I agree only partially. I treat international politics more as a game, a complicated game with variable rules. as a continuous process of negotiation and discussion, although also trickery and surprise. A test of strength and a demonstration of intelligence. Also the impact of the event changing the existing set course of events.

That is why it is extremely intriguing to observe and analyze international politics as a scientist.

I agree only partially. I treat international politics more as a game, a complicated game with variable rules. as a continuous process of negotiation and discussion, although also trickery and surprise. A test of strength and a demonstration of intelligence. Also the impact of the event changing the existing set course of events.

That is why it is extremely intriguing to observe and analyze international politics as a scientist.

yes history is the witness to international politics gave birth to wars to just maintain their power and get control on more energy resources to become more powerful or having market access throughout the world. Yes, in my opinion it is dangerous. No body thinks to put himself into the situations of others.

The international system is like a tree, the states are the branches while the politics played is the shade of the tree. The wind can't be blamed for blowing down the branches and leaves of the tree.

My point the international politics can't be absolutely nasty or dirty.

The pulling and hauling process is good for development and nation building. The world according major thinkers must have a hegemon who will rule over policies of government, politics, economics etc.

The outfalls of nations in the international politics mustn't make us to hate politics in the international arena.

My utmost esteem please

I must reiterate the point made my Joanna that it's best to convince of international politics as a complex game in the struggle for Survival, power, and relevance.

Hence Mao Zedong's position that (international) politics is best described as war without bloodshed and war a continuation of politics by other means..

To some extent the answer is yes.

Only if you don't take a shower

The simpler and more direct answer to the question "is international politics a nasty and dangerous business ?" is definitely YES. Politics has nothing to do with ethics or morality, and never had. But we need to add some clarifications, mainly because we live in a new world, with conditions definitely different from the past about which we have historical experience. I refer in particular to the following undeniable facts: 1) Major wars between great powers are not any more a viable way of "continuing politics by other means", as Clausewitz said - and we have to hope it with all our strength - due to the availability of mass destruction weapons. That is why they resort ever more to proxy wars, terrorism and economic sanctions as "robust" means of doing politics.

2) The Pillars of Hercules do not exist any more: all countries have been made interdependent by globalisation and their destiny is more and more linked to the fate of others. If China takes a flu, we also are ill the same. 3) Modern communications have started to put in touch people living in far away places on the planet, exactly like we are doing right now, and with the passing of time this will be ever more true: they will realize how many things and opinions they have in common, and will be able to discuss differences knowing the real thoughts of others, fake news allowing. These three new conditions set a limit to the means utilized by powers in pursuing their objectives, certainly not for moral restraints but simply because not advantageous. For these reasons only, perhaps modern international politics is becoming a little bit less nasty and dangerous, not because human being have become better than their forefathers.

I have also read that the question arises from a paper entitled "Can China Rise Peacefully?", and therefore I would add what I wrote on this specific subject in my book "The Treasures Ships": The habit to China lack of a planetary political role and the novelty of his new power can lead to contrasting but equally false evaluations: those who will imprudently snub the new protagonists and those who on the contrary will perceive them as a terrible threat, but both will be mistaken. The first because they underestimate the Chinese determination, in pursuing what they perceive as vital and inalienable interests, to gradually employ their usual overwhelming means superiority. We know the current power of the United States, 321 million people with modern industry. Today China produces more than 10 times crude steel as the United States, it already has the world's most powerful supercomputer developed entirely with its own industry resources and has yet launched in orbit the first module of the new Tiangong 2 space station: what can 1500 million Chinese people do tomorrow with an industry upgraded to the more modern standards? Others, those who perceive China as a threat and are fearful of this prospect, will be mistaken because they will not properly evaluate the essentially peaceful nature of that people, who search for balance in international relations and face potential controversies with measure and self-control, nor will they consider the possible brake that the new middle class might pose to risky and extremely expensive endeavours: in the past the Empire practiced almost within an "infinite resources" regime just because it used the compulsory work of peasants who paid the price with their sacrifice, while today the cost would be immediately accounted for by families and perceived as a fall in the standard of living.

Best Regards

Insightful comments. Interestingly, all the comments presuppose that international politics is a "dangerous game" - though the "nasty" aspect is not given much attention.

The second question requires suggestions and ideas on how we as researchers and scholars can help give international politics a 'human' face and make it more lively and decent.

Your candid views are once again welcome.

For those interested in an update on China (the mentioned article is dating back from 2004), see the report published by Merics in 2017: http://www.merics.org/index.php/en/papers-on-china/chinas-emergence-global-security-actor-1

Concerning the question on international politics, it is an endless discussion...

You still have geopoliticians and analysts basing their insight on the sole ground of geographical and/or historical background (1st wave of geopoliticians, the classical ones), looking at states only within the lens of hegemon and counter-hegemons creating alternatives or countering the hegemon while the end objective remains to replace the current hegemon. In order to reach their goals, states take either the form of a sea power (Mahan) or land power (Mackinder)... including the frequent conception that borders are only a temporary halt (typically an idea taken from Haushofer).

On top of that, we have the current international order developed by the US for 50 years and currently challenged (see the articles of Anne-Cécile Robert, L’ordre international piétiné par ses garants, in Le Monde diplomatique of Feb 2018 or the article Present at the Erosion - International Order on the Brink published in the Munich Security Report of 2018). Nevertheless, it doesn't look like a nasty business and Joshua Stowell has for example well described that it is not because the system is challenged that we would expect a seism (see https://globalsecurityreview.com/west-really-retreat-probably-not/).

For the moment, media attention is clearly focused on the Asian tiger, DPRK or a new Cold War... The world is clearly summarised as a zero-sum game (President Trump's apparent view)...

But it is clearly to easy, international relations are nowadays deeply influenced by globalisation, private companies can have a deep impact even on an hegemon (e.g. delocalising jobs)... whithout taking into account transnational organised crime, climate change, health security or migrations... without forgetting the simple access to potable water.

To answer the question what can we do as scholars and researchers to change this seemingly "nasty and dangerous business"?, my humble comment would be:

- explain to our elites the various trends at stake,

- provide them with foresight, because they are clearly centered on short-term objectives (they nowadays want actionable information, beeing under constant pressure so "we need to show we are doing sthg") and we clearly need to look beyond in order to tackle emerging threats and/or challenges...

- if given the opportunity, explain to the media & our population international politics is much more than a zero-sum game (if it was the case, then why have we seen the creation of the EEC, even if the European Union as a project is nowadays clearly challenged?),

Internal politics cannot only be summarized by the theory of games, competition is not the only trend...

The article of John Mearsheimer implies the Darwinist concept of the survival of the fittest as well as the strategy of divide and rule or conquer. However, Mearsheimer does not support one dominant global force. He concludes that in the international politics the power of strong or dominant states is limited to regional not global hegemony. What makes the international politics nasty is that regional hegemons seek to keep other regions divided among several great powers fighting and weakening each other. I think Mearsheimer’s analysis makes sense (see China, Russia, US and other 'rising' regional powers).

Accepted that there is no universal morality in international politics but entrenched national interests. Every state big or small must understand this. What I see that is prevalent in international politics is 'irrationality". Western political observers and commentators are so irrational and unapologetic in their assessment of situations around the world as long as it profits them. That is the reason you will see countries like the United States of America, Britain and France jointly bombing a small country like Syria on trumped up or unsubstantiated allegation of the use of chemical weapons. This is after fermenting chaos and instability in that country because they want Assad out. In international relations 1+1 is definitely not 2. If this is what John Mearsheimer implies to mean nasty and dangerous business, then he might be right. The above example is one out of so many.

It is not just Syria (as an example), but the terrible cases of international corruption of the so called big countries include the destruction of small countries such as Iraq, Libya, Yemen, to mention a few, REAL NASTY.

@ Samson Nzeribe & El-Sayed El-Aswad

Are you therefore implying that Mearsheimer's assertion that “in the anarchic world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi” (p. 4) is what is playing out in our world politics today? That is to say the US, UK, and France would prefer to be seen as fearless daring Godzillas than the peace-loving Bambi? If indeed that is the case, what will happen to our world if all other the so-called "Major Powers" decide to be Godzillas?

Gabriel Spieker

Then one can rightly argue that realists may not necessarily be the cause of the presumed nasty and dangerous nature of the international system - they just analyse or describe the system as they perceive it and offer what they may deem to be useful tactics or advise for harnessing international relations.

This notwithstanding, some of their ideas and propositions may rightly or wrongly be perceived as been the basis or guiding principles for conflicts, wars and confrontations among states and within countries.