Machhivali and Thomas Hobbes thought on International Relation

Well, before we talk about Niccolo machhivali and Thomas Hobbes . We see that the two major European powers have been present, Kingdom of France, and Spanish Empire. Those empires have been related to is a very close links, but at the same time they are very, very strong rivalries and their arrival was mainly about ltaly. in one of his letters, actually the emperor of the Holy Roman empire Charles V wrote, "The interest of myself and of my cousin French king Francois Premier, are basically the same, we both want Northern Italy." And this quotation gives us a perfect example of how the political thoughts of the Renaissance supports us to understand the causes of the conflict. The conflict emerges not when the interests are different, but when the two powers want the same. Like now, many countries want their own, their same neighbors to be friendly nations, but it means for everybody different. Besides two great countries, France and Spanish Empire and Holy Roman Empire, we see that their territory of Italy consists of the several small states, among them the Holy state, Papal state, is only one. The other important factor of the emergence of this unique international system was the decline of the authority of the Roman Pope. The states and the food of, the lords of the newly emerging little states, they did not have any respect to the Rome which it has deserved for many, many centuries before. And this disrespect and the emergent equality of the relationships becomes one of the most inspiring reasons for their political thought of the Renaissance. And among those thinkers, Machiavelli is definitely one of the brightest. Classical tradition during Italian Wars was developed in his book "The Prince" an influential political ecce, written by Niccolo Machiavelli for Lorenzo de Medici in 1513. It was first published however, only in 1532, because the Roman church did not like it very much. The Roman church thought and said that "The Prince" represents the very
immoral, non-Christian unfortunately international relations. Why? Because basically Niccolo Machiavelli addressed to the very beginnings of classical tradition, nearly for the Fukudidas and other predecessors. He brought the ideas from the ancient Greece, from the previous thinkings, and he adopted these ideas to his time, and he used these ideas as an advise for political practice. So, what Machiavelli wrote and why it is important for the understanding of international relations? Let us take several quotations, the first, the Machiavelli writes, "War should be the only study of a prince". By saying this, Machiavelli defines what is the main form of interaction between the states. For him, as for any classic realist, the war is the normal condition, not the peace. Why? Because the states are always competing, because the states can never get in terms, they can be never a final solution. Every solution, every victory, or every compromise is only the preparation of another conflict, of another war. And that's why war should be the only study of a prince. The other quotations, "The promise given was a necessity of the past: the world broken is a necessity of the present." This sounds very cynical indeed. But for Machiavelli, it was obvious that any politician, any prince responsible for his country, for his state, must give any promises to the other countries and has no moral responsibility with regard to the others, he has only one more responsibility is to protect his power, and is to protect the people who live in his country. And in the works of Machiavelli, we find the another maximum. Machiavelli writes that the prince who is favorable to theirs those who live in the other states is unfavorable and is moral towards his own subordinates. The other quotation, "Politics have no relation to morals", is a very, very straightforward, and it is also related to what Fukudida said many 100 years before Machiavelli and nearly 2000 years before Machiavelli. And what will be said by the classics and by the others of offers of realist tradition in international relations. But to understand that better, we should not look at the ideas of Machiavelli very
primitively. Machiavelli was not a simple cynical offer by saying politics have no relation to morals. He wanted to say only one thing that the politics are so important that one cannot approach politics with a normal human attitude to the questions like morals, justice, humanism, and the other important things which exist between the people within the society. So, in work of Machiavelli, we find one of the most important concepts of the international relations and the approach to the international relations from the school of classical realism, the straight division between the internal and international, what is permittable, what is possible
internationally, does not exist inside of the society, and what is a normal inside of the society like morals orjustice, does not exist in international relations where as Fukudida wrote 2000 years before Machiavelli that only strength matters. Machiavelli understanding of politics was based on the three major ideas, one has been already mentioned, "War should be the only study of prince". The main responsibility of the rulers is always to defend the interests of the state and ensure its survival. "The promise given was in the necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present." So, if necessary others have said already, a ruler must be ruthless and deceptive while defending selfinterest. So, in today's politics we see many times when countries complain that they were not explained before what are intentions of their partners. But we should also understand that it is always the work or the maximum explained by Machiavelli several 100 years ago. And the third one, ”Politics have no relation to morals". A responsible ruler should not follow Christian ethics, if states follow these values, they will disappear in the end. Thus, for Machiavelli and the likes, the morality and ethics is an indicator of that a certain ruler is irresponsible with regard to his power, his legitimacy, and people whom he is governing. Another great representative of the classic realist tradition was a British philosopher, Thomas Hobbes which lived in the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th, and the middle of the 17th century. It was a very, very difficult time for Europe. The wars happened here and there. The great 30 years war was taking place in the very, very heart of Europe around the Holy Roman Empire. The other wars happen on periphery, Russia arrived to the European politics with invasion of the Baltics by the wars of the Ivan the Terrible. So, Thomas Hobbes, based on this intellectual and practical background offered a justification of states by envisaging a state-less state of nature. In this state human beings lived in the condition of "war everyone against everyone". For Thomas Hobbes, this condition was the very initial and was threatening the very existence of humans. And according to that Thomas Hobbes people seek to escape the state of nature to achieve personal security and to find a solution, and the solution is to establish state. In order to escape from this situation, Hobbes suggested placing old power to a certain sovereign state, which he calls Leviathan, a state authority or supreme ruler, that would maintain order and end anarchy. Without order, no economic development, art, knowledge is possible. It leads to establishment of a social
contract. However unlike a liberal tradition, Hobbes supposes that such contract was conducted not between individuals, but between individuals and the government. And this is a very important difference between liberal and realist tradition. For the realist, the most important unit is the state under the
government, for the liberals, this is the individual.

Post a Comment