While propagating realism as the theory that should
be used to determine state actions, Mearsheimer takes the trouble of
highlighting the limits and weaknesses of the theory as well. Although, in my
opinion, realism sufficiently explains why states act the way they do, there
are several drawbacks in the theory.
Firstly, Mearsheimer does not specify that realism
is also limited because it does not account for domestic policies. Many a
times, states are forced to take certain steps in response to pressure from the
public and perhaps even the bureaucracy. Great powers are not only interested
in seeking power just for the sake of survival, but they may also pursue
particular policies to satisfy the public opinion. Even though Mearsheimer
admits that realism does not illuminate every nook and cranny of a dark room,
such exclusions from his theory can pose serious limitations. Secondly, he
defines great powers as powers with military capabilities, which vary in size. However,
in my opinion, this is a very limited conception of what makes a state a great
power. Economic power is crucial in determining the capabilities of a state. It
also determines whether a state has the capacity and resources to wage war.
Furthermore, aggressive states like North Korea possess offensive capabilities
i.e. nuclear weapons, but it is definitely not referred to as a great power in
the world.
Thirdly, Mearsheimer argues that small states are
not given much significance in the theory of realism because it is only the
decisions and actions of the bigger states that determine how events will unfold
in the international scenario. However, at the time of independence in 1947, animosity
between India and Pakistan played a major role in the US attempting to
interfere in the Middle East and South Asia due to a growing threat from a
communist Russia. This ultimately had major repercussions that can still be
seen till today. Therefore, it is not possible to discount the role of small
states altogether.
Despite these limitations, I feel that Mearsheimer's
realist view of the world is far more useful and true than the theory of
liberalism. His account of offensive and defensive realism and good vs. bad
states helps to categorise several states and then describe what their aims
really are.
In case of great powers, although you are right in saying that economic power is a crucial factor in determining their capabilities, but as more economic power is achieved, does it not translate into greater military capabilities too?
ReplyDeleteGenerally good critique Mariyam, but I think you're a bit too harsh in certain respects. In particular, although Mearsheimer does primarily focus on hard power, he does allow room for the importance of latent power. Furthermore, your point about Partition and its impact on international politics is a bit overstated. Of course curbing communism became an ideological pillar of U.S. foreign policy, but how is that related to India-Pakistan? In general, small states play a negligible role in international affairs, though at times they can indeed play an out-sized role (for example, see how the invasion of Belgium in 1914 and Poland in 1939 set off a bigger chain of events.).
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that you conclude in support of Mearsheimer's claims over liberalism. Let's see how you think in a couple weeks once we have finished our theoretical readings!