Introduction
The Balkan wars are of great historical significance. The first and second Balkan wars signified a drastic reorganization of power in regions of southern Europe. The Balkan wars marked the Ottoman Empire’s total collapse and ultimately led to the first world war. Factually, power needs reorganization from time to time, and most of the time, power is shifted from one state to another. Strong nations take power from the weak ones, causing their demise, while the powerful nations incorporate the weaker ones into their nationalities. The First Balkan War led to the Ottoman Empire losing most of its authority and control of the Balkan Peninsula. The Second Balkan war signified the newly independent Balkan states (including Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, and Bulgaria) striving to gain as much power as possible. Notably, power is never enough.
The Balkan crisis is appropriate in testing realism and liberalism as theories of international relations. The consequences of the first and second Balkan wars form an appropriate foundation for testing realism and liberalism. Political tension caused by the unending instability and conflicts among the Balkan states was a great motivator for the start of the first world war. Nonetheless, various European powers had their goals and interests concerning the Balkan states (Gilpin, 1988). Realism and liberalism try to explain the world in terms of the political events and occurrences in the international realm. Therefore, the Balkan wars are imperative and appropriate in testing the two theories since occurrences during and after the wars had international ramifications.
Theories
Realism
Realism is an international relations theory that suggests that states should and always put their interests and goals first. Realism suggests that the world is dangerous since every state has its interests that it would protect selfishly without giving thought to its neighbors and the consequences of its actions. Realism proposes that international relations are driven by competition among and between states. Classical realism further suggests that the world is an anarchic system. Realism as an international relations theory constitutes some assumptions. Firstly, realism assumes that the major or principal player or actor in international relations is the state. Factually, international relations comprise other bodies, such as organizations and individuals, but realism assumes that their power is limited. Secondly, realism assumes that the state is an undivided actor in international relations.
The theory suggests that the state acts and speaks in one voice concerning national interests, especially when a conflict or war erupts. Thirdly, realism assumes that rational decision-making results in the pursuit of the nation’s interests, and therefore, in essence, the decision-makers are considered rational players or actors (Snyder, 2004). Nonetheless, realism assumes that states exist in an anarchic system. Consequently, it makes an assumption that no entity is in charge of all states globally.
Even though realism suggests some important concepts in understanding international relations, it has certain implications. Realism proposes that for a nation to thrive, it is imperative for it to develop mechanisms for surviving in the international realm. Survival entails a state attaining power from other states and striving to maintain the acquired control at all costs, and this is mostly achieved through wars. Therefore, the occurrence of conflicts and their subsequent effects is the major implication of realism.
Liberalism
Liberalism is an international relations theory that suggests that states are not always on the brink of war and that countries can actually co-exist in peace. Liberalism indicates that though there exists armed wars or conflicts, most states are at peace with one another. The theory proposes that relations between states are not necessarily a zero-sum game where the winner-takes-it-all and the loser end up empty-handed. Liberalism suggests that though there exists an anarchic system in the world, it is not realistic for international relations affairs to be conducted in a manner that indicates that a state is under an imminent threat of attack.
Liberalism as an international relations theory comprises certain assumptions. Liberalism assumes that the states are not the only vital actors in international affairs or world politics. It assumes that non-state actors, such as individuals and organizations, have an influence on international relations, which cannot be simply ignored (Jervis, 2017). Liberalism assumes that a nation or country is not a united or undivided actor and that the actors are not rational decision-makers (Hoffmann, 2001). The nation or country comprises individuals and other interest groups that attempt to influence foreign policy, and therefore, competition, conflict, and coalition may compromise these actors in the achievement of unity.
Liberalism is an important theory in explaining international relations, and it has some implications. Liberalism can be considered as a defining feature of modern democracy. Factually, liberalism is founded on the moral perspective that every person has the right to life, property, and liberty and that human rights should be considered the most important goal of any state (Jervis, 2017). Liberalism emphasizes the well-being of citizens of a state as a vital building block for just political systems.
Findings
Realism and the Balkan Wars
As mentioned earlier, realism suggests that every state should and always pursues its own interests, which it also guards selfishly. The Balkan states (Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, and Bulgaria) were nationalist states. When the four states attained their independence from the Ottoman Empire, they had the aim of absorbing and assimilating the citizens of their nationalities. They included those who had remained under the rule of the Ottoman Empire to achieve their claims of full nationalism.
Realism proposes that international relations are driven by competition between states. The state of Macedonia made competing claims to the territories held by the Ottoman Empire. This made it difficult for the Balkan states to join forces with Macedonia in the fight against the Ottoman forces (Waltz, 2018). At the same time, the state of Turkey made threats to resuscitate the Ottoman Empire after their coup. The threats made the heads of the Balkan states to seek assistance in overcoming their rivals. The states of Serbia and Bulgaria made an alliance to settle the Macedonian issue, and the Russians provided mediation. Additionally, Serbia and Bulgaria made agreements with Montenegro and Greece, all this happening on individual levels.
The combined efforts of the Balkan states ensured the collapse of the Ottoman empire. In the first Balkan conflict, the state of Serbia claimed most parts of Macedonia while the Bulgarians were still at war with the Ottoman forces. The Serbs were prevented by the Austrians from taking over the Albanian coast. To compensate for this loss, the Serbs sought to make their hold on Macedonia even stronger. On the other hand, Greece also indicated that they would retain the Macedonian regions they occupied since no agreement had been reached on the settlement of Macedonia (Goddard, 2009). Nonetheless, the state of Bulgaria advanced its quest for Macedonia. The lack of understanding among the Balkan states led to a war among themselves. Realism suggests that every state acts according to its interests and bears no mind about its neighbors. Essentially, any competing state is a potential enemy, and competition must be eliminated. The Bulgarian army began attacks on Greece and the areas occupied by the Serbs in Macedonia.
Liberalism and the Balkan Wars
As previously discussed, liberalism suggests that even though armed conflicts do occur, most nations or states are at peace with each other. Factually, the Balkan wars happened in the southeastern regions of Europe, which is just a section of the world. Other states in the rest of the world were at peace with one another, and therefore the suggestion made by liberalism is validated. Liberalism also suggests that states can actually exist in peace even when war is considered the only way to solve misunderstandings (Rodgers, 2020). When Bulgaria initiated attacks on the Serbs and the Greeks, it became vulnerable to attacks by the Ottoman and Romanian forces. The Bulgarian army was put under intense pressure until they couldn’t handle the war anymore, and so they sought peace. Bulgaria signed a treaty that would end the war and ensure stability.
Additionally, liberalism proposes that wars require countries to grow and develop military power to fight foreign states, which can also be used to oppress its own citizens. Notably, countries that desire to expand their territories and gain new colonies mostly strengthen themselves at the expense of their citizens. The Balkan wars led to many casualties. Tens of thousands of citizens across the warring nationalities died of hunger, diseases, and other factors. The Ottoman forces suffered the greatest by losing about one hundred and twenty-five thousand men. Bulgaria lost around sixty-five thousand men. Serbia lost at least thirty-six thousand men. The Greeks that died were about nine thousand and five hundred. The number of men lost by Montenegro was three thousand. Therefore, the fact suggested by liberalism that wars are of no good to the citizens of the warring states is validated.
Liberalism proposes that states are not rational decision-makers in the purported pursuit of a state’s interests. The attack of the Bulgarian army against Greece and Serbia was irrational. Bulgaria adamantly wanted a share of Macedonia, which had already been occupied by the Serbs and Greeks. The Bulgarians would not even cooperate with the Russian mediation to solve the growing and escalating misunderstanding.
Bulgaria’s interest was tied to making Macedonia its colony, and therefore they began attacks that signaled the outbreak of the general war. The Romanians and Ottoman forces attacked the Bulgarians intending to maintain their territories (Owen, 1994). The Bulgarians suffered a defeat and signed a treaty that saw it lose most of Macedonia to the Serbs and Greeks. They also lost southern Dobrudzha to the Romanians. Bulgaria’s irrational decision-making made it lose the little territories it had acquired and most of its soldiers.
Conclusion
Realism as a theory to explain international relations faces some limitations. Realism’s foundation is based on the firm belief that international affairs are a struggle for power among states that are only after their interests. During the Second Balkan war, Russia offered to mediate between Bulgaria and Serbia to prevent an outbreak of war between allies. Russia was not driving its agenda; it aimed to keep the Balkan states together since Bulgaria had declared war on Greece and Serbia. Realism fails to recognize that clearsighted nations can mitigate the causes of war by developing mechanisms to minimize the danger they pose on one another, just as Russia acted as a mediator.
Liberalism also has its limitations. Modern liberalism suggests that the rising democratic tide forms the presumption that all states are entitled to enjoy the benefits of self-determination. The theory suggests that states may get into the war against nations occupying powers to ensure democracy among nations. The Balkan region attracted the attention of Western European powers, who had concerns about the possible aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
Russia desired to expand its territory by colonizing some sections of the Balkan region. On the other hand, Britain was opposed to Russia’s advances but wanted the Ottoman Empire to remain intact. However, Britain’s aim was for the Ottoman Empire to continue acting as a buffer against the Russians and not the claimed maintenance of democracy. Additionally, Germany wanted to make colonies from the bankrupt Ottoman regions. These conflicts motivated the first world war. Liberalism, therefore, fails to shed light on the concept of states fighting to ensure the preservation of other nations’ self-determination.
The theories of realism and liberalism present avenues for future research and develop answers for prevailing questions. In realism, research can be conducted on traditional realism and neorealism to establish a mechanism that focuses on the characteristics of states and their interactions to understand ways in which power can be exercised.
References
Gilpin, R. (1988). The theory of hegemonic war. The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 591-613. Web.
Goddard, S. E. (2009). When right makes might: How Prussia overturned the European balance of power. International Security, 33(3), 110-142.
Hoffmann, S. (2001). An American social science: international relations. International Relations–Still and American Social Science. Towards Diversity in International Thought, 27-51.
Jervis, R. (2017). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton University Press.
Owen, J. M. (1994). How liberalism produces democratic peace. International security, 19(2), 87-125.
Rodgers, M. W. E. (2020). Integration of unmanned aircraft systems into civil aviation: a study of the US, South Africa and Kenya (Doctoral dissertation).
Snyder, J. (2004). One world, rival theories. Foreign policy, (145), 52.
Waltz, K. (2018). Man, the state, and war. Columbia University Press.