anarchy-too one sided?

The theory of an anarchic global structure is one of the most affluent and long supported theory in the domain of international relations. The actions of states and other actors in the international political arena are measured against the need for fulfilling goals of self interest, and therefore actions are thought to be executed with the sole purpose of increasing one's influence through increasing one's power. In her article, Helen Milner forwards an alternative view to the subject, by branding anarchy as too simple a concept, and introducing an alternative theory to better understand the workings of global politics, that is, the theory of interdependence.

While realists have long argued that actions dictated by self-interest, Milner presents how the idea of inter-dependence is weaved into the fabric of an anarchic society, where dependence still supplants the idea of self-interest. If the idea of pure anarchy were to be accepted, that would lead to countries being in a constant state of war. War is prevalent and will always be relevant in the course of history, but we should not ignore alliances that state make for mutual welfare. Taking the example of the USA and Saudi, for example, we can see how two states that are built on completely bipolar ideologies are still allies, back since 1933. There is mutual benefit to be reaped by both. The concept of maintaining the balance of power also comes into effect, as in this case, the US is able to extend a powerful friendship to Saudi Arabia, who in exchange control their provision of oil, which is a major ingredient for any world economy.

The alliance between USA and Pakistan is also such a case in which the US, being a global super power, does not need an alliance with a third world nation such as Pakistan. But Pakistan’s turf provides them an ideal location from which to fight its proxy wars and monitor the situation In China and Russia. Milner, therefore, sheds light on another dimension of the debate on international politics.