ARTICLES
Politics, society and more.
John Mearsheimer, considered as one of the most important structural realist (similarly known as neorealist), keeps many of the ideas that Kenneth Waltz develops in his theory about realism, the structure of world politics and the anarchical sphere in which it is built up. In fact, some of the initial arguments that constitute Waltz’s realist theory is updated to Mearsheimer theorization of IR. In this vein, the main 5 bedrock assumptions that constitute his thinking are: the assumption that there is anarchy in the international system which means that there is not a hierarchical order or a possession of a certain power that can definitely guarantee the limits on the behavior of the states. This offensive perspective even highlights a more tragic way of understanding the interactions between countries. Secondly, he presupposes that all great powers possess offensive military capabilities, which they are capable of using against other states. Third, states can never be certain that other states will refrain from using those offensive military capabilities. Fourth, states seek to to maintain their survival (their territorial integrity and domestic autonomy) above all other goals, as it is the means to all other ends. Fifth, states are rational actors, which means that they consider the immediate and long-term consequences of their actions, and think strategically about how to survive. These are presumptions very similar to what Waltz proposes in his theory but nuanced by his conception of the structural organization of IR.
Comparatively talking, both Waltz and Mearsheimer coincide in the two situations in which it is more probable the existence of a balance of power. This two conditions are whether the state what to preserve his power of influence from one country to another, or when its security or liberty in the international sphere is being threatened by other unit of the structure. Hostility as a means of cause is an utmost preposition that allows the comprehension of conflict through this theory. Uncertainty regarding states’ intentions contribute to the organization of states as balancing or bandwagoning of power. Thus, the understanding of power is different to what Kenneth Waltz proposes: Mearsheimer sees the balance of power as a buck-pass, in which the struggle with states oblige other states to align with themselves, even when their security can lead into a risker situation. This necessarily is explained through the philosophy of the author in which the best way for great powers to ensure their survival – a goal which is favored above all others – is to maximize power and pursue hegemony. The pursuit of regional and global hegemony among all great powers gives rise to constant security competition with the potential for war. This is the so-called “Tragedy of Great Power Politics”: security-seeking states forced to engage in conflict to ensure their security, but differently from other neorealists, there is no amount of power that a state can be content with, and that states would never truly be secure if not only acquired from power maximization to ensure their survival. In general, the very best way to maintain security is by achieving hegemony as fast as possible. This means that aggressive states cannot be as easily curtailed as Waltz thinks. As balancing is an unreliable constraint on great power ambitions, there are lower disincentives to bidding for hegemony in Mearsheimer’s world than in Waltz’s. Finally, Mearsheimer evaluates the position of the units in a constant struggle of power, mainly derived from the fear a state can cause to another. Even though he recognizes that having an hegemon does not provides entirely all benefits as a full control of the world, mainly because of the limitations that the division of power has in the international arena. Thus, for Mearsheimer, the only way to be a complete hegemon is by maintaining a full nuclear weaponry control, and be as a hegemon by this military asset. That state then would be the status quo power and it would go considerable lengths to preserve the existing distribution of power. The existence of bipolarity is the one that less amount of fear provokes amount great powers, because it seems that the distribution of power is less incurring into war when there are to major powers in the world. But the existence of multipolarity opens even more fronts to the creation of conflict and a needed redistribution of power to achieve the greater control of the world. This distribution of power makes Mearsheimer to consider a certain world order, something that was not entirely considered by Waltz, and not even by classical realists as Hans Morgenthau or Edward Carr. The creation of a great power rivalry will sometimes produce a certain stabilization in the world order, but the incessant need to acquire more power, they will use the minimum possibility to undermine the status quo and gain more, although a shared power was being part of that status quo. This drives us to the last topic analyzed by Mearsheimer, that is the capacity of cooperation between countries, but under the premise of dividing the distribution in terms of relative gains. With absolute gains, the author says, each side is concerned with maximizing its own profits and cares little about how much the other side gains or loses in a defined deal. So in this sense, a realist point of view from cooperation comes into discussion, in which a strategic way to keep power from great powers is through cooperation with other countries that may allow to maintain this status quo. References: Mearsheimer, J. (2003). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. London: W.W. Norton & Company Inc. Written by Alejandro Briones S., on October 30, 2016. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
ABOUT
THE AUTHOR THANK YOU
FOR YOUR SUPPORT InterMEDIATA is a non-profit and auto-sustained site. Research and opinions inhere shared belong exclusively to its author(s) and are aimed to promote a global culture of academic debate. If you enjoy reading our content, please make a contribution and help InterMEDIATA grow! Thank you so much for you valuable help. Categories
All
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. |