IR - CH3 - International Relations: Perspectives, Controversies and Readings By Shimko Professor PDF

Preview

Summary

International Relations: Perspectives, Controversies and Readings By Shimko
Professor Gochman, Fall 2019...

Description

Chapter 3: Power Politics Key Controversy: Does International Anarchy Lead to War? Without a world government, nations do not have the luxury of security and must strive for power or live at the mercy of their powerful neighbors. → According to realists, international politics is fundamentally a struggle in which nations must always be wary of the power of other nations. Nations that naively ignore these realities and try to avoid power politics suffer consequences. → Liberals have rejected this pessimistic assessment and sought alternatives to power politics. Although some utopian liberals have embraced world government, most have proposed more modest alternatives. Assuming a widely shared interest in peace, many liberals believe that the international community as a whole can effectively organize to deter aggression and war. → Constructivists also reject the realist view that states must pursue power to ensure security, pointing out that many states have created stable and secure relations that do not rest on calculations of power. What are the causes of war? What can be done to preserve and promote international peace? Accepting the inevitability of international conflict does not necessarily entail the inevitability of violent conflict; even if eliminating all violence, it might still be possible to reduce its likelihood. Peace Through Strength? Common phrase in US political campaigns: peace through strength - Suggests a causal connection between peace and strength - Research demonstrated that great powers are involved in more wars → no evidence that phrase is true - Rhetorical shorthand for a foreign policy orientation emphasizing national power as the essential currency of international affairs; conveys the message that nation must be concerned about their power if they value their independence and security The expression represents a commitment to power politics, a perspective portraying international relations as inevitably a realm of conflict and competition for power among states; the inevitability entails… - “Perceptions of insecurity”-- the security dilemma - Struggles for power - Machiavellian stratagems - Presence of coercion - Attempts to balance power - Use of war to settle disputes The guiding assumption is that nations have no choice other than engaginging in power politics

In the international realm, nations have 2 options: alternatives are... 1. Probable suicide 2. Active playing of power politics According to Michalek: → playing power politics is the only feasible solution for achieving international peace (others exist, but inevitably fail) In a world of relentless power competition, no nation enjoys total security, simply varying degrees of insecurity Critics challenge the assertion that there are no alternatives to power politics as a dangerously self-fulfilling part of the realist catechism, a statement of faith and ideology rather than a reflection of reality There Is No Alternative to Power Politics Waltz: “the state among states conducts its affairs in the brooding shadow of violence… some states may at any time use force” so “all states must be prepared to do so-- or live at the mercy of their militarily more vigorous neighbors” - International politics is anarchic; nations must provide for their own security; nations can never be certain what others are up to; war is always a possibility; and alternatives to national power as the final guarantor of safety and independence are unrealistic” Anarchy Leads to Power Politics The difference between national and international politics lies not in the use of fore but in the different modes of organization for doing something about it A national system is not one of self-help; the international one is International society is anarchic, meaning that there is no world government with the right, obligation, or capacity to protect nations - The UN is an international governmental organization (IGO): a voluntary organization of states (NOT a world government) Without a central authority, nations must protect themselves as best as they can Nations are responsible for their own security, there is no escaping the reality that “self-help” is necessarily the principle of action in an anarchic order Self-help leads to the security dilemma: many of the actions that a nations take for their own security increase the insecurity of others; actions that are defensive to one are menacing to the other - Because international politics is anarchic, there is no lading solution to the security dilemma In an anarchic international system characterized by self-help and a security dilemma, national have to worry about the capabilities and intentions of other states - Uncertainty → insecurity - Drives the competition for power

Power Politics 1: The Balance of Power

Power is the ability to prevail in conflict, to influence the behavior of others Measuring power = problematic Mearsheimer: states have 2 types of power: 1. Military Power 2. Latent Power: the socioeconomic ingredients that go into building military power it is largely based on a state’s wealth and overall size of its population; refers to the raw potential that is can draw on when competing with rival states The Balance of Power Theory: predicts that the pursuit of security by nations tends to result in the creation of balances of power on a systematic level; often accompanied by the prediction that war is less likely when power is balanced because no nation can be confident of winning a war - Begins with the basic premises of power politics: IR is a struggle for power and security in an anarchic world - Because there is no central authority that provides protection and other states intentions are always uncertain, states inevitably focus on the capabilities of other states - This tendency leads to greater and continuing peace and stability, since nations are less likely to go to war unless they are guaranteed to win There is also an option called bandwagoning (when less powerful actors align with the most powerful ones; inconsistent with balance of power theory) - Unlikely since allying with one dominant power means placing trust that they will not dominate/take over you once other threats dissipate - Instead safer to join in alliances with states that cannot protect their allies, so that they cannot harm you Power Politics II: Balance of Threat Theory Assumes that states focus the power of other states because intentions are unknowable → states assume that those with the greatest capabilities pose the greatest threat and balance against them - States make decisions based on both power and intention (ex- US does not assume UK will invade just because they have the capability to) Balance of Threat Theory: agrees that states balance; predicting that nations align against whichever nation is seen as posing the greatest threat, not necessarily against the powerful nation An inbalance of threat occurs when the most threatening state is significantly more dangerous

than the second most threatening state or coalition The degree to which a state threatens others is the product of its aggregate power, its geographic proximity, its offensive capacity, and the aggressiveness of its intentions. → nations balance against others that are perceived as posing a threat, and assessments of threat may be wrong Power Politics III: Preponderance Theory Preponderance or hegemonic stability theory: argues that nations tend to align on the basis of interests-- those that are satisfied with the status quo as opposed to those that are dissatisfied; peace and stability are more likely when there is a great imbalance of power in favor of the status quo states-- that is, when there is a preponderance of power in support of the existing order - States are distinguished by their degree of power and degree of satisfaction (whether a state is satisfied or dissatisfied with current international order and its place in it) Satisfied states are interested in preserving the international status quo, whereas dissatisfied states are revisionist and want to change the existing order 4 Types of Nations: 1. Powerful and satisfied (hegemon) 2. Powerful and dissatisfied (dangerous) 3. Weak and satisfied 4. Weak and dissatisfied At the top of the power hierarchy is the dominant power, “the hegemon” (typically the last major war’s victor, RN is US) - The hegemon is the status quo power interested in preserving the existing order Alternatives to Power Politics World Government? The creation of a world government would constitute a frontal assault on the problem A truly effective world government would entail the establishment of an authority which takes away from nations, summarily and completely, not only the machinery of battle that can wage war, but also the machinery of decision that can start a war BUT there is a question of feasibility: in theory it provides a solution to the problems of anarchy, but is unattainable in practice since the world lacks the sense of shared values and community that are essential preconditions for effective government Collective Security...