Great Power Politics and Assumptions of Offensive Realism
First we must understand the basic theory of realism which will enable us to think on how the world political system works. The theory gives you a good understanding on how the great powers in the world works to achieve their national interest even at the cost of other states. Realism is a theory that is essentially about power and security. States relentlessly seek power and security because they exist in a self help system. States seek security, prestige and most of all realist would say that states seek autonomy. In a world where we cannot trust anyone we don't want to be interdependent. This is because who wants to be interdependent in a world that is so dangerous ? Essentially one cannot know who is going to align against him or her down the road or making plans against him or her now. View of realism is based on the Hobbesian state of nature where there is war of all against all. It doesn't mean that war always occurs but the danger of war always lurks in the background of the international politics. In short real world remains a realist world. International politics is a zero sum game.
Branches of realist theory
1. Classical Realism
2. Structural Realism
In this article we will focus on theory of structural realism which argues that structure of the international system motivates the states to behave in one particular way at one particular time. Whereas classical realism argues that humans are wired with type A personality, i.e. in Hans J Morgenthau's term "Animus dominandi " leaders of the powerful countries are driven by the will to attain power and try to make their country most powerful one the world. The basic assumptions of Offensive realism are as follows:
1. States are the principle actors in the anarchic system. Anarchy doesn't mean that there is murder and mayhem. It is actually against the hierarchy and there is no high authority above states in the international system. States are like balls on the pool table.
2. A states have some offensive military capability and it varies across states.
3.States can never be certain about the intention of other states. If it is possible to know the the intention of a state right now then the argument is that we cannot be certain about the intention of other state in the long run. Example, how can some one be sure with the strategic intention of China after 40 years?
4. 'Survival' is the principle goal of every state, it is not the only goal but primary goal.
5. Great Powers are strategic calculators and they will figure out threats in the environment and make adjustments or strategy to face the problems.
Don't miss: Target UPSC2017 full coverage tips & tricks
These assumption will directly lead to 3 forms of behavior that Great Powers pursue in the international politics.
1. States fear each other- They fear each other because there is a possibility that they can end up in a situation where a neighbor with lot of offensive military capabilities and malign intention towards them. Another reason to fear is that in such a condition there is no high authority that states can rely on to prevent the aggression. To put it in other words you cannot dial 911 in the international politics when you face aggression from other state.
2. Self Help- States will figure out that in anarchic international system where there is no 911 or world government the best way to survive it to go with self help.
3. Attaining more Power or maximize the relative power - The states will figure out the best way to survive is to become more powerful. If one state is more powerful then there is more possibility for its survival. For example there is no country in western hemisphere to to challenge United States in the international political system particularly more powerful in comparison with its neighbors. In Asia there is no single country which can compete or challenge China. The reason is that they have already figured out that the best way to survive in the international system to become more powerful.
There is an argument that as long as there is nuclear weapons with states and it has become impossible for one great power to attack the other. However the Super Powers (U.S and U.S.S.R) had nuclear weapons during cold war and both these powers engaged in intense security competition and during Cuban Missile Crisis world came very close to a nuclear war. Nations are driven by nationalism than by democracy. Promoting democracy will lead to quagmires like Iraq and Syria. There is an argument that including China into mainstream economy and helping them to be a part of it will produce counter effect since there is a possibility that this economic power can be turned into military power (uncertainty about intentions). If one power allows other power in the region to dominate the region then it will come into the backyard of other states. Present crisis between India and China reveals this. The best way to survive in the international political system is to become a regional 'hegemon'. State should not allow the neighbors to become more powerful because there is always a possibility that it will into its backyard. The idea of 'Global Hegemon' will not work since world is big and it contains lot of water and one state cannot exert its power over other regions of the world. Whenever the nations tried this it have failed. But States can become regional 'hegemon' like U.S in West or China in Asia. ''What is good for the goose is good for the gander ''
Let's look into the strategy for survival that offensive realist put foreword.
1. Regional Hegemon- State should focus on becoming regional hegimon than global hegemon as stated above
2. Maximum Wealth- States should focus on increasing its economic power because the military power depends on a strong economy.
3.Nuclear Superiority - Even though this is a difficult task, states should possess nuclear weapons because the effect of nuclear weapon cannot be replaced with conventional army or weapons
4.Preeminent Land Power- States should focus on increasing land power. This is because the great powers aim to dominate the balance of land power. Example U.S, Russia, China, Former U.S.S.R, etc.
5. Being a 'offshore balancer' and choosing between 'balance' or 'buck passing' are effective methods that can be adopted.
Many believes that following offensive realism is not a good thing. If we observe over the past years we can see that the U.S. foreign policy is dominated by Liberal Imperialists and Neo-Conservatives not the offensive realists. The end result of this is that U.S engaged in war for 14 years i.e. two out of every three years. Realist accept the Clausewitzian dictum "War is always a continuation of poltics by other means". Realists are reluctant to use military force than Liberals and Neo-Conservatives. Realists opposed the war in Iraq, Vietnam, Libya, Afghanistan and on. It is the liberal imperialists were enthusiastic in fighting these wars. This tendency is also present in the Indian Foreign Policy were India is keen to fight with all the terrorists in the world. Realists support war only when it promotes core national interest. If we observe above wars we cannot find any core national interest. It is better that realists should rule the foreign policies so that there will be a peaceful world.
References:
Mearsheimer, John J, "The Tragedy of Great Power Politics", W.W. Norton & Company, New York, 2001
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vqg8JeOqZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjO3gdXShDM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzlxl5wC1s4
Don't be selfish..Share with friends..Sharing is caring..
About Author
Sreepradeesh T S (See full profile here)
0 Feedbacks:
Feel free to Share Feedbacks & Queries;