Explaining the Rise of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh/IS

Marwan Bashara, ISIL, CIA, Mossad, Quds Force, etc, Al Jazeera, 2-26-15
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/02/daesh-cia-mossad-quds-force-150226052024592.html

Artistic Challenges to Power

Banksy, the famous British street-artist, is back in the new with a series of works in Gaza. There are a lot of ways that people can challenge power and Banksy does an excellent job of this through artistic expression. The paintbrush (or spray paint can) is mightier than the sword!

Christian Storm, 25 of Banksy's Cleverest Works, Buisness Insider, 10-24-14
http://www.businessinsider.com/banksy-art-2014-10?op=1

Dell Cameron, Banksy filmed himself sneaking into Gaza to paint new artwork, The Daily Dot, 2-2-15
http://www.dailydot.com/politics/banksy-new-gaza-artwork/

How a rape was filmed and shared in Pakistan

How a rape was filmed and shared in Pakistan, BBC News, 2-26-15
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31313551

Session 9: Anarchy, Structure, and Balance of Power

Kenneth Waltz believes that unlike domestic politics, the world of international politics is not subject to any hierarchical structure and is in turn, anarchic. Countries, in such a system, only aim at preserving their self-interest and avoid dependence on other states as being at the hinges of a benefactor does not guarantee sustenance. The author of 'Theory of International Politics' also believes that there is a balance of power in the international system which gets restored even after disruption.

One could argue that proof of intelligence agencies spying on other countries, adds strength to Waltz's claim about mistrust. The NSA has been found guilty of a massive hidden surveillance campaign on not only the citizens of USA, but also 35 world leaders including German Chancellor, Angela Merkel. Moreover, the assertion that countries will compete against one another and enhance military might so that one state does not become all powerful also makes sense in light of contemporary examples. These being, nuclear proliferation, and a growing emphasis on the military budget.

Despite the contributions made by the neorealist to enhance the debate between academics, the flaws in Waltz's reasoning are tough to ignore. Primarily, his claims are based on the assumption that countries are skeptical and refuse any sort of dependence. While trade agreements and the existence of blocs have often resulted in detriments, their existence is a sign of a keenness to collaborate and assert regional, collective dominance and not function as independent entities.

Also, while nations may compete against one another, and there may not be an outright victor when it comes to military might, often times, nations cooperate to form hegemony over other fragile states. Through constructions such as the United Nations and the NATO, these ‘strong’ nations, then, collectively dominate, or at least attempt to control the rest of the world.

Reactionary v/s proactive attitude

Kenneth Waltz talks about the International System as a Structure with interacting units each affected by the others’ behavior within that system. Waltz leaves out the internal workings of these units I .e the states, and moves on discuss the arrangement and the character of these units within the system.

According the Waltz the Structure to this system is decentralized and anarchic, but how could there be structure if there is no hierarchy, rather, just anarchy? He describes this structure as being analogous to the micro-economic structure where you only have self-interested actors and their aggregate actions sum to something totally unexpected. This analogy however, is in my opinion questionable as the actions of the actors here do not sum to something unexpected rather, this sum does not disturb the equilibrium of the balance of power.

Let me explain the equilibrium this way; if State A had X amount of nukes in its arsenal and State B had Y amount of nukes, and State A and State B both act rationally out of self-interest, then if State A decides to increase the amount of nukes in its arsenal, State B being a rational actor within that system acting out of self-interest and focuses solely on countering State A's strategy by increasing the amount of nukes they possess. This approach is flawed in the sense that it acts on reactionary bases and is unable to have a proactive approach. This undermines a nation's ability to build upon its strength, be it something other hard power e.g nukes and always looks upon the actions of a more powerful nation.

Session 9 : Countries act like Companies?

Distribution of role and capabilities can never be defined in the international system without any world government. The analogy drawn by Kenneth Waltz to show the specifications of different countries is that states are like different companies in the free market. If this is the case, then companies would always have motives to become the market leader which may lead to chaos. From my perspective, this would be destructive because states do have some power and control over these companies but states are not obliged to listen to anyone for the sake of their benefit.

Moreover, the claim of distribution of capabilities is a good idea but not a feasible one. Who is going to define who is more capable and how? For example in terms of military capabilities, we cannot have a war and decide who is more capable based on the results of that conflict.

In conclusion, the author’s attempt to define International system is not feasible nor practical. However, it gave us, the readers, a new dimension to understand the workings of international politics. 

Session 9: Simplifying the International Structure?

Kenneth Waltz, being a perpetuator of Realism, in his article attempts to explain the structure of the international forum where he considers states to have a primary goal of self-survival, trying to co-exist with one and another. He also mentions about the balance of power and how states are forced to act in their self-interests to maintain or gain more power over the other states (units). However we already have studied about these things in the previous classes so there is no need to waste more time on talking about these particular issues.

One thing which I found very interesting in Waltz piece was his argument for study politics alone and then observe its impact on the international structure. The example he gives is a relevant one which states that when studying economics we don’t consider other factors affecting the economic outcomes then why cannot we do the same when studying politics and its impact on the international structure. I agree with his main argument which is to separate politics from economics and social sciences. It is just like running a regression in economics controlling for all the other factors to see the causal effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. Waltz argues for a similar kind of technique where we should control for social sciences etc. when studying politics.

As far as pure theory is concerned, Waltz does give a good account of how he thinks the international structure should be formed. However, the main strength of his theory of how to study politics is the practicality of it where studying politics alone without looking at other effects is not a very difficult thing to do after all.   

Session 9 : Structures

Kenneth Waltz in explaining the national and international politics relies on the definition of structures. In his three part definition, structure is defined by the way a system is ordered or arranged. If the ordering is changed, so is the system. Moreover it is also defined by the functions of different units and their capabilities.

The authors goes on to contrast the American and the British system and how the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of Britain are different in the way they conduct the business of the government because of the differing structures domestically that have evolved over the years.

In case of Britain, the Prime Ministers who are theoretically the most important and most powerful people in the country, are not able to yield power absolutely because of the fact that any decision they make need to get the approval of the party members without which the implementation and execution of the decision cannot take place. This is so because of the close link between the prime minister and the parliament in enacting any decision.

This is different from the American system because the President is in some way (not hundred percent) independent from Congress and can unilaterally take and implement decisions.

  

Another reason is also the way candidates are decided for the position of Prime Minister and President in UK and USA respectively. Whereas support of the party members is required in both UK and the USA, the tenure of the President does not depend on securing majority support from the Congress.

Through this example, the author has tried to demonstrate how differing systems, in this case, the political governments, operate in varying structures. 

The working units in Global politicking

Kenneth Waltz, as we have come to know, has been a champion of the realist school of that, that inherently believes in the individuals being innately self interested, and this innate characteristic extends to the state level, and therefore his analysis falls under the light of such an approach.

In the chapter "state structures", Waltz aims at adopting a reductionist approach in our study of international relations, and sheds the aims and aspirations of political actors, culture and tradition and instead focuses solely on state structures and units, and sees the international political processes as the interactions of structures that are system wide, and then the interaction of the units that make up these structures.

It was interesting to note how Waltz tries to make the reader understand the complexities of the international political arena by comparing the study of politics to the study of economics in a similar reductionist manner. However, such a comparison can be problematic on many levels. While the discourse of the political dimensions of any state consists of material transactions that affect the physical lives of people in a very obvious manner, the processes of the political arena can be seen to be more abstract in nature as they involve adherence to an ideology, social affiliations and so on.

However, Waltz's presentation of the system theory does present an impressive and effective way to analyse international politics through ascribing to it political structures, and that we need to gauge the 'spread' of their capabilities, as this spread is what dictates the power relations in the international arena.

I also believe though that it is important to factor in the influence of the units in political processes that affected global politics. Waltz's viewpoint is too hard line, and a more flexible approach is really needed to encapsulate the complexity of international politics. 

Session 9- Over lapping Structures.

When we think of states we think of the structures that influence the state and have an impact on the actions that a state takes. In the reading, waltz has presented a comparison between the political and micro-level economic structures. He places a great deal of importance on structure and how it is a monster of its own. Also, he claims that regardless of how diverse two substances are, one can compare them on the basis of how they are organized in connection to one another along with what their capacities and relative abilities are.

Moreover, the micro-level economic structures influence the political structures. For example, according to the Marxist belief, economics is the sub structure upon which other super structures such as politics, religion, education and media are built upon. Hence, he who controls the economic structure controls all other structures in society. These links between various structures can be seen in day to day examples. For example, Rupert Murdock is a famous press barren. He has control over most of the news sources and therefore he ends up influencing which news gets across to the public. Hence from this we can see how the media structure and other structures are related. So Waltz has done a good job by suggesting how various structures in society are inter- related.

Lastly, he talks about how actors within various institutions are restrained by these structures. This then bring up the question that whether or not individuals are free to make their own choices. If structure is what determines the actions of leaders when it comes to policy making, then to what extent can the individual be blamed for a wrong policy? However, by looking at the opposite perspective, these structures are comprised of individuals and hence it is the individuals that make the rules for the functioning of these structures. Therefore, whether the society should be viewed from a micro or macro lens becomes a problem.

Session 9: Structures and all that jazz

The theory of International Relations has been focusing on projecting human nature to the state and personifying states so that one can explain state behavior as being similar to human behavior, particularly selfish and egoistic-quest for survival and security in the international political arena. Kenneth Waltz tries to break away from this type of theorizing by formulating a Systems Theory of International Relations; disregards the characteristics and interests of political actors in favor of a

“positional picture of the society”, emphasizing on the structure of the international political system and the interacting units within the system.

Waltz provides a three-tiered explanation of the political structure based on organizing principles, character of units and distribution of capabilities. The hierarchical subordination and power politics are key tenants of domestic political structure whereas in the international arena, absence of a central authority means there exist a condition of anarchy, decentralization of power and the lack of a structure which would define international power politics. Waltz, provides a different typology of the structure that is formed in an international arena, one dependent on the differing capabilities of states. This structure is hierarchical in a different manner, based on the power that a state possesses which is in turn defined by its capability, e.g. military, technology, assets etc. This strength allows for the subjugation of weak states or why weak states would want to form alliances with the strong states. It therefore, determines the position of states within the international arena.

Joel Migdal provides a similar understanding of strong and weak states; the former being states which “include the capacities to penetrate society, regulate social relationships, extract resources, and appropriate or use resources in determined ways. Strong states are those with high capabilities to complete these tasks, while weak states are on the low end of a spectrum of capabilities.” For instance, post-colonial states are weak states and low on the spectrum of hierarchy of states and vulnerable to exploitation by strong states.

Session 9 - Structure and Anarchy

Waltz for this week’s chapters focuses on political structures and anarchic order and the balance of power and its consequences. While talking about structures, he talks about how structures define arrangement and parts of the system. Structure is what sets the road to what is going to follow. The domestic political structure for Waltz is defined by three principles, which are according to the way by which it is ordered, specification of the functions of formally differentiated units and distribution of capabilities across these units. Political structure shapes the political processes domestically within a state. Once a structure is shaped and understood, a state runs on that structure. While governments might come and go, the state and structure are difficult to transform and substitute- a feat many try to achieve through processes such as revolutions. This highlights the ever famous state vs. government debate in the field of political science.

Having said that about domestic system, the international state system has no aver arching body to maintain the political processes. Since Waltz is a firm Realist, the concept of anarchy in the international system comes up. There remains a friction between the states and balance of power becomes an important factor which fuels the anarchy present in the international arena. While in the domestic structure, government has monopoly over legitimate force, in the anarchic orders, states are residing in a system of self-help and when the balance of power starts tilting in one super powers favor, war becomes inevitable as it sets a chain reaction of moral agitation.  

In different epochs of history, we can see that whenever the balance of power has tilted, it has given a rise to conflicts. Hitler in World War 2 and his aggressive foreign policies along with his Lebensraum ideology to attain land for the ‘superior’ Aryan race is kind of what caused agitation within the Western powers, which led to one of the greatest wars in the history of mankind.  

Session 9 - Balancing vs bandwagoning

One of the main points of Kenneth waltz in his essay 'theory to international politics that I found very interesting was his theory about the balance of politics. Waltz believes that all states seek to increase their power while at the same time not wanting other states to increase in power mainly because they don't want to let any other state grow at their expense, or for their self-survival, and that balancing rather then bandwagoning exists. Which is why states will often try to stop other countries from growing. So if one state attempts to increase his power then other powerful states in the world will form a coalition to try and stop that country from gaining power.  

If we look at today's world, there are several states out there that are trying to increase their power and position in the world. One of these country is for example India. India is a country that in the recent years has one of the fastest growing economies as well as militaries in the world. It wants to increase its power and position in the position in the world and one way it can do so is by joining the UN permanent security council. A coalition of countries has joined up to ensure this does not happen. But the majority of these countries are developing nations that fear India will use this new found power to dominate them and worry about survival in place of growth.

It is not the powerful countries such as Britain and Germany that have formed a coalition to stop such an attempt by India to gain a seat in the UNSC (though I doubt they will let such an act happen). But then none of these countries have done anything to balance India's growing economy and power. France signed nuclear deals with India, Germany and Britain are signing trade deals all of which will make India grow faster and increase its power.

Continuing on India's example, several of the smaller countries that border it such as Bhutan are threatened by it but will not defy its wishes because they want to continue its existence and growth. This is an example that Shehyar Khan told about. He said that when he went to the UN, he was approached by the Bhutanese ambassador to the UN who told him that although Bhutan supports Pakistan's demands, yet they will only support Pakistan in spirit and not openly because they cannot defy India. This is a perfect example of bandwagoning.

So from above we can see bandwagoning is just as likely to exist as balancing, as opposed to waltz's view. And that powerful countries will not form a coalition to stop another state from growing because this will lead to a huge backlash, rather they might do so individually and in secret. 

Session 9: The 'King of Thought' says it all.

Theory of International Politics is a recent book written by the ever famous Kenneth Waltz. He is widely known as the godfather of the modern theory of International Politics. The book elaborates the neorealist theory of International Relations. Being a physiocrat of International Politics, Waltz argued that the fundamental principle which dictates the international political system is "Anarchy".

Waltz differentiates between the anarchic and hierarchic structures. He states that anarchic structures are in a self-help structure while the hierarchic structures have a government, which has a monopoly over the legitimate force. He further claims that each state, on a global level, acts in its own interest which might eventually lead to outcomes that none wanted - similar to the run on the bank in economics. States, at the very least, seek the key to survival and, at the very most, seek the key to universal domination. These two aims can be achieved through the balance of power.

Balance of Power is a theory which explains the results produced by the uncoordinated actions of the states. The theory predicts the similarity of behavior of the states in similar situations. It leads us to deduce that states behave in a way which results in a balance forming situation. This concept is opposite to that of the bandwagon effect, where everyone jumps to winning side,  The theory predicts a strong tendency of balance in the system - not that balance, once achieved, will be maintained, but the balance, once disrupted, will be restored in one way or another.

Systemic thinking in economy started with the physiocrats, who conceived of a structure of economics independent of actors and constituting their behavior. Kenneth Waltz, hailed recently as the 'King of Thought' has used a perfect blend of economics and political science to explain and predict the behavior of states today. He has, in all his works, focused on the anarchic nature of the states and has suggested that states will be competitive and will always imitate each other to be more successful.

Session 9: Anarchic Ordering and the BOP

Kenneth Waltz in chapter 5 defines international political structure as a system, decentralized and anarchic, the individual states being the units of that system, interacting and/or trying to co-exist with one another, within that system. Waltz moves on to theorize about the nature of this international political system in chapter 6, and bases this hypothesis, on what I will frame as a question, just to make it sound a bit more dramatic. What is "The state among States"? “Among states, the state of nature is a state of war”, says Waltz himself as the answer to the question I just put forth and as the basis for his own hypothesis, based on a widely accepted realist notion that any state can, at any point in time, use force, and other states may choose to live at the mercy of the aggressor or can choose to be prepared if need be.

This according to Waltz is the anarchic ordering among states, where every state relies upon the principle of self-help, and though ‘the collective good’ might actually be considered a real term if we were to talk to about domestic state structure, but in relation to the system being discussed here, it becomes a rather meaningless statement. Waltz though, points to the idea that, even if this pursuit of self-interest does not for example, lead to the end of the arms race, it will in essence, not do much harm, since every state, as an independently functioning unit will have its own best interest at hand, as opposed to a hierarchical system, where for the collective good, the Alpha may order to have a sub-ordinate attacked.

                The Balance of Power (BOP) theory, explains a lot, simultaneously backing up the ‘anarchic ordering among states’ principle. The BOP theory, according to Waltz assumes that, the states “at a minimum, seek their own preservation and, at a maximum, drive for universal domination”, may the ends be achieved by increasing military strength or economic power, or by forming alliances with other states, or weakening opposing alliances is beside the point.

                Waltz argues that as long as all states act rationally out of self-interest and pursue just that, there will not be much shift in the collective equilibrium, or in the collective Balance of Power among States.        

Session 9: Comparing Economic and Political structures on Micro-level

Well! Waltz has produced a reasonable comparison between the micro-level economic and political structures. The argument presented is easily conceivable of some value, because he regards the states, individuals, and firms as units that consist of self-interests and pursue them in interaction with each other; regardless of the fact that both assume outcomes that do not completely correspond to their interests and goals.

However, one limitation one finds is the how connection between the two models works realistically. The reason is that the economic realm is quite distinctive from the political realm, because the former is related to monetary transactions and the latter relates to ideology, manifestos, commitments etc. What is meant is that the political realm constitutes both materialization and idealization. Waltz's comparison of economic and political realms does not explain how certain ideas induce people to vote for some party or another, even rationally speaking their interests are not been maximized.

For instance, in general elections of 2013 in Pakistan, people voted for PPP in Sindh despite the fact that they were extremely disgruntled by their performance, and even their needs were not fulfilled by the government. Others would say that PPP rigged the polls. Whatever the reason might be behind the electoral success of PPP, one thing is sure that people did not find their interests maximized.  

Lastly, it is pertinent to acknowledge that Waltz's argument of the political structures is impressive, because he refines the system-theory model that assumes only interaction between the political actors and their own interests and not the system-wide ordering of the parts of the structure.

 

session 9 "a new dimension to politics" Kenneth waltz

Kenneth waltz in his write up gives us a new perspective regarding the power in structures. His main argument is that our  perception of people regarding their conduct in any organization is not just and we always associate the goodness and badness of conduct with the person in charge. However Kenneth Waltz argues that there is another perspective to it if we think rationally. Before holding any person or leader in charge responsible for his conduct we must go through a particular process of finding why he did that? What influenced or forced him to do that? After reading this great piece by waltz, we realize that structures have power and power of these structures can dictate actions. Nawaz shariff himself cannot do what he wants. it appears to all of us that the government is weak and less responsive, we never look why this actually happens to be. The government according to waltz is less responsive because prime minister has to maintain the unity in the party which he regards more than the interest of the people because it is the party members who have established the government and they need to be taken on board which causes delays ,disagreements and rebellions. The composition of the structure of party, parliament and ministerial cabinet is such that prime minister enjoys power given to him by the member parliament. So PM has to master the ability to lead which here can well be described as "art" .MP's can call of their support resulting taking all the powers he has. On the other hand we see that a person itself has no power but in the office and position it holds. For example, General Raheel Shariff is considered to be the most powerful man in Pakistan. Why do people say about him that way? Simple it is. Not considering in literal sense, the power given to him by the "status" has led people to think that way. If he gets retired, he certainly is not the strongest. He is just an ordinary person. Despite power in structures, another perspective to this proposed by "Foucault" is that power is in "discourse and discipline". If the prime minister is smart enough he can regulate his parliament the way he wants to get things done through "discourse and discipline". The example of Z.A Bhutto is explicit. He was able to convince his parliament to create the constitutions while it was kind of impossible job for the people who rules before him.

Waltz in his theory has opened new dimension of thinking for us which changed the paradigms of many. At least after reading this master piece one thinks through multiple perspectives before concluding over such delicate political and hierarchical issue and this is what a theory is meant to be.

                                                                              ~ UZAIR MUJEEB 

Session 9: Under the Structural Umbrella

While reading the fifth chapter on ‘Political Structures’ of Kenneth Waltz’s famous book “Theories of International Politics”, a few of his concepts and assertions jumped out at me more so than others. Following is my attempt to highlight some of these, albeit in an admittedly disjointed fashion.

Firstly, his emphasis on structure and how it is a beast of its own; I found it interesting how structure is a very valuable variable/factor to study within politics because of its generalisability. No matter how different two entities are, one can compare them on account of how they are arranged in relation to each other, what their functions are and what their relative capabilities are. The way Waltz has defined structure makes it an immensely powerful analytical and comparative tool in international politics.

Secondly, the heavy focus on structure and how the actors within it are restrained by it brought me back to the perpetual sociological debate of structure versus agency. Waltz applies that to why leaders always have constraints within which they must work, whether they are implicit (in case of the British Prime minister) or explicit (in case of the American president), they are ever present and will remain.

Thirdly, it is a given that as a realist Waltz will be a proponent of the state centric view of international politics. No surprises there. I fall somewhere mid-way on this issue (a tendency that funnily plagues me perpetually). Given my view point I could not help but chuckle at the irony of the following passage from the chapter:

“States are the units whose interactions form the structure of international political systems. They will long remain so. The death rate among states is remarkably low. Few states die, many firms do. Who is likely to be around 100 years from now-the United States, the Soviet Union, France, Egypt, Thailand and Uganda? Or Ford, IBM, Shell, Unilever, and Massey-Ferguson? I would bet on the states, perhaps even on Uganda.”

Well….he lost that bet just 12 years after writing this book. But I digress. It is probably unfair to laugh given how I have the benefit of hindsight that he did not. My take away is that everybody’s and every theory’s predictive capacity has limits and his ascertain is not inherently wrong (that states are, in fact, important units) but it is not fully right either (that states will forever remain the most important units). It left me wondering how he would perceive the international system today, whether he would still consider the states as THE unit of the international structure or would today’s era of increased economic integration, technological advancement, international interdependency, transnational-ism and globalization alter his views. 

Session 9: Anarchic Orders and Balance of Power

Waltz first explains how hierarchic and anarchic orders are different. In hierarchic orders (within states) government has monopoly over legitimate force, while in anarchic orders, states are in a self-help system. He also says that domestic politics is hierarchically ordered while International politics is anarchically ordered. Within states, groups can specialize and benefit from trade. Among states, nations wish to remain loosely connected and not overly dependent on other states. Also, within a global system, each state, acting in their own interest, can lead to outcomes that none wanted – similar to a run on the bank in economics.

Balance of power theory is a theory about the results produced by the uncoordinated actions of states. Assumptions are made about the interests and motives of states (it does not explain them). It explains the constraints that confine all states. Balance-of-power theory can explain why a certain similarity of behavior is expected from similarly situated states.  The theory leads us to suspect that states behave in ways that result in balances forming. (This is in contrast to behavior such as band-wagoning – all jumping to the winners side.) It predicts that states will engage in balancing behavior, whether or not balancing is the end of their acts. The theory predicts a strong tendency of balance in the system – not that balance, once achieved, will be maintained, but that balance, once disrupted, will be restored in one way or another. Suggests that states will be competitive and will imitate each other to become more successful. 

However, I contradict with what Waltz says about the hierarchic system. There is hierarchy in International politics when we divide countries into first world, third world or developed and developing countries. This division of countries in these different categories indicates some form of hierarchy as the developing countries seek help from the developed ones which shows that the developed countries are on a senior hierarchical level. 

Session 9: It takes two to tango, but only a system of abstract structures to Waltz

Kenneth Waltz, the father of structural realism, provides us with a more updated version of the realist perspective in ‘Political Structures’. While in the last session we tried to look at every aspect of what constitutes the international realm, Waltz is looking to simplify things by completely ignoring the individual actions of political players and solely focusing on state structures and units. It is a unitary approach to international politics; there are structures and processes involving the interaction of these structures. Structure is based on the fact that units put side by side have different interactions between them.

Structure is an arrangement of political institutions defined first by order, then by the functions of its units and then by the spread of its capabilities across these units. He says that structure’s definition is abstract enough to be overarching; that its sole purpose is to show how units are arranged. Structure and process have to be differentiated in order to be clearly defined. Structures then shape processes and vice versa. He cites the example of the limitations of the British electoral process by explaining the structure which makes the executive power more constrained. You can make comparisons from the structure of one country with similar structures in other country.

The realist perspective definitely seeps in whereby Waltz explains that structures in the end have to be analyzed by their spread of capabilities. This spread of capabilities is the basis for the power dynamics of the international system so touted by Waltz and the other realists. It is a bit paradoxical in nature to analyze the spread of capabilities since we’re only supposed to look at structure and not the units but this exception is made to show variations in structures by analyzing varying amounts of capabilities. It is as in market structure; firms are not defined, only counted. In the same way, states aren’t individually analyzed, only their interactions as a group are relevant.

 It is a useful method for empirical calculations since the model is simplistic and allows many comparisons to be made but I think Waltz goes to great lengths to paper the cracks of his theory. Individual actions matter because they go a long way towards explaining why international political processes occur. Structural realism is too hardline to properly provide a thorough analysis of International Relations.  

Session 9: Waltz and NeoRealism!

Kenneth Neal Waltz was an American political scientist who was a member of the faculty at both the University of California, Berkeley and Columbia University and one of the most prominent scholars in the field of international relations.Waltz was a founder of neo realism, or structural realism, in international relations theory.

Waltz’s purpose of writing is to positively contribute to the field of International relation which not necessarily means totally new direction. However, modification of current research method is necessary .His essay is divided in different sections and easy to comprehend. In a systemic theory of international politics by Waltz he said that states are the relevant units – the international system is decentralized and anarchic. States are not differentiated by the functions they perform – they are like units. The units of such an order are distinguished primarily by their greater or lesser capabilities for performing similar tasks.In 6th chapter he described that Anarchy does not imply that violence is common in the international system but rather that the threat of violence is ever present. Anarchy means that the international system is one of self-help.Finally, Waltz contrasts balancing with bandwagon, in which weaker states choose to ally with the stronger state. Waltz argues that "because power is a means not an end, states may prefer to join the weaker of two coalitions".Again, the structure of the international system and the necessity of survival dictate this behavior.

I also believe that Waltz understands of "international structure" is not as deep.He never properly establishes the independence of the system as a whole.Furthermore, he describes the state as a isolated actor which cannot change the whole structure all alone and also cannot dependent on others to help it in bringing the change in the structure.So the structure of system seems to be fixed and immutable.Hence, theory does not challenge assumptions and norms and takes the world as it finds it.However, His critical assessment of IR based on individual understanding is situated which minimize the risk of bise and reader itself must be able to draw the same conclusion.

Session 9: Structure & Balance of Power

Kenneth Waltz in his writing theory of foreign policy talks about the prevailing political structure. He first makes the distinction between the systems and units involved which the previous methods fail to do. He puts forward the idea that the domain of International Politics needs to be separated from economic and social sectors. Furthermore, he considers the domestic and foreign arenas as completely different entities.

Separation of International Politics from the existing social and economic conditions may be theoretically possible as the author has done however; in reality these factors greatly affect foreign policy. For instance, Pakistan’s recent attempt to have closer ties with Russia is a cause of its need to be economically sound. Similarly, evaluating the domestic and international arena differently is an interesting concept and for most part the two do stand alone. Although the two could be inter related on a more secondary level but, primarily the two can easily be assumed to be separate. Also, various units or states in this case, are considered similar despite their function which is also a good way to simplify the complex political scenario.

In the next chapter Waltz describes both anarchical and hierarchical orders. In his opinion governments are capable of exercising legitimate force under a hierarchical realm while anarchical situations depict states in a weak spot. The author also brings up the concept that states prefer being loosely connecting to each other over dependence. This idea makes sense as nations value their own interests above those of other states. They only ally with other states as part of their interest.

The balance of power theory has also been put forth which tries picturing the result of uncoordinated action of the state. It explains how similar situations make states respond in the same manner. The theory provides expectations about behaviour and outcomes and further helps analyses how the overall system is to remain balanced. There is emphasis on how the balance of power if disrupted will be restored. But, once again the theory feels distant from reality as the ‘balance’ itself remains hazy. Even the assumptions behind the theory have not been explained.

Session 9: Colonization and the Domestic Political Structure

The distinction between the structure of the political arena and the unitary level of analysis is pivotal in understanding the complexity of the way the different states interact and react to each other. By pointing out the dual definition of the term 'relation' we are provided with a clear elucidation of how even though the terms structure and state are used interchangeably, in actuality they are both separate; one is permanent and remains regardless of personality and behavior, while the other differs according to political actors.

Waltz claims that structure and its definition can be applied to realms of widely different substance so long as the arrangement is similar, and that changes in arrangement are merely structural changes. This outlook on structures is true to a large degree and when he claims "political structures shape political processes,' we can easily point out how this principle works in the real world. It would be interesting to see how far agency is involved in molding the structure of state? If we look at states who were once colonized by foreign powers, the colonized are the ones who were compelled to act as the vagrants and abide by the rules of the colonizer. It was this colonizer who developed the structure of the political system and used the romanticized portrait of privitism to not only to bring "civilization" to an allegedly uncivilized race, but also to develop institutions that would benefit the mother country. Once these colonizers left, the vestiges of their legacy were impossible to escape- this is the way the domestic political structure was thus shaped.

If we look at Congo, where King Leopold II unleashed upon the ingenious population a brutal rule, the locals were so crippled and unable to develop and prosper after the colonizers left because they had negligible part in the way the society and government was ruled under the foreign power. Today, regardless of having an abundance of diamonds, Congo suffers from the resource curse because its political institutions have been unable to develop because of its colonial history. So, the political processes are largely defined by the structure of the political system- something which Waltz reiterates. 

We do not have to look far to find examples of how political structures are shaped because of the colonizers. Pakistan itself has been unable to escape from the institutions upon which it was governed at the time of British rule. The new system by by which we live today is determined largely by the British and we are essentially living in an over-developed state (where new structures are placed on top of the old institutions, and not replaced), a phrase coined by Hamza Alvi. So, even though we do have some sort of cultural identity in our political system, there are remnants of the colonial era, and this dictates the political processes and decision making processes by which we live today.

Waltz provides an interesting way to look at politics, and for that he should be applauded. His structuring of the domestic political structure was perhaps the most interesting aspect of the chapter because it is true what he claims- we do interact not only on an individual level between ourselves and shape our lives according to the political structure, but this structure also determines how we interact with other political actors and determine the policies that we implement in the international arena. 

Session 9: The Deception of Structure

Using a though-provoking style, in Chapter 5 Kenneth Waltz challenges and redefines basic concepts like structure and systems by introducing the fundamental "ordering principle" to enable the conceptualization of power and politics in the realm of 'Anarchic Orders and Balances of Power'. Perhaps the most important concept to elicit from both the Chapters respectively is that Waltz rectifies the overindulgence in meta-theory to define words like structures and systems and recognizes its shortcoming in the complete abstraction of the purpose of structure insofar as it is incorrectly seen to be interchangeable with the idea of 'systems'; the identification of structure as an organizational system is successful in its application to various national and international systems only if it is understood in isolation from political, economic and societal systems.

In Chapter 5 what initially seemed to be a more deterministic take on the separation of structure from relations, attributes and interaction within systems, later conforms to a realist structuralist approach to define structures as intangible but constant foundations upon which national and international systems are constructed. However, what Waltz does not address is that if structures are not politically, economically or socially determined, are they not historically determined?

An effective example used to correct preconceived notions concerning power in the Presidential vs. Parliamentary systems is the “deception of structure”. The threat of defection from within the political parties and loss of patronage discourages Prime Ministers to take “the onus of systematic change” due to the structural constraints and responsibility which, interestingly put, renders “a responsible man to be a slave”.  Looking through a historical and global lens, the application of Waltz’s dissertation regarding structural deception is that while ‘responsibility’ within states serves to be an effective check on power, in the international arena it has not and does not in the very least seem to enslave or even check a hegemon, for instance the United States - this serves to be a further complication, but ties in perfectly which the anarchic orders and Waltz’s ‘Balance of Power theory’ where the superpowers only thrive on the exploitation of lesser developed states. It would be interesting to know what Waltz’s take would be on the failure of Structural Adjustment programs implemented by the Planners, U.N. and the World Bank, to help lesser developed states to ameliorate poverty.

Waltz's dissertation delves into the idea that the International system is driven by political and economic competition, contingent on market and hierarchical structures, which essentially determines the juxtaposition of states in the realm of anarchy.  However, what seems to be rather contentious is when Waltz categorizes the national system to be “hierarchic, vertical, centralized and heterogeneous” in contrast to International systems which are predominantly “anarchic, homogenous, decentralized, undirected and mutually adaptive”; this in particular, seems to be presumptuous especially since the world order today is dominated by the United States where there is a visible hierarchy. Charles Kindleberger, who was the first to appropriate the “Hegemonic Stability Theory”, further addresses the power organizations in the world.

Session 9: Anarchy or Hierarchy in the International Arena?

Kenneth Waltz, in his book ‘Theory of International politics’, has successfully managed to distinguish the structures of the global political order. Supporting the Realist school of thought, Waltz claims that the international arena is governed anarchically, where countries trade and make their foreign policy based on self-interest, rather than on collective gaining. Domestic governments, on the other hand, are ranked according to hierarchy. Does hierarchy exist in the international arena also?

Moving a bit away from International Relations, other social sciences such as Anthropology and Sociology aim at dividing world power not only anarchically, but also hierarchically. Since the early modern period, the political arena has been subjected to colonialism. Colonization has managed to divide states in terms of their economic and political strengths, rather than pay heed to free trade and the sovereignty of a state. The British, a super-power of that era, established their colonies in countries where they would exploit and dominate economic and foreign policy, and manage to spread the influence of their western modern cultures, termed eurocentrism.

Western practices and beliefs have been so deeply embedded in post-colonial states, that remnants of them are visible till this day in countries like Pakistan and India. The terms ‘coloniser’ and ‘colonised’ themselves bring about the hierarchy that exists in the international arena. Dividing states as ‘post-colonial’, ‘First World’, ‘Third World’, ‘developing countries’, are all hierarchic in nature. The modern political environment has made it necessary for economically inferior nations to have to ally with countries such as USA and China, who are more economically and strategically dominant.

To avoid the anarchic structure that exists in the international arena, institutions such as the United Nations are used to defuse tensions between countries, but in reality, fail to do anything as predicted by Realists in their criticism of Liberalism. Even these institutions are divided by hierarchy, where some dominant countries have more influence than their other economically subordinate members.

Countries with economic, political and strategic power make sure that the international arena is governed anarchically, only so they can maintain their own hierarchy. Countries with lesser influence and power fight the anarchic structure, only so they can rise on hierarchy. It can be said that the line between anarchy and hierarchy is a very thin one in relation to the international arena. 

Session 9: Structures and Systems

In chapter five of ‘Theory of International Politics’, Kenneth Waltz’s discusses social structures in both a domestic and international context.

While domestic politics can appear to be somewhat structured at least in a sense where there are political parties operating and seeking power through elections, international politics are largely devoid of structure. Rather the latter is rooted in anarchy, a product of the basic instincts of states to compete for survival for example through economic competition. According to Waltz the international system acts to reduce cooperation between states so as to prevent the likelihood of overdependence on other states, an event which could threaten the sovereignty of the dependent state and at best lead to it becoming a puppet of the benefactor state and at worse losing its independence outright. Interestingly with the advent of neoliberalism and the global integration of markets, the international system has served to increase interstate cooperation rather than reduce it as Waltz envisioned.

Presently the concepts of downright conquering and colonization have become outdated and out of fashion. The more appropriate strategy seems to be of creating dependence between a powerful state and a less powerful one. In this game, national sovereignty remains unharmed to the naked eye and a state is seem to be making its own decisions and running its own affairs. Behind the scenes however, the hegemon that the weaker state relies on for important resources, trade or the increasingly popular ‘aid programs’, remains firmly in power. Proxy wars need no longer be confined to within states rather entire states can be used as pawns by the hegemons in a global game of chess, as contested between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War era.

Session 9: "Creators Become the Creatures".

Theorizing in the realm of International Relations has placed an emphasis on the self-interested nature of individuals that is projected to the level of states and manifests itself as the quest for survival and security in a global political order. Kenneth Waltz in “Political Structures” aims to break away from the “common approaches” to theorizing in order to present a Systems Theory of International Relations. This approach involves a disregard of the characteristics and interests of political actors, lacks a concern for culture and tradition and omits the making and execution of policies from the analysis. Rather, it takes a “positional picture of society”, focusing on the structure of the international political system and the “units” interacting within the system, so as to present a balanced view of the relationship between political processes and structures, as well as their impact on global politics.

Waltz presents a three-part definition of political structures, based on organizing principles, the character of units and the distribution of capabilities. Waltz maintains that structures are defined by principles around which they are organized. Power politics and hierarchical subordination are key aspects of domestic political structures. However, in the international arena, there exists a condition of anarchy and decentralization of power. It is often claimed that due to the lack of an “orderer” or any formal international institutions to maintain that order, it is not possible to draw up a structure that can help define power plays within an international order. However, Waltz argues that structures in an international system may arise in a manner similar to the emergence of markets: interactions between different players – individuals and firms – may lead to the creation of institutions that are directed towards fulfilling their own interests.The structure that emerges as a result supersedes the authority of the very units that have rise to it, i.e. “from the co-action of like units emerges a structure that affects and constrains all of them”.

Units that make up domestic political structures, are highly differentiated in terms of their functions. The basic assumption for an international system however is that states, considered to be the unit of analysis, are absolutely alike. A state-centric approach towards theorizing has also often been criticized. Waltz recognizes the shortcomings of treating states as the only actors within the international system and mentions that transnational and non-state actors may be of import to the discussion. However, keeping in line with his earlier rejection of the internal workings of states, Waltz disregards players within the state apparatus whose interests and actions could potentially impact the workings of the international system. State-centrism as an approach to analyzing global politics is further reinforced by the functional similarities of each state, such as: the existence of institutions for the purpose of legislation and execution of policies, the use of state resources for the provision of public goods and the maintenance of agencies to protect and defend its sovereignty. Therefore, Waltz claims that as the “ends” to which each state aspires are more or less similar, it makes complete sense for states to be the basic units in the international structure.

Furthermore, although the units of an anarchic system are “functionally undifferentiated”, the difference in each state’s capabilities to perform similar tasks is highly varied. Hence, the structure of a system is also directly impacted by the distribution of capabilities amongst states. This feeds directly into the Realist perception of international relations, where states are differentiated by the power they possess and the security they are hence able to provide to their borders. This can be tied back to the notion that political and economic structures cannot evolve and exist in a vacuum. Political organization and power may be employed to strengthen the economic structures of the state, while in turn, having a strong economic base is vital to the pursuit of power-political gains (domestically, as well in an international arena). Therefore, Waltz’s continuous reference to markets and firms as analogous to political units that make up the state structure, as a tool to understanding international relations cannot be dismissed.'

Waltz has provided a unique insight to the realm of international politics. Although his style of writing often left me confused, his ability to highlight potential criticisms and then in turn counter them in order to justify his arguments is a quality that is commendable, and thus his work should be highly appreciated. 

Session 9: Power and Politics

Kenneth Waltz begins the chapter, ‘Political Structures’ by defining how politics is an ordered system comprising of a structure and its interacting units. However, he goes on to state that the structure is only useful in definition if interactivity between the units is completely ignored, but their positions or relations to one another are concentrated on. He further states that it is necessary to ignore the personality, behaviour, and interactivity between the actors. Instead, one should look at their relative positions within society. Domestic politics and international politics are quite different from one another, and their structures are quite different as well.

Moving on, he describes the domestic political structure as hierarchical and centralized, where the power lies under the President, Prime Minister, judiciary, bureaucracy etc. On the other hand, the international political system is defined as quite the opposite; anarchical and decentralized. Each state has its own laws and ideas on what it wants to do. Despite that, it is quite clear that their lies a system of hierarchy even in the international system. This hierarchy is defined by how much ‘power’ which in turn depends on their ‘capabilities’. The US, for example is often labelled as The Hegemon in the international arena since it possesses the most power in terms of the military arms, technology, intelligence, money etc. This power leads the other states to either ally with the US, to gain support or stand up against it by striving to match its level.

Session 9: A little bit of chapter 5 & 6

The purpose of chapter 5 of Kenneth Waltz's book, titled: Theory of International Politics, is to define the concept social structure and then apply this concept to understand national and international politics. 

Waltz writes that a system comprises of a 'structure and interacting units.' The structure of a system in turn describes the arrangement of parts of the system. He then goes on to talk about the domestic political unit which he explains has three characteristics: first, the national political structure is define based on the 'principle by which it is ordered' (this refers to the form of hierarchical structure which is in place), secondly, it is defined by the tasks that each unit has to fulfill (this refers to the presidential, parliamentary systems etc) and lastly, it is explained through the 'distribution of capabilities across units.' 

Waltz deliberately omits important variables such as culture, traditions, attitudes and personality of political actors and other factors and he chalks down this omission to the fact that through this exclusion he aims to decipher the effects of structure on process and of process on structure. 

Kenneth W. then goes on through the help of an analogy to apply these three characteristics to the international arena. As far as the first principle is concerned, he believes that where domestic systems are hierarchical and centralized, international systems on the other hand are decentralized and anarchic. He then elaborates on this principle and through the help of an analogy of classical microeconomics theory he explains how anarchy works in the international system.

It is something which Waltz mentions in his next chapter, however, that grasps my attention. He states that the international system constrains cooperation between states and one of the reasons for such a restriction is that a nation does not wish to become too dependent on other states and hence, cooperation is limited.

I find it interesting because in a globalized world like ours, comparative advantage seems to be the name of the game and countries prefer to trade with other countries, especially in goods in which they have a natural disadvantage in (that is, import the goods they cannot produce as efficiently themselves when compared to the other countries) However, it should also be noted that even though countries do trade on the basis of comparative advantage, they do side by side try to be as self-reliant as possible.

I found this piece intriguing (though slightly, sometimes- if I may dare say so- sleep-inducing) Kenneth Waltz’s neorealist theory provides yet another interesting perspective through which international relations can be viewed

Session 9 - Political Structures

Kenneth Waltz defines the structure as how units are positioned in relation to one another. He also distinguishes between domestic and international politics as domestic politics being hierarchically ordered and the international arena being anarchically ordered. However, even in the international system there is some degree of hierarchy that prevails. The division of states amongst the first, second and third world categories is indicative of some kind of hierarchy. The smaller and weaker nations are mostly economically subordinate to geographically larger and economically wealthier states. For instance, Pakistan is in many ways subordinate to USA. This is simply because Pakistan is a third world country dependent on first world countries for support. Furthermore, in the UN, the concept of the Big Five and their veto abilities shows that there is order and ranking. Also, according to Waltz, self help is an essential mode of action in an anarchic order. However, majority states in the world today act with consent, discussion and advice from other states. They form alliances and pacts to ensure safety in the event of an attack by a third party. Self-help is a rare phenomenon to find, which is why it is questionable to say that the international system is anarchic.

Lastly, in chapter 6, Waltz says, ‘among states, state of nature is a state of war’. This is applicable to the scenario between India and Pakistan ever since independence. Both the countries must constantly rely on their military only because there is a constant threat of hostility between them. 

Session 9: Indistinguishable Events

       A government has an monopoly on legitimate use of force. Internationally, force is applied for the sake of its protection and security. Answering the question that why use of force on national level is not different from the international level, I would like to cite an example considering above mentioned arguments. Use of private force against a single authority or against multiple authorities threaten international system along with national structure. Al Qaeda in the past two or three decades and ISIS in recent years are the examples of private forces which have continuously threaten the governments of the countries in which they operate and with their global agenda, are source of constant trouble for international community. The reason why these private forces are able to encompass both national and international arena in their domain of influence is the increase of their resources and with the ever growing technology expanding their horizons. Governments, trying to eradicate these forces from their territories are also forming international coalitions with the countries other than it, which are also effecting by them to fight against them.
     
       In my opinion, issues of the kind of ISIS or Al Qaeda are bound to be national as well as internationally influential due to the global agenda and the modern day technology they enjoyed. However, some issues can only pertain to the national level only like a militant group fighting for autonomy in that state only and government can handle it the way it want but in this technological world, states need not to distinguish between national and international conflicts.

       National system is not one of self-help. The international system is and I think that is the only distinguishable factor between use of force on national level versus international level, like on national level as illustrated by the above example, government has to use its legitimate right of using force but on international arena, states have to worry about their survival. They have to evaluate their options that are favoring their interests and then, they are bound to solve that issue collaboratively.        

session 8 "threat from within"

Bureaucratic politics by graham T Allison is very interesting yet debatable topic. I would call this as a master piece because this has opened new horizons of thought regarding policy implications, the way nations influence each other, direct their actions followed by decisions and how internal players determine the reaction of organizations which then influence and develop country's policies and reactions for other nation on the happening of any international imbalance.

previously we have been come cross the idea how realist deal with the international politics putting a pessimistic view of human nature and its impact on international politics. Through that we got to know how rising power of nation A alarms nation b which in turn prepares for the threat ultimately threatening nation A and how this vicious cycle operates. This is basically one general perspective. This reading by graham T Allison answers the hidden reality in the example given above such that why nations go that way? Allison argues that nations have different interests that are based on the interests of the organizations controlling the states, therefore it be said that in any organization there are different departments and every head of departments may have different interests. Every department head would be in continuous struggle to achieve maximum of his interests by exercising power he has within the organization.  Power is also unevenly distributed between people. Just as nobody is good at everything, there is a room for inequalities in power and ability. So similarly we can conclude that different people have different interests and these people together make organization .This forms different interest for different organizations and these interests of organizations together sum up and create country's interests.

To explain all this we can use the example from Pakistan. Bureaucracy and Army in Pakistan are the most strongest and disciplined institutions while parliament is not that disciplined or strong. The reason why parliament is not strong is because army has its own interest which it so called describes as national security interests. Army influences the national foreign policy and is one of the determinants in foreign policy of Pakistan. Similarly, parliament has its own interest in Pakistan. Parliament wants more power and hold of the country including the designing of foreign policy. The struggle between institutions and organizations together develop the policies of states and it is not always the case of a threat from other nations. Threat is sometime created to achieve certain objectives. Parliaments of both countries have their interest in promoting hatred among the two nations because they get votes from people .Armies of both India and Pakistan have great vested interests in maintaining conflicts with each other because otherwise the main motive of holding millions of armed forces cannot be justified. so interests of organizations are the elementary part of country’s policies. Through this example, the idea portrayed by Allison hold true.

                                                                                     ~UZAIR MUJEEB