Conclusions

The conclusion argues that the time is right for a reappraisal and renewal of interest in Niebuhr’s approach to IR and U.S. foreign policy. It reviews the importance of dialectics to his work, and from a Niebuhrian perspective, comments on Putin’s Russia, the politics of Donald Trump, and the rise of the post-truth era. One of the most important aspects of Niebuhr’s contributions to IR was his recognition of the importance of dialectics. Dialectics found its way into much of Niebuhr’s writing, from his views on human nature to his views on the potential for realizing a peaceful, mutually tolerable global community, which he concluded was the “final possibility and impossibility of human life” and “will be in actuality the perpetual problem as well as the constant fulfillment of human hopes.”

Niebuhrian Takeaways on Humanitarian Intervention and the Responsibility to Protect

This chapter considers a Niebuhrian take on humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect (or R2P). Following an introduction to the evolution of the norms of humanitarian intervention and R2P, the study considers several cases from Niebuhr’s lifetime that he wrote about and that are related to what we now call humanitarian intervention and R2P. I conclude that Niebuhr would commiserate with those of us, like Samantha Power, who are saddened by the world’s cold willingness to ignore genocide and other atrocities and to stand by and do nothing in so many cases. Niebuhr would have found solace in the rise in international acceptance of the R2P principle. Niebuhr embraced the principles of what we know as R2P as a moral imperative for individuals and nations, even while recognizing the difficulty of mobilizing such goodwill and social action both socially and politically.

Niebuhr on the UN, Globalization, and the Potential for National Transcendence

In this chapter, we consider Niebuhr’s views of the nature of the world community, the United Nations, globalization, and the potential for national transcendence, or the likelihood of nations laying down their interests for a higher international good. Niebuhr would have viewed globalization positively, as a way to advance functional cooperation between nations. A strong supporter of the United Nations, he viewed the UN Security Council veto as an important tool, allowing cooperation among the powers but blocking forward movement on issues the great powers could not agree on. Despite his liberal internationalism, he did not believe national transcendence was likely given all he said about power, moral dissonance, and groupism, nor would he have found world government attractive given the fallibility of human nature, particularly if one considers dystopian tales such as Orwell’s 1984 or Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

Introduction

Reinhold Niebuhr was perhaps the preeminent American intellectual of the twentieth century. He was at once teacher, preacher, philosopher, social critic, public intellectual and ethicist, applying his brand of human nature Realism in both the secular and religious worlds. He was a highly influential thinker, especially at the height of the Cold War, addressing the economic, spiritual, social, and political issues of his day. He profoundly influenced the early classical Realists such as Hans Morgenthau, Henry Kissinger, and George F. Kennan. While Niebuhr has been forgotten by some, indeed there has been a marked resurgence of interest in Niebuhr’s work both in the United States and abroad in recent years, particularly in the wake of the 911 attacks and the invasion of Iraq. As we look forward, it is helpful to look backward to Niebuhr, for his views on international relations may well guide us as we attempt to deal with the many intractable problems of the present age.

Locating Reinhold Niebuhr in Contemporary IR Theory

There is much more to Reinhold Niebuhr’s thought, and his impact on international relations ([IR] and IR theory) has been deeper and more profound than has been commonly acknowledged. Indeed, Niebuhr has been a seminal figure in the Realist movement, but his impact goes beyond Realism. This chapter documents his contributions in the context of the revival/recovery of classical Realism, along with a recognition of the importance of nonmaterial factors (with contemporary interpretivists and constructivists), regime type (as with neo-liberal institutionalists or democratic peace), and human nature (Rosen), among other things. There are deep strains of existentialism in Niebuhr’s work as well, which is usually associated with postmodernism/poststructuralism, as Niebuhr draws in important ways from Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche. This chapter reconsiders Niebuhr’s theoretical innovations and in the process more adequately and systematically locates his work in IR theory, considering both his influences and the influences he has had therein and thereupon.

Niebuhr on Human Nature

This chapter focuses on Niebuhr’s views of human nature, the intellectual foundation on which his worldview is grounded. A dualistic view of human nature (a predisposition toward self-interest/evil, a potential for good) underlies all of his work. First is a discussion of the biblical conception of human nature which he embraced, starting with the notion of pride (which he viewed as the root of all human folly), which leads to insecurity (the consequence of pride), which results in will-to-power (a flawed attempt to address insecurity), from which, for Niebuhr, flow all the conflicts and wars in human history. The discussion then moves to the classical and modern conceptions of human nature, which Niebuhr ultimately rejected. In Niebuhr’s view, all of this leads to the inability of science, law, institutions, education, and rationality (among other things) to tame human nature and eradicate evil and/or ultimately conflict.

Niebuhrian Takeaways for the West Regarding the Twenty-first Century Rise of China

This chapter explores Niebuhr’s writings on China and asks what Niebuhr might have said about China’s spectacular rise as an economic power in the twenty-first century. Included are a discussion of what Niebuhr did say about China in his lifetime (1892–1971) and a consideration of Niebuhr’s views of and strategies for dealing with America’s major competitor in the last century (the USSR), followed by a discussion of what factors would be most important in considering how Westerners should view China’s rise today, from a Niebuhrian perspective. In sum, although Niebuhr was a defensive Realist like Henry Kissinger, he would be quite hawkish toward China today, parting ways with the dominant Kissingerian approach to China. This would not be because of latent material power/structures, but because of Niebuhr’s stress on human nature, ideology, and regime types, which in this case Niebuhr would argue make today’s China a potentially dangerous power.

Niebuhrian Takeaways on the Just War Tradition and the U.S. Invasion of Iraq

This chapter situates Niebuhr in the world of the just war theory, while offering an assessment of his likely views of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and whether or not it was consistent with a Niebuhrian/just war approach to jus ad bellum (considerations of whether it is just to launch a war). While most writers consider Niebuhr a firm Augustinian and solidly in the camp of the just warriors (as do I), some controversy has arisen around his consequentialism, coupled with his relative lack of attention to jus in bello considerations (considerations of justice in how a war is fought). If Niebuhr had been alive in 2003, this study concludes that he would have been firmly against the Iraq War because of what he would have seen as U.S. hubris, U.S. assumptions of American exceptionalism, and the fact that the war did not accord with just war theory’s jus ad bellum standards.

Niebuhr on Collective Society, Nations, and International Relations

This chapter follows Niebuhr’s logic to a discussion of collective society, the state, and international relations. Niebuhr believed that moral dualism is necessary because while moral conduct such as pacifism might be possible for individuals, it is difficult to find between human collectivities (groups, states) because groupism (nationalism in the context of states) is fundamental for any group. From this flows collective pride, which the group depends on to maintain group unity, then conflict, because groups depend on groupism and pride to maintain group cohesion. Niebuhr concluded that power is the primary motivating force in international relations (IR), key to order at home and abroad, that there must by necessity be a measure of moral ambiguity in IR because what morality we might espouse at the individual level may not be practicable at the national or international level (“turning the other cheek” is plausible with Aunt Mary, but not with Hitler).

Niebuhr on U.S. Policy in the Cold War

Although at one time a Marxian thinker, Niebuhr was in his Christian Realist phase an ardent anticommunist, and his views of communism (assessed here) led naturally to his view that Washington should pursue a policy of containment and nuclear deterrence against the communist bloc. Though rather hawkish, he saw moral tension in the maintenance of nuclear weapons. He stood with a number of other Realists in energetically opposing the U.S. war in Vietnam, concluding that U.S. policymakers had succumbed to the folly of group pride and will-to-power run amok. His position cost him his status as darling of the Washington foreign policy establishment, but he had the courage to speak his mind and was more concerned about the cost of U.S. folly than he was about his reputation.