Session 4: Man, The
State and War
War - What is it good for? (answered in the last
sentence)
Kenneth Waltz was a
founder of the school of neorealism, which argued that the states' number one
priority is to achieve their own security and that an offensive approach. In
the introductory essay of his book Man, The State and War he introduces the concept
of analyzing the causes and solutions for war in terms of 'images and
prescriptions'. Something which struck me as interesting was the comment “…if violence among states is the product of
international anarchy, to aim at the conversion of individuals can accomplish
little.” and I will look to expand my thoughts on this.
The balance of power
argument regarding international relations in a bipolar world suggests that states
align themselves with each other and form alliances in order to minimize risk
which is also in line with the neorealist school of thought. Power, henceforth,
is a major player in the international system of anarchy. Violence, however, is
not the same as power according to Hannah Arendt. Violence is rather the
absence of power. In this manner we see that states resort to violence when
they feel that they have lost power.
This conforms to earlier
on in the reading when pride and petulance were identified as one of the root
evils that led to war. If a state or despotic ruler or whoever considers that its/his pride is slighted, it is equivalent to a loss of power. Loss of power or
the threat thereof is then a big factor in creating the violent circumstances
leading to war. Many different reasons for war can be identified as a loss of
power. The Iraq Invasion was sparked because there was a threat posed by the
supposed existence of WMDs which led to a downturn in the balance of power. The
Crusades were started because the papacy needed to consolidate its power.
Violence among states then comes from a wide ranging loss of power that may
manifest in many forms. So, in a sense, an absence of power is the prime motive
for violence in the international system. Violence thus stems from nothingness.
Absolutely nothing.
You lay out a number of claims without fully backing up your assertions (e.g. Crusades as desire for papal power - real causes were more complex). Although I do like that you quoted Edwin Starr, you could have made a stronger argument by clarifying how "violence stems from nothingness." A more careful analysis in the future is preferable.
ReplyDelete