realizm na podstawie nowej zelandii

David McCraw compares the approaches to international affairs of the National and Labour parties.

The foreign policy philosophies of New Zealand's two major political parties correspond quite well with the tenets of two opposing theories of international relations. The National Party's foreign policy outlook seems closest to that of the realist school of international relations, whereas Labour's outlook fits more comfortably within the liberal internationalist, or idealist, tradition. National's outlook, however, does not fit the realist model exactly, whereas Labour's outlook is a close match with the liberal internationalist model.

Of the many schools of thought concerning international relations, two of the oldest and most influential are the realist and the liberal internationalist. Indeed, liberal internationalism may be classed as the founding theory of the discipline, with realism emerging next as its antithesis. Both of these schools of thought are, however, outgrowths of even more ancient philosophical traditions.

Liberal internationalism, sometimes called idealism, first appeared after the First World War, and was a reaction to it, although its roots are in the eighteenth century Enlightenment. Liberals conceive of nations as a global society, with more things in common than they have dividing them. To liberal internationalists, the laws of nature dictate harmony and co-operation between peoples. Peace between nations is the natural order of things, and war is an aberration. Wars are created by undemocratic governments to advance their own vested interests. When the government is controlled by the people, it will not go to war because the people bear the costs of war.(1) The best way to ensure peace is thus to spread democracy among nations.

Liberal internationalists are concerned with the international promotion of democracy and the individual rights on which it is based. They are concerned with human rights not only because they lead to peace, but because liberals by definition value individual freedom and civil liberties. One of the most striking achievements of liberal internationalism has been to make human rights a central concern of the United Nations.(2)

A second major belief of liberal internationalism is in the potential of international organisations to regulate international behaviour. As believers in a global society and the essential harmony of interests between nations, liberals are promoters of supranational government. An early example of this was the enthusiasm of liberals for the League of Nations as the arbiter of disputes and the guarantor of peace through collective security.

Liberal internationalists also generally support organisations such as the European Community -- any body in which national interests are subordinated to the common good. As part of a bid to regulate international behaviour for the common good, liberals promote the development and strengthening of a system of international law.

The third main feature of liberal internationalism is a belief that a state's prime concern should be the welfare of its people rather than security. Security should be only one concern among many, and a concentration on it is detrimental to the prosperity of a state's people because armaments necessarily absorb scarce public resources. Liberals are more interested in promoting international disarmament than in funding military forces, and they are not enthusiastic about military alliances. In any case, liberals do not accept that the promotion of peace is assisted by a concentration on security. Peace is better advanced, they believe, by the promotion of trade links and citizen contact between nations. Inter-dependent countries are less likely to go to war with each other, as it is too disruptive. Contact will break down divisions between states and unite them into one global community. It will encourage international friendship and understanding.

Realism as a theory first appeared in the late 1930s as a reaction to the perceived failure of liberal internationalism to explain the drift towards war. After the Second World War, realism emerged as the dominant theory in the discipline, a position which it retained, with some challenges, until relatively recently, when liberal internationalism again became popular. Like liberal internationalism, realism has old philosophical roots, in this case going back to the ancient Greeks.

Realism looks at the world with a more pessimistic eye than does liberal internationalism. Whereas liberal internationalism stresses the mutual interests between people and countries, realism stresses the natural antagonisms between them. Rather than seeing the world as a global society, realism sees nations in a state of competitive anarchy. Realists view conflict between nations as a natural state of affairs, rather than as an aberration caused by evil governments or flawed social systems.(3) Each state strives to either protect or promote its national interests, and these often conflict with the national interests of other states. Realists believe that states have a distinct hierarchy of national interests. Security must come first, then wealth and prosperity, and finally, cultural and value interests. States must first and foremost be concerned with their survival. To ensure their survival, states endeavour to maximise their power.

Classical realism ascribes the propensity to conflict among states to the inherent weaknesses of human nature: the selfish urges of people will be expressed through their governments. A more modern form of realism, however, looks less to the nature of mankind than to the anarchic structure of the international system to explain the propensity to conflict. These neo-realists, or structural realists, say that in a world where there is no supreme authority over nations, all states are forced to look after themselves and to distrust others. There is no power to discipline states which might choose unacceptable ways to assert their interests.

Realists believe that international institutions cannot be relied upon to protect a nation's interests, as states will only co-operate with each other when it is in their national interests to do so. Thus, realists tend to be pessimistic about the ability of international institutions to regulate inter national behaviour. As the 1930s showed, war may be in the interests of states which would benefit from a change to the status quo, and other states may have no interest in stopping the aggressive states. In this situation, peace can best be assured by a balance of power between nations, so that no one nation, or combination of nations, can prevail over others. The power equilibrium necessary to preserve the peace has historically been maintained by mean of alliances among nations.(4)

A third tenet of realism is that politics are governed by the restrictions and demands of the national interest rather than by morality. Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in the abstract: they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place.(5) States should not attempt to universalise their own particular moral and ethical principles: other states may have different values.

The National Party's foreign policy outlook over the years has seemed closest to the tenets of realism. National governments have tended to see the world as a competitive jungle, in which small nations like New Zealand are at a disadvantage in the struggle for survival. The party's 1975 election manifesto, for instance, stated bluntly that National's foreign policy philosophy was to `protect New Zealand's national interests in a world where there is continuing struggle for recognition and existence'.(6)

National perceived those national interests as forming a realistic hierarchy. In 1981, the Minister of Foreign Affairs wrote that New Zealand's basic foreign policy goals were `to promote our security -- so that we may remain free to develop in peace without external harassment or interference -- and to promote our economic well-being ....'(7) There was no mention of promoting democracy or human rights, even as a third-ranking goal.

National has always seen New Zealand's national interests as best promoted by alliances with great and powerful friends. Once a National government had obtained the ANZUS alliance for New Zealand, that alliance became the cornerstone of New Zealand's foreign policy for National governments. After a Labour government effectively ended New Zealand's membership in the alliance, National in 1987 pledged that it would return New Zealand to its traditional alliances `in the interests of national safety'. It said that Labour had `put the nation at risk' for party dogma.(8)

National does not see the United Nations as an adequate mechanism for protecting New Zealand's security. When the Minister of Justice, Doug Graham, suggested in 1994 that New Zealand should rely on the United Nations for its security in the future, rather than seek to restore the alliance with the United States, his stance was quickly contradicted by the Ministers of both Foreign Affairs and Defence. Don McKinnon, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that although in the post-Cold War era there was a chance for the United Nations to resurrect its original collective security function, `its role will remain limited for some time by its structure, organisational deficiencies, funding inadequacies and politics'.(9) In the meantime, it made sense for New Zealand to maintain close, co-operative defence and security relationships with its existing partners.

More recently, McKinnon has reiterated a realistic caution about the capabilities of international institutions: `We need to keep a good dose of realism about the world around us. While welcoming the role of new multilateral organisations... in contributing to regional stability, we should not lose sight of the continuing importance of traditional sources of security'. These he defined as `strong and well-disposed friends and allies who can help us when necessary' and `an appropriately-sized and well-equipped defence force'.(10)

National Party governments have been consistently pragmatic rather than moralistic in their approach to foreign policy. National has tended to give priority to preserving New Zealand's trade relationships over publicly castigating other governments for their human rights deficiencies. This focus on promoting the core national interests rather than ideals fits the realist pattern well.

From its earliest days, Jim Bolger's National government disavowed a moralistic approach to foreign policy in both word and deed. McKinnon declared in 1991 that a small country like New Zealand could not sustain a moral line of behaviour in foreign affairs which was totally unambiguous. While New Zealand had accepted the economic cost of some moral stands, that had to be balanced against the national interest.(11) Five years later, he was still expressing a realistic set of priorities for National in foreign affairs: `Political parties that say they will concentrate on such things as human rights or environmental issues and move away from security issues soon find no one else is listening to them'.(12)

Despite conforming fairly well to the realist model, National's foreign policy approach does diverge from it in two respects. First, security has not been the prime concern of recent National governments, even though the party has been anxious to keep New Zealand's alliances in good repair. New Zealand's defence spending has remained at a low level under National, as well as Labour, governments. Since the 1960s, trade has been the main foreign policy concern of National governments.

A second deviation from the realist model can be seen in National's attitude toward international organisations. As a small country, New Zealand, under National as well as Labour governments, has sought to utilise, and promote the role off international organisations. National governments have been nearly as strong as Labour governments in their support for the United Nations. The Bolger National government campaigned for, and won, a seat on the UN Security Council in 1992, and it also contributed New Zealand forces to numerous United Nations peacekeeping forces. Currently, the National-led government is particularly interested in the success of both APEC and the World Trade Organisation.

In contrast to the National party, the Labour Party's foreign policy approach has seemed much closer to the liberal internationalist model than to the realist one. The Labour Party has always shared liberal internationalism's emphasis on the international promotion of human rights and democratic values. Indeed, in 1972 the Labour Party manifesto claimed that Labour's international affairs policy was `to promote the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights'.(13) After the third Labour government was formed in 1972, the Prime Minister, Norman Kirk, declared that he wanted its foreign policy to express New Zealand's national ideals as well as its national interests. The government's term was marked by the restriction of sporting contact with South Africa because of its apartheid policy.

The first Labour government in the 1930s set the pattern for Labour's promotion of democracy with its support for the elected Spanish government during the Spanish Civil War. In March 1937, Labour expressed New Zealand's opposition to a British proposal to appoint an informal agent to Franco's rebel administration. The Labour government said that it was `firmly and unalterably opposed to any action which, either directly or indirectly, can be interpreted as, or tend towards, the recognition of any administration in Spain other than that of the lawfully constituted government.(14) After the victory of the Franco forces in the Civil War, the Labour government refused to grant the new regime diplomatic recognition. Fifty years later, the fourth Labour government was to suspend all high-level political contact with Fiji after the military coup in that country, and to close the South African consulate in New Zealand because of South Africa's human rights policies.

Labour has also followed the liberal internationalist model in its enthusiasm for international institutions. The hallmark of the first Labour government was its fervent support for the League of Nations system of collective security. Later it took an active part in creating the United Nations organisation. During the 1990 crisis in the Persian Gulf, the fourth Labour government was unwilling to contribute to the American-led military force seeking to liberate Kuwait, because the force was not under United Nations command, and because the United Nations had not formally requested a New Zealand contribution. The following National government had no such qualms.

The Labour Party has an anti-militarist tradition which influences its attitude to security. It shares the liberal internationalist interest in disarmament. The fourth Labour government gave priority to its disarmament goals over the maintaining of New Zealand's premier security alliance when it banned nuclear-weapons capable ships from New Zealand waters. The Labour Party has since argued that it sees no merit in a renewed defence relationship with the United States, even if the nuclear obstacle were overcome. Party leader Helen Clark said in 1994 that New Zealand's security lay in better relations, through diplomacy and trade, with the countries in its region.(15

The foreign policy outlooks of New Zealand's two main political parties reflect quite well the tenets of two different schools of thought about international relations. The Labour Party's perspective follows the liberal internationalist paradigm very closely, whereas National's outlook has a lesser fit with the realist model. This latter phenomenon may occur because the self reliant realist model is not entirely appropriate for a small state with limited resources.

(1.) Scott Burchill and Andrew Linklater with R. Devetak, M. Paterson and J. True, Theories of International Relations (Basingstoke, 1996), pp.31-2.

(2.) Richard W. Gardner, `The Comeback of Liberal Internationalism', Washington Quarterly, vol 13, no 3, Summer 1990, p.29.

(3.) O.R. Holsti, `Theories of International Relations and Foreign Policy: Realism and its Challengers', in Charles W. Kegley, Controversies in International Relations Theory.' Realism and the Neo-liberal Challenge (New York, 1995), p.37.

(4.) Hans J. Morgenthau, and Kenneth W. Thompson, Politics Among Nations: the Struggle for Power and Peace (New York, 1985), p.201.

(7.) `Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the year ended 31 March 1981', Appendices to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1981, A. 1, p.3.

(8.) Paul Harris and Stephen Levine (eds), The New Zealand Politics Source Book (Palmerston North, 1994), p.212.

(9.) Don McKinnon, `Building International Linkages: the Contribution of the Defence Force', New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade Record, vol 2, no 10, Apr 1994, p.16.

(10.) Don McKinnon, `New Zealand's Security: 1990 and Beyond', New Zealand Foreign Affairs and Trade Record, vol 6, no 1, Jun 1997, p.45.

(12.) John Armstrong, `Fortress New Zealand Worries Diplomats', NZ Herald, 13 Jul 1996, p.6.

(14.) Bruce S. Bennett, New Zealand's Moral Foreign Policy 1935-1939: the Promotion of Collective Security through the League of Nations (Wellington, 1988), p.46.

The foreign policy outlooks of New Zealand's two main political parties closely reflect two opposing schools of thought about international relations. The National Party's approach leans towards the realist school, whereas that of the Labour Party fits more comfortably within the liberal internationalist, or idealist, tradition. National tends to see the world as a competitive jungle, and has seen alliances with great and powerful friends as the best means of promoting New Zealand's national interests. It has been consistently pragmatic rather than moralistic in its approach, but it has deviated from the realist model to some extent, especially in its support of international organisations. Labour, on the other hand, has an anti-militarist tradition, and has been an enthusiastic supporter of international organisations.

RELATED ARTICLE: Conference on Treaties and New Zealand Law, August 1998

The New Zealand Branch of the International Law Association will convene a conference addressing the international law making process and the use of international law and New Zealand law on Friday 7 August and Saturday 8 August this year.

The conference will include perspectives from practitioners, academics, and officials from both the New Zealand and the Australian governments. This last will be of particular interest given the growing experience of the Australian government with the Joint Committee process for Parliamentary supervision of treaty making. The Australian developments have been paralleled by the establishment of a similar process in New Zealand. As the Law Commission noted in its report A New Zealand Guide to International Law and its Sources, treaties are of very substantial significance to New Zealand law, with approximately one-quarter of New Zealand public legislation potentially giving rise to international law issues. The conference follows the extremely successful seminar marking the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights held in Wellington in April.

The International Law Association was founded in Brussels in 1873. It is a non-governmental organisation dedicated to the study, dissemination and advancement of public and private international law and the study of comparative law. The New Zealand Branch was established in August 1996.

For further information on the Association or the Conference please contact the International Law Association, c/- Jan O'Neil, 126 Wakefield Street, Wellington, ph (04) 473 4307, fax (04) 473 4406.

David J. McCraw is a member of the University of Waikato's Department of Political Science and Public Policy.

Content provided in partnership with