A continuation of class discussions

Towards the end of class, an interesting question was brought up: what is the definition of a state? My answer to this question is simple. It is a political entity under a unified government within a set of distinct boundaries. Greg raised the point in class that the definition of a state depends on the type of government, that in the US, the population as a whole is a major component of political power within the state, but within a state such as Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the people do not have much of a say, and are therefore not a component of the state. Whereas this is a good point, I think that this is more of a definition of what the political organization of state is, and not what a state is itself.

Another critique, which we discussed in our group in class, was Morgenthau’s criticism of motive in predicting the foreign policy actions of statesmen. Initially we though that his criticism was faulty in that power itself is the fundamental motive for action in the realist school of thought. What we eventually came to believe, however, was that Morgenthau meant that since you can never truly know the intent hidden within the mind of a statesman from the statements he makes to the public, motives are irrelevant in an empirical analysis of foreign policy. Morgenthau claims, however, that “intellectual ability to comprehend the essentials of foreign policy, as well as […] political ability to translate what [has been] comprehended into successful political action” is important in understanding foreign policy. It is ironic that he disregards motive. In his attempt to explain why states act the way they do, Morgenthau judges success by level of power. Isn’t this simply making the assumption that the ultimate motive, the ultimate reason for action, when stripped to its basics, is power itself?