين التي فشلت دائما وابدا في الدفاع عن الضعفاء في العالم، حيث نرى يوميا مشاهد الظلم في السياسة العالمية، وكيف ان نصوص مجلس الامن والامم المتحدة لم تحم احدا اذا ارادت القوى العظمى مهاجمته.

كل على كل، الكتاب هو مرجع عظيم، وحقا اذا دخل احد دهاليز السياسة بدون الاطلاع على هذا الكتاب وامثاله، تكون النتيجة ما يحصل لدولنا، والعراق خاصة، وتكرر المصائب والكوارث حقبة بعد حقبة.

[' Syamil]

Dua Pendekatan dalam Politik Antarabangsa
1. Realisme
2. Idealisme

Perebutan Kuasa dalam Politik Antarabangsa
1. Status Quo
2. Imperialisme
3. Prestige (Keunggulan)

Tiga Matlamat Imperialisme
1. Nak tawan seluruh tempat (World Empire)
Contoh: Alexander The Great, Rom, Arab (kurun 7 & 8), Napoleon 1 dan Hitler.

2. Nak jadi abang di benua (Continental Empire)
Contoh: Amerika Syarikat, Soviet Union dan William 2.

3. Nak berkuasa penuh di tempatnya (Localized Empire)
Contoh: Federick The Great, Peter The Great, Maria Theresa, Louis XV, Katherine 2 dan Bismark.

Tiga Cara Imperialisme
1. Ketenteraan: Nazi Jerman dan Jepun
2. Ekonomi: British dan Amerika Syarikat
3. Budaya: Komunis Antarabangsa

Ideologi nampak macam hanya sebagai idea namun di sebalik itu ia merupakan cara untuk mendapatkan kuasa yang besar.

Diplomacy is the brains of national power, as national morale is its soul.

Bab 3 Kekuatan Negara

1. Geografi
2. Sumber alam

Tiga Aspek yang ingin dicapai Nazi Jerman
١ Menghindari perang lama dan berlanjutan sebelum bekalan makanan habis
٢ Menakluk daerah Eropah yang ada sumber makanan
٣ Menghancurkan angkatan laut British yang menghalang Jerman daripada peroleh makanan daripada negara luar

Jerman tidak sempat capai tujuan ١ & ٣

3. Kekuatan industri

Kemampuan untuk mengolah sumber alam sebagai contoh uranium menjadi tenaga nuklear tetapi negara Congo yang memiliki uranium yang banyak tidak menjadi kuat kerana tiada alat dan mesin untuk mengubah uranium menjadi tenaga. Tetapi negara-negara seperti Amerika Syarikat Inggeris dan juga Rusia mampu untuk membuat proses menjadikan uranium Itu sebagai tenaga kerana mereka mempunyai kemampuan dari segi industri

4. Kekuatan ketenteraan

Teknologi, Kepemimpinan, Kualiti dan Kemampuan Angkatan Senjata

5. Populasi

Penyebaran dan Kecenderungan-kecenderungannya

6. Karakter negara

Orang rusia menjadi terlalu patuh kepada pemimpin kerana negara mereka banyak diserang negara luar

7. Moral negara

Semangat rakyatnya mempertahankan negara sendiri.. contoh rakyat perancis sanggup membiarkan negara mereka ditawan oleh Hitler. Selepas Hitler menyerang soviet barulah orang komunis perancis melawan Jerman

8. Kepandaian pemimpin mengatur strategi

Di Jerman seperti Bismarck dan Hitler
Di Amerika seperti Adam, Jefferson dan Quincy

Bab 4 Batas-batas kekuatan negara:

Kaedah Perimbangan Kekuasaan (135-145)

1. Pola perlawanan langsung Itu dua pola utama dari perimbangan kekuasaan yang terdiri dari suatu bangsa a dan bangsa b yang cuba bersaing secara langsung contohnya terjadi pada perancis dan sekutu-sekutunya melawan Rusia pada tahun 1912, Jepun melawan China pada tahun 1931 sampai tahun 1941 dan Amerika Syarikat melawan pakatan Axist sesudah tahun 1941.

2. Pola Persaingan

Persaingan di antara 2 kuasa besar yang akan melibatkan negara kecil akan menjadi penimbangtara selalunya negara kecil ini akan mendapat manfaat daripada pertembungan dua kuasa besar ini contohnya seperti negara Belgium negara Belanda negara Denmark dan juga Norway faktor-faktor yang sama menjadi sebab adanya disebut sebagai negara-negara penampan iaitu bufferstate negara-negara lemah terletak dekat dengan negara-negara kuat serta menjadi penampan bagi kedua-dua negara besar itu contohnya lagi adalah Tibet itu penampang kepada negara India dan China

Cara-cara melakukan perimbangan kekuasaan

1. Memecah belah untuk menguasai

Semenjak dulu lagi ke Rusia melakukan pembedahan ataupun kaedah memecahbelahkan penyatuan negara negara eropah kerana takut apabila negara-negara Eropah bersatu gabungan kekuatan bangsa Eropah itu akan menjadi ancaman kepada Rusia Kerana itulah mereka suka untuk menjadikan blok Eropah itu berpecah belah. Perancis juga melakukan perkara yang sama terhadap wilayah jerman supaya tidak bersatu jadi negara

2. Pampasan

Pada abad 18 dan 19 pampasan yang bersifat pembahagian wilayah merupakan satu alat yang biasa digunakan untuk mempertahankan perimbangan kekuasaan yang telah berlaku disebabkan oleh perolehan wilayah Dari salah satu bangsa sebagai contoh perjanjian UTS tahun 1713 yang mengakhiri perang pewarisan takhta Sepanyol untuk pertama kali mengakui dengan jelas iaitulah memberi pemberian pembahagian sebahagian besar wilayah yang dikuasai oleh Sepanyol contoh lain lagi adalah pembahagian negara Poland menjadi tiga wilayah iaitulah pada tahun 1772 1793 dan 1795. Juga bagaimana british dan perancis membahagikan tanah Uthmaniyyah selepas menang melalui skyepicot

3. Persenjataan

Alat utama bagi Suatu bangsa menggunakan kekuatan yang dikuasainya untuk mempertahankan atau memulihkan perimbangan kekuasaan adalah persenjataan.

4. Persekutuan

Suatu bangsa bilamana mereka akan menjauhi Persekutuan jika berkeyakinan cukup kuat untuk bertahan sendirian tanpa bantuan atau berkeyakinan bahawa beban kewajiban-kewajiban Persekutuan boleh jadi akan melampaui keuntungan keuntungan yang diharapkan namun jika mereka merasakan tidak mampu mereka akan membentuk Persekutuan supaya boleh membuat pertimbangan kekuasaan atas dasar salah satu atau kedua alasan itulah Inggeris Raya atau Amerika Syarikat sepanjang bahagian terbesar sejarahnya menahan diri dari Persekutuan dengan bangsa lain pada waktu Aman.

5. Persekutuan vs Dominasi Dunia

Pemimpin akan berjaga-jaga jangan sampai ada negara jiran yang berkembang terlalu cepat dengan menambahkan wilayahnya dengan memberi kelonggaran kelonggaran pada perdagangan melalui pendekatan pendekatan dan lain-lain sebagainya sehingga dapat mengganggu kemampuan mereka.

6. Persekutuan vs Anti Persekutuan

Perlawanan di antara suatu Persekutuan mempertahankan kemerdekaan Mereka dengan melawan penceroboh-penceroboh. Perlawanan dua Persekutuan yang satu atau kedua-duanya mempunyai Tujuan tujuan melakukan imperialisme dan mempertahankan kemerdekaan anggota-anggotanya terhadap aspirasi simple imperialis dari gabungan yang lain.

7. Pemegang Perimbangan

Apabila pertimbangan kekuasaan harus dicapai melalui Persekutuan sistem ini akan terdiri dari dua timbangan dan pada tiap timbangan ditemukan bangsa yang dikenal menjalankan politik imperialisme bangsa-bangsa Eropa umumnya menjalankan perhimpunan kekuasaan dengan cara ini. Namun sistem ini terdiri dari dua timbangan ditambah unsur ketika memegang perut imbangan atau pengimbas tidak secara kekal menganut politik salah satu bangsa atau kelompok bangsa lain satu-satunya tujuan pengimbang adalah mempertahankan perimbangan kekuasaan tanpa menghiraukan politik nyata yang didokong pengimbang.

(m/s 167)

Hari ini, warisan konsensus yang diperkukuhkan selepas Perang Dunia Kedua telah memberikan bentuk kepada sejumlah kerangka kerja dan organisasi antarabangsa yang bertujuan untuk menjaga keamanan dunia dan mendorong kerjasama antarabangsa. Beberapa elemen utama yang dapat diidentifikasi dalam konsensus pasca-Perang Dunia Kedua termasuk:

Pembentukan Persatuan Bangsa-Bangsa (PBB): PBB didirikan pada tahun 1945 sebagai tanggapan terhadap kegagalan Liga Bangsa-Bangsa dalam mencegah Perang Dunia Kedua. Prinsip-prinsipnya, termasuk penghargaan terhadap kemerdekaan dan keadilan, menjadi pondasi bagi kerjasama antarabangsa.

Hak Asasi Manusia: Konsensus pasca-Perang Dunia Kedua memperkuat pengakuan terhadap hak asasi manusia sebagai nilai universal yang harus dihormati oleh semua negara. Ini tercermin dalam berbagai dokumen dan perjanjian internasional.

Diplomasi Multilateral: Prinsip-prinsip diplomasi multilateral terus diperkuat, di mana negara-negara bekerja sama dalam organisasi antarabangsa seperti PBB, WTO, dan lainnya untuk menyelesaikan perselisihan dan mempromosikan keamanan dunia.

Penolakan Imperialisme dan Kolonialisme: Pasca-Perang Dunia Kedua melihat penolakan terhadap imperialisme dan kolonialisme, dengan banyak negara mendapatkan kemerdekaan mereka. Prinsip-prinsip ini terus berperan dalam hubungan internasional.

Nuklir Non-Proliferasi dan Kesepakatan Perlucutan Senjata: Upaya konsensus juga terlihat dalam perjanjian nuklir non-proliferasi dan perjanjian untuk perlucutan senjata, yang bertujuan untuk mencegah penyebaran senjata pemusnah massal.

[Michelle M Victora · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had a hard time concentrated through about 70% of this book. One thing that really impeded my ability to absorb info was the fact that I don't remember US history hardly at all -- so while it was good that Morgenthau provided a bunch of historic examples to back up his points, I like... didn't understand them. It was also distracting that all of the "present-day" discussions were written in a time that the Soviet Union still existed. Hardly any talk of China. All in all, I would not have read this if it weren't for my book club but I sure hope someone in the book club retained more than I did so I can learn from them what this was about.