This week’s article by John J. Mearsheimer is called “The
Tragedy of Power Politics”. It is a significant addition to the canon of
realism and sets Mearsheimer as a top proponent of structural realism. We
previously encountered structural realism with Waltz; Mearsheimer is an
offensive realist while Waltz is a defensive realist.
Offensive realism is the notion that the international
system is not about maintaining balance or distribution or equilibrium or
however many interchangeable terms we used for classical realism. Not only are
states self-interested but also their main objective is to gain power. There is
no status quo in the international realm; only an eventual hegemon which seeks
to maintain its control over the power base but cannot permanently do so. Great
powers behave this way due to the fear principle: since there is no central
authority and that many states have military capabilities whose intentions are
unknown. So the only way that states can really feel safe is if they hold all
the cards i.e. if they’re the hegemon.
Mearsheimer tries to account for offensive realism and its
application by analyzing historic events. He speaks of Germany in 1905 compared
to Germany in 1914 and how Germany’s passivity in 1905 made little to no sense
from the offensive realist perspective. Here Mearsheimer recognizes that
offensive realism is more descriptive than prescriptive. He then answers
questions by making the basic assumptions of the international system in which
states are interest-seeking rational actors which are unpredictable and have
military capabilities; especially the great powers. The key assumption of
offensive realism is that the most important form of power is military power.
All states are influenced by the logic that they have no way of knowing that
they have enough power. Hence, they will attempt to seek hegemony to feel
secure. Offensive realism deals mostly in hard power since it assumes a very
dog eat dog world.
The reason why wars do not happen more often as offensive
realism makes it seem is that the balance of power makes the states calculate
and weigh every decision. It is very unlikely for a state to achieve complete
hegemony and the best it can hope for is being the only regional hegemon.
States will look for the peaceful solution to an extent but total piece cannot
be achieved precisely because the states will be afraid of what would happen if
they failed. Concern about cheating is the biggest stumbling block for
cooperation between great powers.
Mearsheimer’s piece
is very simple but very insightful at the same time. His avoidance of five
dollar words makes his thoughts extremely clear and focused. His assumptions
are very basic and he recognizes that his theory is definitely not overarching.
Offensive realism works well as a descriptive theory, but one fails to see how
it could lead to proper empirical analysis of the international system. Maybe
that is the whole point that Mearsheimer tries to make. Maybe the complications
of the international system boil down to simple Darwinism. It is a game of
survival; offensive realism deals in pragmatism, not pessimism.
I agree that balance of power acts as a deterrent and prevents war. If a state knows that it cannot be fully victorious then it is less likely to attack other states.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on the fact that this is a brilliant piece of writing. Both simple and insightful. But what you mentioned about offensive realism being useless in empirical analysis is not completley right. This theory may seem descriptive, but it is also quite predictive and although not with utter accuracy, this approach did predict a tension between USA and Russia in Europe if the expansion of NATO continued, which we saw with Ukraine. At the end of the day, however this is only a theory, and it accounts for anomalies by simplification i.e emphasizing certain factors and ignoring others. It may not be completely right as Marsheimer himself has highlighted, but it does paint a very accurate picture.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think Mearsheimer himself argues that his theory is mostly descriptive. I'm sure it is applicable in many situations but I was just trying to illustrate that it is by no means overarching
ReplyDeleteYou and your pop culture references! Are you sure you weren't raised in America?
ReplyDeleteGood post and I want you to think a bit deeper about whether or not states actually calculate and weigh every decision. Do states in reality actually do this? Remember the Allison and Halperin piece about bureaucratic politics? Do states always follow a pattern of behavior based on the best available information, or do they come to make policies based on domestic horsetrading amongst institutions and individuals?
Also please proofread. Although you generally write well, I can point to three errors in just these two sentences, "States will look for the peaceful solution to an extent but total piece cannot be achieved precisely because the states will be afraid of what would happen if they failed. Concern about cheating is the biggest stumbling block for cooperation between great powers." (Should be "peace" not "piece"; should be "Concerns" not "concern"; and should be "among" not "between").
And just FYI - Mearsheimer writes the way he talks. If you ever listen to him, he tries to avoid academic jargon in favor of clear, comprehensible language. It is a strength of his and one of the reasons why he has achieved all that he has. Just goes to show that you don't need to speak in academic gobbledygook to make a name for yourself.