In, “The Tragedy of Power Politics’, John Merscheimer argues
that perpetual peace is an unattainable ideal owing to the fact that it is in
the interest of states to gain power and become the ruling hegemon, which forms
the core of the author’s offensive realism argument. He goes on to describe the
world order that has existed in the eras leading up to the two World Wars and
beyond, as a multipolar system before the first war and a bipolar system
following the second.
According to Merscheimer, power is the international
currency in the anarchic system, a notion which is helpful in explaining why
the author feels that perpetual peace is unachievable. The author’s concept of
peace appears to focus less on harmony and cooperation between states and more
on how conflict can be reduced in a multipolar or bipolar world. In line with
offensive realism every state must try to maximize its power so as to reach the
position of hegemon, a position which the state then attempts to hold on to by
eliminating other threats. Threats are usually of the military variety because
to reach the position of hegemon hard power is essential, though once reached
the state can use a combination of soft and hard power to maintain its
dominance.
The concept of offensive realism turns the hegemons every
move into a chess match, which helps to avoid the outbreak of outright war in
the case of a bipolar system with two great powers, as in the oft cited Cold
War era starring the United States and the Soviet Unions in the role of
hegemon. In the current times the United States has and can be actively seen
both trying to influence public opinion, as well as taking action against those
states that it views as threats as it attempts to maintain its status as the
hegemon, under threat from emerging powers such as China for example.
The Offensive and Defensive nature of Power Politics in my opinion may also play the role of maintaining an equilibrium of power. Like the example you cited, the US has a major influence on other countries as well as people. However, in some cases such as that of Russia it has taken a more defensive stance. In the Ukraine crises, the US was expected to grab this opportunity to get back to Russia. But, it chose not to.
ReplyDeleteI like the analogy you draw between the actions of great powers and a chess match. To extend this analogy further, I think it's getting a bit harder for the US to protect all its pieces... (poignant full-stops coming in handy, yet again)
ReplyDeleteYes it seems that the US will try to maintain its hegemonic position will continue to influence domestic as well as international politics.
ReplyDeleteHowever one thing that bothers me is that Merscheimer only talks about the great powers, theres no mention of growing countries like India or Brazil. One can argue that the dominating countries do not see them as a threat so when does a country see another as a threat; When it reaches certain economic growth or what?. Furthermore most of the examples that Merscheimer gives are of countries that maintained their power position through war. So it seems that we shall soon have a war on our hands soon...
Aizaz good points and I like how you give some examples of how the U.S. is attempting to maintain its hegemony.
ReplyDeleteAlso, its Mearsheimer, not "Mearscheimer". And in response to your comment Aahsan, Mearsheimer focuses on great powers because they are the ultimate determinants of change in the international system. Until India and Brazil become great powers, they will not have as much influence on the international system, at least according to Mearsheimer.