Thread by @ProfPaulPoast

Who was an advocate for AND a skeptic of World Government?

"Mr. Realism" himself: Hans Morgenthau

Time to #KeepRealismReal

[THREAD]

Morgenthau takes the idea of a world state seriously. As James Speer wrote decades ago in @World_Pol: "Morgenthaus' entire treatment of world politics thus centers upon the requirements for the world state."
cambridge.org/core/journals/…

This is not surprising. By the late 1940s, creating a world government was prominently viewed as necessary for avoiding nuclear annihilation

For instance, Albert Einstein, who turned to the cause of nuclear abolition in the late 1940s, viewed a World Government as the solution

theatlantic.com/magazine/archi…

But Morgenthau, while sympathetic to this view, didn't think it could work.

To see why, let's turn to Morgenthau's classic text, "Politics Among Nations" (first published in 1948).
google.com/books/edition/…

Side note: Something I always try to appreciate when I teach Intro to International Relations at @UChicago is that Morgenthau used a similar course to develop "Politics Among Nations". As he wrote in the 1948 edition forward:

In "Politics Among Nations", Morgenthau wrote a whole chapter on the world state.

But we don't want to start there. Instead, we want to start with his views on disarmament. Morgenthau ALSO has an entire chapter on Disarmament.

Morgenthau offers a definition of disarmament and why it is so important to international politics

He summarizes the historic attempts at disarmament and finds disarmament to be...wanting

Most intriguing, Morgenthau's discussion of disarmament reveals the "human nature" underpinning of his realism. This passage is also (in my view) his definitive statement of realism in international politics

He sharpens this point at the beginning of his next chapter on "Security"

And then goes on to say that if states could be made to feel secure, not fear attack, then arms wouldn't be necessary

So how can states be made to feel secure in the international system?

Morgenthau offers two possibilities: collective security and an international police force.

But he finds both possibilities to be insufficient.

He uses this nifty figure to show how collective security is supposed to work

He then shows "the reality" of Collective Security in this figure

He based the second figure on the history of attempts by the League of Nations at collective security, such as (not) stopping Italian aggression against Ethiopia

He labels such episodes as debacles

What about an International Police force? Well, he labels it a contradiction of terms (notice he ties it to world state as well)

The idea of an International Police force (& the related idea of world government) seemed to greatly fascinate Morgenthau. So much so that he subsequently wrote a 1960 paper in @IntOrgJournal titled "political conditions for an international police force"
cambridge.org/core/journals/…

His @IntOrgJournal paper echos what he wrote in "Politics Among Nations": an international police force is unlikely to work because, well, who is going to make sure that it works? It is similar to the problem of collective security

This leads Morgenthau to a more fundamental point: in his view, world state, world disarmament, and a world police force are all intertwined issues.

And they all suffer from the same problem: who is going to create it and maintain it? He just can't see it happening..at least not under present conditions.

Though he. like Einstein, agrees that a World State is probably necessary to ultimately make all feel secure.

In sum, Morgenthau recognized why folks called for the creation of world government. He just didn't think it could work

[END]

P.S. Tying the above to my 3 questions for realism: Morgenthau, like Kerr and Tate but unlike Carr, would answer "No" to the first question below and "Yes" to the third question.

https://twitter.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1391016651244572673