Grecia Hernandez
Political Science 121
February 24, 2010
States in The International System
Neorealism and neoliberalism are two different schools of thought in international relations that attempt to explain the reasons why the international community (with states as the primary actors) behave the way they do. Both schools agree that states coexist in an anarchic international system. This means there is no central authority to govern, pass laws, or resolve international issues. Neoliberalsim was formed as a response to neorealism and argues that within an anarchy system states are still capable to behave cooperatively with one another. Neorealism takes a much less optimistic stance in arguing that since states are primarily concerned with their security and self interests, lasting cooperation among states is unlikely. Although both theories make valid points for their arguments, neorealism has the most validity in our present day system and will most likely prevail in the future because despite the possibility of neoliberalist goals, there will be no progress made unless the powerful states willingly give up some of their power in return for a more “cooperative” community.
Neorealism focuses on the power and security of the state as its main concern. It understands that in an anarchic community, the state bears the responsibility of its own survival and cannot depend on any other actor. Therefore in neorealism the importance of strength and military power prevail any other set of concerns for the state. Under neorealism the state’s main way of staying powerful is through acquiring military power, so that in case it is threatened it has the means to not only defend itself but overcome any opponent. A prominent and significant neo-realist, Kenneth Waltz, argues that the ultimate concern of states is their security and their own national interests. He focuses mainly on the structure of the international system and how this structure is the primary causal factor for explaining the nature of our international community. In Jackson and Sorenson’s discussion of Watlz they highlight some of Watlz’s main claims about neorealsim: “Watlz notes that the international system in anarchy… Second, the international system is composed of like units: every state, small or large, has to perform a similar set of government functions…” (Jackson & Sorenson, 45). His conclusion basically states that because of the anarchic system we live in, competition and conflict inevitably occur and because of this, states will always strive and fight to have power in the international arena. “For Waltz states are power-seeking and security-conscious not because of human nature but rather because the structure of the international system compels them to be that way” (Jackson & Sorenson, 45). For example after World War II, the international system was dominated by two super powers: United States and Britain. Waltz believes that by looking at the structure of the international system, several key things can be explained. One is that “great powers will always tend to balance each other out,” (Jackson & Sorensen, 45). Second is that the weaker states will ally themselves with more powerful states in order to keep safe from enemies that would be able to defeat them. Since this is the nature of the anarchic international system states will always be looking out for their own security, by increasing their military force. This is not to say that neo-realists deny the possibility of cooperation among states, but they argue that unless the entire system changes, cooperation is not likely. And in order for the international system to change, states would have to give up some of their security and power. This is something that is truly unlikely, especially in today’s modern era, where states are concerned with acquiring nuclear weapons in order to sustain their survival. Although Jackson and Sorensen state that there hasn’t been much armed conflict among the liberal democracies, there has been “trade wars and other disputes between the Western democracies which appeared to confirm the neorealist hypothesis about competition between self-interested countries (Jackson & Sorenson, 46).
Neoliberalism is a response to neorealsim and its only major challenge (Betts, 119). It employs a much more optimistic view of the world in international relations. This school of thought believes that international cooperation is possible if states focus on building an international system with the state actors focused on building economic incentives for international cooperation. Neo-liberalist believe that if states focus on the possibility of mutual wins, meaning everyone has an economic incentive to cooperate with one another, then international cooperation is definitely a lucrative possibility. The argument here is that cooperation can emerge from institutions, the type of government, and social norms. Attention is laid on the economic aspects of international relations. They want a decentralized system with economic power as the main goals for states. Neo-liberalist like Keohane and Nye have developed a theory of “complex interdependence,” which they argue, “provides a better portrayal of reality [than neorealism]” (Betts, 162). Complex interdependence has three main characteristics: First, states are the primary and most important actors in the international community; second, there is no hierarchy among multiple issues, and military power does not dominate the political agenda as it does in neorealism; and third is that military force could be a useful instrument of policy (Betts, 162). However, in this school of thought, military force plays only a minor role except in regards to alliances. The way to gain complex interdependence is through global trade, investment (FDI, FPI, banks) , and intra-industry trade (Lecture, 02/02). In neorealism, military force is crucial to the state’s survival in the anarchic system because without security they cannot focus on other international issues.
While neoliberalism and theorists like Keohane and Nye offer lucrative solutions to our conflictual world of politics, my viewpoint is that unless powerful states like the United States, Britain, Russia and China give up some (or all) of their power in the international arena, there is really little chance that international cooperation among states will happen. States are self interested and will act according to what they believe is best for themselves. This is the mindset that has been developing since Thucydedes “Melian Dialougue” and it is extremely hard to break out of it. Dominant world powers like the United States value one thing above all else: national security. The U.S. emerged from both World Wars as a key player and important state actor in international relations. This is due to the United States’ concern with military empowerment to ensure its survival. It has continued to build its military power in order to sustain its role as the dominant world power. Economic power is of importance as well, but for neorealism what is of concern is the national security of the state. Without security, the state cannot engage in other political affairs, it must establish its security before it can give attention to other issues. The anarchic nature of our system has not changed much since the time of Thucydides and “The Melian Dialogue,” where it was made clear that unless a state can provide itself the means to protect itself and its citizens then it has no fighting chance to survive.
The structure of the international system explains the recurrence of war, and neorealism explains why it will continue to stay the same: states fear other states. So long as other states coexist in the anarchic system, there will be competition and rivalry among countries. A main argument made by neoliberalist against neorealists is the “Democratic Peace Thesis,” (Lecture, 02/02) which states that democratic countries are less likely to fight one another and that the more liberal states there are in the system the more peace there will be. Regime type makes a difference for neo-liberalists. While this is sometimes true, it is most certainly not always the case. Because as long as the state powers in our system dominate (U.S. Britain, Russia etc.) then the likelihood of war will always be on the horizon. “The economic and political powers of these [countries like the U.S. and Britain] nations are reliant on their continuing domination of global markets, international governing bodies such as the United Nations, and the most powerful military organizations in the world” (Shimmin, online). Shimmin argues that most democratic countries engage in undemocratic activities in order to keep their roles in the international arena. His research on democracies gives proof that so long as the current dominant state powers remain in power there is little chance of there being peace, even among existing democracies.
As long as states coexist in an anarchic system, there will be little prospects for long lasting peace. Neo-realism provides a more realistic portrayal of reality with the state’s emphasis on military power while Neo-liberalism neglects importance aspects of democratic and liberal countries and falls short in providing proof of how and when cooperation has happened.
Works Cited
Jackson R., Sorensen G. Introduction to International Relations. Third Edition. Oxford Press, 2007. Print.
Betts, R. Conflict After The Cold War. Third Edition. Pearson Education Inc. 2008. Print.
Shimmin, K. Critique of R. J. Rummel's "Democratic Peace" Thesis. Fall 1999. Web. 25 Feb. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment