Mearsheimer's article about offensive realism touches upon the immutable fact that international politics has always been a ruthless and dangerous business and the only variable which essentially changes is the intensity of the competition within states. In line with the realist belief propagated by scholars such as Waltz, international politics recognizes the fact that the aim of any state is survival and in order to achieve this objective it needs to maximize it's own share of the world power. The fundamental question thus arises: how is this possible? The only logical explanation is that states gain power at the expense of others, giving rise to the popular phenomenon of offensive realism whereby states have an insatiable desire to not only be better than the other players in the international system, but reign as all powerful- every state wants to be a hegemon.
Why is it then that there is no desire to maintain the status quo in the international realm? Why are states not satisfied with the power that they do have if they are powerful enough to sustain themselves. Mearsheimer claims that not only do the states want to gain power at the expense of other states, but they also are adamant on eradicating any rivals to their power. He provides an insightful explanation to why this dynamic exists: the anarchic nature of the international system, how states have some offensive military capabilities and the fact that states can never be sure about the intentions of other states.
The anarchic nature of the international system is perhaps a reasoning that has been reiterated in numerous academic discourses and explains why there is conflict between nations. The absence of an overarching system is one reason why states seek to ensure that they have some form of hegemony, whether economically or militarily. States are constantly at logger heads because there is no institutional form of checks and balances such as that those are prevalent in the domestic realm of politics. So, there is constant fear because international institutions are unable to curb the imperialistic, expansionist ambitions of states. Perhaps the perfect example of this is the League of Nations which failed to stop the atrocities that were committed around the globe, especially in Abyssinia. Scholars have gone as far as saying the LON was perhaps one of the reasons of the appeasement of Hitler and led him to invade Poland because there was no punishment given to other states and this led to the start of the second world war. Even in more recent times, the United Nations did not take an active step to stop the African apartheid- so how can international institutions be trusted? So, Mearsheimer is correct to claim that the structure of the state system is a contributing reason as to why there is a need for states to expand their power.
Offensive military capabilities is another pivotal reason as to why there is a need for states to expand their power. Mearsheimer claims that power is the currency of great power politics and and states compete amongst themselves for it. They seize opportunities if they have the necessary capabilities. This was exemplified during the Cold War era when the two camps of USA and USSR were constantly expanding their military arsenal because they were never completely satisfied with the military machinery they had because each had the capacity to keep building more, keep pushing their governments to invest in more militaristic agendas. The cyclic nature of constantly wanting to outdo each other is another dimension of offensive realism and explains why there is constant conflict in the world and how this aspect will never change. This aspect of offensive realism ties in with the fact that intentions of states are perhaps the one thing no one can be sure of and it is this psychological phenomenon that leads to conflicts because what one propagates through rhetoric might not be how one acts- this constant agitation and fear leads to powers expanding their capabilities whenever they can till they become hegemons because only when they reach such a status can one be completely safe and tilt the balance of power in their favor.
Mearsheimer's explanation of international politics is fundamental to understand the conflicts that have taken place in the world. Even though people in the West do believe that 'perpetual peace' amongst states has finally been reached, Mearsheimer shatters this illusion and provides a very staunch realist understanding of the world. Even though conflict is less likely in bipolar systems than multipolar, the fear always exists and one can not hope to achieve peace in such a system.
Why is it then that there is no desire to maintain the status quo in the international realm? Why are states not satisfied with the power that they do have if they are powerful enough to sustain themselves. Mearsheimer claims that not only do the states want to gain power at the expense of other states, but they also are adamant on eradicating any rivals to their power. He provides an insightful explanation to why this dynamic exists: the anarchic nature of the international system, how states have some offensive military capabilities and the fact that states can never be sure about the intentions of other states.
The anarchic nature of the international system is perhaps a reasoning that has been reiterated in numerous academic discourses and explains why there is conflict between nations. The absence of an overarching system is one reason why states seek to ensure that they have some form of hegemony, whether economically or militarily. States are constantly at logger heads because there is no institutional form of checks and balances such as that those are prevalent in the domestic realm of politics. So, there is constant fear because international institutions are unable to curb the imperialistic, expansionist ambitions of states. Perhaps the perfect example of this is the League of Nations which failed to stop the atrocities that were committed around the globe, especially in Abyssinia. Scholars have gone as far as saying the LON was perhaps one of the reasons of the appeasement of Hitler and led him to invade Poland because there was no punishment given to other states and this led to the start of the second world war. Even in more recent times, the United Nations did not take an active step to stop the African apartheid- so how can international institutions be trusted? So, Mearsheimer is correct to claim that the structure of the state system is a contributing reason as to why there is a need for states to expand their power.
Offensive military capabilities is another pivotal reason as to why there is a need for states to expand their power. Mearsheimer claims that power is the currency of great power politics and and states compete amongst themselves for it. They seize opportunities if they have the necessary capabilities. This was exemplified during the Cold War era when the two camps of USA and USSR were constantly expanding their military arsenal because they were never completely satisfied with the military machinery they had because each had the capacity to keep building more, keep pushing their governments to invest in more militaristic agendas. The cyclic nature of constantly wanting to outdo each other is another dimension of offensive realism and explains why there is constant conflict in the world and how this aspect will never change. This aspect of offensive realism ties in with the fact that intentions of states are perhaps the one thing no one can be sure of and it is this psychological phenomenon that leads to conflicts because what one propagates through rhetoric might not be how one acts- this constant agitation and fear leads to powers expanding their capabilities whenever they can till they become hegemons because only when they reach such a status can one be completely safe and tilt the balance of power in their favor.
Mearsheimer's explanation of international politics is fundamental to understand the conflicts that have taken place in the world. Even though people in the West do believe that 'perpetual peace' amongst states has finally been reached, Mearsheimer shatters this illusion and provides a very staunch realist understanding of the world. Even though conflict is less likely in bipolar systems than multipolar, the fear always exists and one can not hope to achieve peace in such a system.
I think you meant "among" not "within" in your first sentence ("...intensity of the competition within states..."). While it is true that offensive realism argues that states want to maximize power and become hegemons if possible, it's important to recognize that states seek to become regional hegemons first and foremost, particularly since it is nigh on impossible to become the hegemon in the international system.
ReplyDeleteYou discuss the international system and how, because of anarchy, states maximize their power in a zero-sum game without real checks from international institutions. But don't you remember that piece by Milner that talked about integration alongside anarchy? Doesn't integration mitigate some of the worst aspects of anarchy?
You buy the argument that Waltz and Mearsheimer put forth about how a bipolar system is more stable, but is it? Especially with nuclear weapons, does it even matter if we have a bipolar or mulitpolar system since nukes ensure a defensive advantage?
All in all, a good post and the questions I raise above are worth thinking about.