In her critique Helen Milner responds to
scholars have maintained that the International system will always be plagued
anarchy. She is of the opinion that the word anarchy itself has lost its meaning
overtime. And that its repeated use has led to variations in the manner in
which the system is viewed. Her article is concise and easy to read but at the
same time it provides a meaningful assessment of how various authors have viewed
the term ‘anarchy’ in the past and then she herself reflects on the situation. Milner
talks about how the International Political System is assumed to be anarchic in
nature, it is not necessarily the case. The exaggeration of this idea prevents
us from seeing the actual system at work which is a balancing mechanism. Furthermore,
it has led to the separation of domestic and international spheres of politics
which in her opinion is not possible. Moreover, she also finds the oversimplification
of the arena problematic.
On the other hand, John J. Mearshiemert in
his piece ‘Back to Future’ tries to assess the world following the Cold War. Unlike
Miller, he considers the system to be anarchic. And he uses this idea to
predict the upcoming changes in the system. He talks about preventing future wars.
Early on in the article he presents how a multipolar world would be more prone
to violence and hence, war as opposed to a bipolar world.
The main theme of his writing focuses on
the idea that nuclear weapons may help prevent wars if states fear attacking
the other because they possess nuclear arms however, this proliferation needs
to be carefully managed and limited. Secondly, he argues about the balance of
power dynamics and how power imbalance may be prevented by the maintenance of a
strong military. His third major argument is to curb hyper nationalism as he
views is as a major proponent of war.
Great summaries, though I would love to see a bit more of analysis.
ReplyDeleteI am really glad though that you looked at Mearsheimer's piece, because it is interesting to read it now that 25-years have passed. Did hyper-nationalism become a major problem? Well in the 90s, it was a major issue in the Balkans, but now the EU has tapered over some of the more hypernationalist tendencies. Has the world become multipolar? It has to an extent, but it still is more unipolar more than anything else. Will nuclear weapons ensure peace? Well, the newest nuclear state - North Korea - has a penchant for proliferation and if it manages to sell a nuke or two to other states - or perhaps non-state actors - this could be disastrous.
It's great looking at pieces like this to evaluate how well theory has held up in practice.