This weeks reading by Mearsheimer delved into the concept of offensive realism that talks about the fact that states are self interested entities that focus on expanding their own power at the expense of others. He provides us with an interesting insight into how states act in the international system and how political decisions in the international front are largely contingent on the power of other states. Mearsheimer starts by discussing the key aspect of all politics which is power. He compares power to the international currency, and how the different states strive to achieve as much power as they can to ensure their own survival in the self help anarchic system. He continues to discuss why states are so adamant to achieve more power than it needs t survive and comes up with three conclusions. This includes the fact that the international system is anarchic, the fact that states possess military capacity and that intentions are never clear when it comes to states. But, how can this explain conflict? Why is Mearsheimer so keen to go against the notion that perpetual peace can never be attained? The answer is provided in his discourse where he claims that the only way that peace can be reached is if they are hegemons and they do not have any rivals to fight against.
What really stood out in the chapter was the discussion of bi-polar and multi-polar international systems. Mearsheimer claims that perpetual peace can not be reached, however the way the international system is shaped dictates the extent to which conflicts break out. This line of though is mentioned in Mearshiemer's paper on Instability in Europe After the Cold War where he claims that the reason why there were so many conflicts before 1945 was because of the way that the international arena was structured. The outbreak of the First World War was the result of the alliances that were formed and with the assassination of the archduke Franz Ferdinand, this intricate web of alliances led to the start of one of the most devastating conflicts in the history of the world. Furthermore, the Second World War can also be explained by this token as it was the fear that Germany was expanding that led to the multiple nations in the West to become agitated and this inculcation of fear is what led to the outbreak of the war.
In comparison, the post- 1945 era was marked by a bi-polar system in the world where predominately there were two sides, USSR and USA. Even though in such a system there were also proxy wars that took place, what is important to note is that conflict was markedly less and perhaps what Mearsheimer is trying to explain through his book is that peace cannot be achieved fully, but it can be curbed to a large degree.
After the end of the Cold War, we see that there was hegemony of the Americans in the world, but in more recent times this hegemony is being challenged with the rise of other states such as China and India. According to Mearsheimer when a hegemon is challenged (America), there is a natural desire to eradicate this threat. This leads us to another important question: Will there be a return to the multi-polar system that existed previously?
What really stood out in the chapter was the discussion of bi-polar and multi-polar international systems. Mearsheimer claims that perpetual peace can not be reached, however the way the international system is shaped dictates the extent to which conflicts break out. This line of though is mentioned in Mearshiemer's paper on Instability in Europe After the Cold War where he claims that the reason why there were so many conflicts before 1945 was because of the way that the international arena was structured. The outbreak of the First World War was the result of the alliances that were formed and with the assassination of the archduke Franz Ferdinand, this intricate web of alliances led to the start of one of the most devastating conflicts in the history of the world. Furthermore, the Second World War can also be explained by this token as it was the fear that Germany was expanding that led to the multiple nations in the West to become agitated and this inculcation of fear is what led to the outbreak of the war.
In comparison, the post- 1945 era was marked by a bi-polar system in the world where predominately there were two sides, USSR and USA. Even though in such a system there were also proxy wars that took place, what is important to note is that conflict was markedly less and perhaps what Mearsheimer is trying to explain through his book is that peace cannot be achieved fully, but it can be curbed to a large degree.
After the end of the Cold War, we see that there was hegemony of the Americans in the world, but in more recent times this hegemony is being challenged with the rise of other states such as China and India. According to Mearsheimer when a hegemon is challenged (America), there is a natural desire to eradicate this threat. This leads us to another important question: Will there be a return to the multi-polar system that existed previously?
Good analysis, though do spell-check and proofread before you submit (e.g. you state, "Why is Mearsheimer so keen to go against the notion that perpetual peace can never be attained?" when you mean "Why is Mearsheimer so keen to argue that perpetual peace can never be attained?").
ReplyDeleteI like how you end on the question of whether a multipolar world is coming back. If you ask Mearsheimer, this of course would be a bad thing, since he argues that a bipolar world is most stable. But as we are in a hegemonic system - which is inherently unstable - could a bipolar system (U.S. vs. China) provide for more stability than we currently have? Unanswerable question to be sure, but worth thinking about.