The Benefits of Realism and Human Security Working Hand in Hand

    Within international relations, there is a separation between the concepts of Realism and human security. Realism revolves around the state and how it must operate in order to control inevitable, constant anarchy. On the other hand, human security is about the individual and ensuring that the individual is free from violent and non-violent threats (ex. access to food, clean water, education, shelter, etc.). This blog post argues that the two are entangled and must both be considered in order to reach political decisions and outcomes that are beneficial for all and that are rooted in justice. 

    In Tickner’s article, titled Hans Morgenthau’s Principles of Political Realism, A Feminist Reformulation, she argues that masculinity is embedded in political realist theories and written concepts. This same type of argument was made by Zvobgo and Loken’s article Why Race Matters In International Relations where they exposed how race is a central organising feature of world politics. Both of these articles shine light onto how sexism and racism are inherent in realism even if it is not overt. The overlooking of these groups, that make up the population of states, is a blatant display of the hierarchy that is manifested in the history of international relations. The hierarchy relating to how “forgotten people” are at the bottom and it is those at the top (generally white men) who make decisions on behalf of the state’s population with usually little-to-no true representation. The outcomes of decisions that are made by states have direct impacts on women and non-white people in and out of the state. These outcomes pose a threat to people’s human rights and therefor affect their human security. 

    It is almost a backwards paradigm to believe that by doing “what is best for the state” is going to be the optimum decision. The foundation of decisions should lie within the people of the state. By focusing on the individual, parallel to how human security works, the state will generate a more cohesive, equal, and stable foundation. The endangerment of people’s human security simply provokes more anarchy. Rice argues this idea in her speech titled “The National Security Implications of Global Poverty”. It is needed for a state to establish security within its population in order to allow for a state to be efficient. 

    Without a Realist approach (one that is fixed in sense, logic, and facts), it can be argued that the idea of human security is overly optimistic to the point of being unrealistic. Paris argues in his article Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air? that the definition of human security is so vague that it boarders meaninglessness. Human security does have its flaws in definition, but the consensus is that it is a necessity for all individuals of the world.

    An approach that is Realist but focused on human security is what should be aimed for. The disconnection between the two do not allow for a truly effective and “correct” (acknowledging that morality differs in different cultural settings) way in policy making. The state must have self-interest in its power and in its population, in terms of human security, for the betterment of all its sectors.