2. Realist theory primarily offers a study of conflictual aspect of international relation and has no tools to analyze the aspect of co-operation that have become more than evident in the establishment of Supranational agencies. 3. His concept of human nature has built-in-bias and is unscientific.
Men are rational, creatures having multifaceted attributes, all of which cannot be cruxes under quest for power. 4. Complete neglect of values is tantamount to claims of universal brotherhood and fraternity on which nations are interacting with one another. It must be observed that national interests are designed to be hospitable not only to state and its territory but also its citizens. 5. Scholars like Robert Thicker and Kenneth Waltz see contradiction in Realist theory.
Despite claiming to neglect value in study of international politics, Morgenthau himself elevates power to be an ultimate value. 6. Stanley Holftmann accuses Morgenthau of engaging in “power monism.
” Rather, he points out that power is one complement of complex relations which Morgenthau does not examine. 7. Dr. Mohinder Kumar finds inconsistencies in Morgenthau’s Realist Theory. Morgenthau accepts power struggle, conflict, contradiction and discords as natural parts of International Politics.
Such an acceptance makes him regard international politics as an endless struggle for power involving a clash of rational foreign policies. But at the same time he accepts the desirability and possibility of preserving peace and harmony at international level. He pins hopes on peace through accommodations and accommodations through diplomacy. This highlights the inconsistency in Morgenthau’s views. He takes deterministic and pessimistic views of human nature but hesitates, rather fails, to take these views to their logical conclusions. His analysis justifies struggle for power and war but at the same time he advocates peace through good diplomacy and statesmanship.
8. Raymond Aron accuses Morgenthau of neglecting the relation between ideologies and politics. The realist theory fails to offer a comprehensive theory of International Relations. It is partial in the sense that it offers explanation of power relations among nations. According to Prof.
Mohinder Kumar “it does not make the distinction between rational interest and interpretation of national interest. It does not make a distinction between the nature of reality and the interpretation of reality. The failure to do so emanate from the fact that the realist’s theory ignores the fact that we can know only a part and not the whole of reality.” Nevertheless, seen in the context of its time, it is pioneering contribution in the field of International relations theory. It gave impetus to new theorization on the idea of international relations and helped in ushering an era of scientism from idealism. Moreover, it offers materials for analyzing international relations.
Perhaps, that explains the reason for hailing Morgenthau as one of the greatest contemporary writers on world politics. But it must be noted, as Mohinder Kumar observes “The future of the relevance of Morgenthau’s theory is linked to the place which the nation-state occupies in the future international system and in the nature of transformation of the international system.