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.
The balance of power argument that you have written about aptly summarizes the point that Waltz presents in chapter six. In order to ensure their own survival in the global arena, countries will take defensive actions if they feel that another country is developing faster than them and becoming a threat to their national sovereignty and their position as a hegemon, as seen time and time again in history. This is perhaps what explains the foreign policy that was carried out during the cold war era between America and USSR where the other wanted to outdo the other militarily and economically.
ReplyDeleteBut does balancing always happen? There are several examples of states have not done much while another state grows faster than them. For example China in recent years has grown faster then most of the cities of europe and is more powerful in a sense than Europe, but Europe has not taken any steps to try and shut down China's fast growth. There is no coalition or such as waltz believes will happen. Another example is India, which is growing economically, militarily and thus is growing in power too. But nothing to stop it from, no action to limit its growing power by any state. So when exactly does balancing happen and why does it happen will have many more assumptions than just those stated by waltz.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting when we compare Waltz piece to that of Allison's. Allison disagrees with the point that the different interests of the competing or existing structures within a state cancel out or what he calls is not a 'zero sum game'. The difference between the two is that Waltz talks of the international realm whereas Allison talks of the nation state. If we can apply the arguments to both the realms then the two pieces stand at opposites to each other. Where the former argues that self-interest cancels out in the congregation leading to a neutral state of existence, and the latter against it.
ReplyDeleteThe Balance of Power is a key theme that I think plays out in the international system in a variety of ways. In response to Aahsan's point about Europe not balancing against China, you have to remember that Europe is not as powerful as the U.S., and that the U.S. is balancing against China in a variety of ways.
ReplyDeleteBut the answer to why states balance - or not - will come through other theories we'll learn about, namely defensive and offensive realism.