Realpolitik and eRepublik
•
by PigInZen
The Irregular Repetoire, vol 1.
Day 564
PigInZen
As a student of real-life History, one of my favorite time periods and locations is pre-World War I Europe and in particular the rise of the German national state. The complete and total Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian War in 1871 brought about the unification of the German states as a new nation in the heart of Europe. This dramatic event brought about significant changes to the geopolitical landscape, in no large part to German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck's use of Realpolitik to guide his foreign policy. Realpolitik - the "politics of reality" is a foreign policy based on based on practical rather than ethical or ideological considerations.
Let's take a step back here and explore the historical foundations of Realpolitik, the real-world applications of it and why the foreign policy "philosophy" should be put to use here in eRepublik.
Those of you familiar with Machiavelli will in no doubt also be familiar with the "might makes right" attitude. Often Machiavellian tactics and strategies are described in a negative fashion as being coercive or exploitative. In RL such criticism is probably considered valid as the altruistic tendencies of the human species looks with disdain upon such structures, especially when Americans are judging the situation. But the historical roots of Realpolitik are found only partially in Machiavelli. The term itself was created with regards to Metternich's formation of the Concert of Europe (consisting of Britain, Prussia, Russia and Austria-Hungary, later including France) following the Napoleonic Wars. The chief concern of Metternich and his international diplomatic colleagues was maintaining the balance of power in Europe and containing France. This structure developed over much of the nineteenth century and kept the relative peace on the continent until the advent of WWI.
Alright, you're probably thanking me for the History lesson right about now but are still wondering just WTF I'm getting at. Hang on, I'm coming to the good stuff. But we need another round of background first... get a cup of coffee and try to stay awake.
Bismarck's use of Realpolitik as an internal policy as well as a foreign policy was his masterstroke. It was Bismarck that pushed for liberalization of employment law in Germany, leading to disability and retirement benefits that were unheard of at the time. These policies helped to reduce the old internal historical divisions in the new German nation while the foreign policy served to unite the country under a nationalistic banner.
We need this policy in eRepublic in the eUSA. Recent global events underscore the fact that there currently exists little to no balance of power - a dangerous situation indeed. We have many regional rivalries that have blossomed into worldwide rivalries with the advent of PTO. The eRepublic world is a dangerous one, as evidenced by actions by eBrazil, eIndonesia. This is not to say that those countries are acting in an evil or malign fashion as I have often read in opinions by others. Rather their foreign policies are driven by their own set of Realpolitik - something that some eAmericans have yet to fully understand. Realpolitik is not an interventionist policy per se, but rather one that gauges the needs surrounding decisions for intervention versus nonintervention, aggression versus defense carefully and on a case-by-case basis, always with the national aims, and international power structure in mind.
No longer can we allow our foreign policy to be driven by sentiment or altruism. It is time for a national endorsement of Realpolitik.
Future topics in the Irregular Repetoire:
Frameworks for international relations
Mulitpolar power structures
Economic & military power blocs
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
I have a problem with all this Realpolitik grandstanding. Not so much that I disagree with it, there are times I do, but when we-or our President-claim to be an adherent of it, we unwittingly show our hand to the rest of the eWorld.
What will we do if an ally is attacked? Well, that depends. If we calculate that our assistance will be of personal benefit then they can expect our help. But if we decide that our help might not be enough... sorry you're SOL.
Enemies of the eUS can calculate our response to a crisis just as well as we can.
"There is no honor among thieves" -- honor in this case, meaning loyalty. Thieves and other bad guys turn on each other if they think there's a deal to be had.
Realpolitik is shortsighted. Sure, it may help us defeat PEACE in the short run, but what kind of world do we create in the long run? Hint: Look at you own example, Germany.
BTW, I always find it funny when Machiavelli is brought up in this context since he didn't actually seem to believe any of the garbage he wrote in "The Prince". Read his "Discourses" for a better idea of his real beliefs. The Prince was nothing more than a vanity piece for his masters.
Thanks for the reply. The German-Swedish-Polish war notwithstanding, I believe we need to carefully evaluate our alliances beforehand. Realpolitik is not about not honoring our alliances and treaties, rather it is about taking a realistic approach to policy, not an emotional or sentimental one. There is no quicker way to international distrust than ignoring alliances and treaties.
So... are you suggesting that the eUS should be unpredictable in its response to events so that our "enemies" can't calculate our future actions? Wouldn't not honoring our alliances or treaties fall under that?
Osmany, thanks for the reply.
It's not shortsighted if one also puts into place mechanisms for reducing polarity in the world. Currently we have many l of relatively the same strength which increases the potential for conflicts. Alliances and blocs are natural methods for reducing polarity and political systems naturally seek a bipolar stable system.
My statement still stands. If we decide to burn bridges with allies in order to further our own self-interest, we will eventually be left on an island by ourselves. Do you think eGermany will soon be eager to ally with us after we abandoned it?
"So... are you suggesting that the eUS should be unpredictable in its response to events so that our "enemies" can't calculate our future actions?"
In a sense.... As I said there are times that I'm in favor of Realpolitik methods. I'm more in the middle between Realpolitik and Weltpolitik.
I'd just prefer that we didn't show our hand, or wear our intentions on our sleeves. A little more tact, so others don't know what side we're coming from. This sounds even more devious than realpolitik, but maybe that's what I'm advocating. Let's keep our ability to wear a poker face.
"If we decide to burn bridges with allies in order to further our own self-interest, we will eventually be left on an island by ourselves."
Osmany has a point. Germany's problem with realpolitik created what Bismark called the nightmare of coalitions.
Voted and subscribed. Good luck with the paper!
Osmany, thanks again for the replies. Discussion is always helpful.
It's important to remember that Germany wavered between PEACE and ATLANTIS and that their intentions haven't always been the greatest. Sometimes it's better to cut one's losses rather than play a losing hand.
Do you think the S-W-P war and eUSA's inaction was worse than the failed Mexican debacle for our prestige?
Virgil, some great points in there.
I can't disagree necessarily with your viewpoint being somewhere between RP & WP. Both do have their drawbacks. I meant this article as a response to calls for more altruistic-driven FP. The advantage to RP, in my opinion, is that it IS relatively unpredictable to non-eAmericans. It might be somewhat easy to game, to come up with potential options from an non-eAmerican's viewpoint but it's not as predictable as ideological-driven FP.
If you read the State Dept boards you'll notice that there are many agitating for another "nightmare of coalitions". This is only natural given the multipolar state we're currently in. The danger is exactly that - creating a mesh of alliances that drags us into conflicts in which we really don't have an overriding interest outside of MPP. This of course is a failure in FP, one that occurred when the alliance was created (or if the geopolitical conditions negated the need for said alliance).
Thanks again.
Pig (aka Phil)
And your point is...?