Waltz's Explaining of International Politics - Coursework Example

WALTZ THEORY By and How useful is Waltz’s theory for explaining what happens in international politics? Introduction Kenneth Waltz maintains to be one of the finest theorists in regards to International relations even after his death. In his lifetime, he contributed to this field through three major works that included the theory of international politics, the spread of nuclear weapons and man, the state and war. In addition, he worked on the foreign policy and democratic politics. The greatest legacy by Waltz to International politics and relations in general was the realism revival. In the first half of the nineteenth century, the classical realists made remarkable efforts in analyzing international politics and created much-needed optimistic and legalistic tendencies of corrective liberal internationalism. Such included Walter Lippman, Hans J Morgenthau, W.T.R.Fox, Nicholas Spykman, George Kenna among others. They instinctively furnished the internationalist and liberal American policy makers on how to carry out power politics during the atomic age, restrain the individuals who had intentions of rolling back communism and help to construct containment (Wendt, 1999). The classical realists however did not have things going smooth all their side. They face isolation from the American Social Science mainstream that had elements of science and progressivism (Joseph & Wight, 2010). The classical realists by then were not for behavioralism and focused more on the theory of human social behavior (Donnelly, 2000). To counter this, they came up with an account of international politics that operated from a highly contestable philosophical anthropology. This paper aims to discuss how Waltz countered the classical realists after the first half of the nineteenth century and how his theory elaborates or rather portrays what happens in the international politics. Theory of international politics In the theory of international politics, Waltz discusses ways of coming up with a viable theory and further cites the component parts. Later he goes on to create his systematic theory regarding how international politics operates that is purely based on the balance of power. Waltz claims that international political outcomes can at no instance be illustrated reductively (Waltz, 1979). The international politics have to be a domain that is separate from other domains such as the economic and social domain. The domestic political structure can be elaborated using three components; the principle in operation, the functions’ specifications that are formally differentiated units and capabilities distribution throughout the units. For instance, Waltz cites the example of how the Prime minister’s character varies with that of the presidency because of the varied systems in the United Kingdom and the United States (Waltz, 1979). Regarding the systematic theory of international politics, nations are the essential units. Moreover, countries are not categorized by the different functions they perform. Such units are distinguished mainly by comparing their capabilities to perform similar tasks. In his works, Waltz illustrates how the anarchic and hierarchic orders are varied. Within the states, the hierarchic orders are in operation. The governments of the states have monopoly over the legitimate force while on the other hand states tend to be a self-help system. Within the nations, groups have the ability to benefit and specialize from trade while, among the nations, states seek to maintain loose connections and reduce dependency on other states (Kelstrup & Williams, 2000). The balance of power theory being the central theme in the international politics portrays the results produced as a result of the uncoordinated actions and moves by different states. The motives and interests of other states are to be assumed in this case since most of them will put measure to conceal their future intentions. According to Waltz, the balance of power theory can be a tool to explain the reasons behind their lays various similarities of behavior from similarly situated nations. Since the balance of power depends on the capabilities of a State, much focus has to be directed to the resource endowment, political stability, economic capabilities, the size of the population and military strength (Waltz, 1979). The military strength and the size of the population are the most important in balance of power as the essay discusses. According to Waltz, classical realism was a challenge to the international politics particularly the philosophical anthropology. Since it had a basis of inherited beliefs regarding human nature, it was impossible to prove or disprove for there was no scientific credibility. In addition, the evidence, that the classical realists provided, lacked systematic analysis and showed only philosophical and religious speculations. This made Waltz come out strongly and state that it would not stand as a theory. Waltz’s discomfort in classical realism is well signaled in his works of man, the state, and war. HE goes on to set out the alternative after two decades and comes up with the Theory of International Politics. According to critics, Waltz’s work was remarkable. He removed all the parts that were dysfunctional and resuscitated realism. Moreover, he provided a transfusion of new ideas and thoughts that were necessary. The theory of international politics drew all the attention away from the human nature metaphysical speculation and removed the necessity for a philosophical anthropology. This was to explain why the international relations seem as they are. Remarkably, Waltz provided a structural account of the international system that linked most of the contents within the theory of the firm found in classical economics (Wendt, 1999). Without these works, by Waltz, the world would not have neo-classical and offensive realism. Waltz’s theory of international politics takes into account two assumptions. The first assumption is that countries are the key players in international politics. In addition to the first assumption, he believes that the states operate in an anarchic system. The second assumption is that the primary motives of countries are to survive. This means that each state seeks to secure and guard its sovereignty. It is evident that from the two assumptions, Kenneth Waltz deduces that nations are more concerned with their position in regards to power balance. States will always aim to get more power than their potential rivals do since it plays as a guarantee of possible prospects of surviving. Waltz is keen not to suggest that nations should go to war in order to achieve the objective in their pursue power against the rivals. He has in mind that it is not a good idea to engage in wars (Waltz, 1959). In his works, he states that force is essential in order to uphold the status quo but not for changing it. In the theory of Politics, Waltz insists that great powers should be careful not to intend to gain hegemony around the globe or their own world region. In addition, the nations should avoid maximizing their share of power since the other great powers may want to join in and deter their proceedings (Waltz, 1979). According to Waltz, “success leads to failure” (Waltz, 1979). This means that when a nation accumulates too much power, the opposition of the other states is elicited. Since the international politics is a serious business, States rarely make it a goal to maximize their potential. Having ruled out maximizing power as an objective, most nations will strive to seek additional increments of power by ensuring that their rivals do not gain power at their expense. The game now turns out as a way to keep or rather hold on their status in the world system. Waltz indicates that the strategy that is applied by many nations is balancing of power. States employ this approach when a rival tends to take steps in seeking additional increment of the world power. It becomes normal for States to feel threatened when rival states make steps which call for buildup of capabilities either by internal balancing or external balancing that entails joining together to form a balancing coalition. The powerful states, that are aggressive, should expect that their potential victims are checking on them. This well explains why hegemony is a dream, as Japan and Germany took it as a hard lesson and at a great cost in the past century (Wendt, 1999). Balancing of Power In reference to the theory of international politics by Waltz, the strategy of power balancing by nations has contrasts to what is commonly referred to as bandwagoning. He states that it is an ill-advised strategy for nations to practice bandwagoning since it entails threatening states to come up and join forces with the intention of causing a threat to other states. In such cases, the band-wagoner gives space to the states that come on board to improve its position, which is unrealistic in the ordinary world. This is for the reason that the band wagoners rates of survival are put at risk (Waltz, 1979). International politics, according to realists, depend highly on the power. The principal actors, great powers, are keen on noting the level of military and economic power and the underlying differences with their rivals regarding the same (Kelstrup & Williams, 2000). Logically, it is essential to have a substantial amount of power and make sure that the other states have no ability to sharply shift the balance in its favor. International politics, according to Waltz, is synonymous with power politics. For structural realists such as Kenneth Waltz, the human nature has minimal to do with why power is essential for States. They believe that it is the international system structure that makes the nations pursues power. For instance, if the system had no higher authority that commands the great powers and there is no assurance that a state will not attack the other, it beats logic for each nation to have enough power to protect itself from an attack. Literally, the great powers are trapped in some sought of an iron cage with very few choices act as catalysts for competition in order to survive. The international system creates collective incentives for the nations that are regarded as great powers hence ignoring the cultural differences that lie between the states and also the differences in the type of regime. Waltz maintains that it is not advisable for nations to intend to maximize power since the system will punish them. Power depends on the material capabilities that are under the control of a country. In most nations, the balance of power lies in the hands of tangible military assets that include armored divisions and weapons (Waltz, 1981). The other type of power, that states have, is a latent power that includes the socio-economic ingredients that are important in building military power. The two main components of latent power are the size of the population and the state’s wealth. To be a great power and have control in international politics, a state had to have high technology, money, and personnel to build military forces to engage in wars. Key assumptions and applications Structural realists such as Waltz illustrate the reasons why States fight among themselves for power using five assumptions regarding the international system. None of the assumptions gives the nations the go ahead to gain power at the expense of another nation. However, when the assumptions are combined together, they create a state of ceaseless security competition in the world system. The first assumption depicts that all the great powers play part in the world politics and carry out their operations in an anarchic system as stated before. This does not however mean that the world system has disorders and chaos. According to Waltz, anarchy is an ordering principle, which states there are no centralized authorities that stand above states. This is contrary to the domestic politics that operate based on hierarchy. The second assumption indicates that all nations have a degree of offensive military capacity that means there are possibilities of inflicting harm on neighbor states. One common thing, that the States are sure of, is that the capacities are temporary and varied among the nations and may change over time (Waltz, 1979). The third assumption puts states on alert since none of them is sure about the intentions of the other states. Most nations are more concerned to know if there are any possibilities for other nations to use force with intentions of altering the balance of power, or they are contented with what they have. The challenge lies in the fact that it is not easy to discern another country’s intentions with a high possibility of certainty. The intentions are kept in the minds of the policy and decision makers hence making it difficult to discern. Policy makers cannot be trusted with what they communicate in their policy documents and speeches since most use it as a tactic to conceal the real intentions (Vigezzi, 2005). Even if it could be possible for someone to know the intentions of another nation at the moment, it is certainly difficult to conclude on the future intentions since the system of international politics are bound to change in a span of four to ten years in most countries. The fourth assumption depicts that the main goal of Nations is to seek survival. As stated earlier, Nations will work to maintain their integrity within the territories and autonomy in regards to domestic political order. States will tend to pursue other goals such as protecting and prosperity of human rights taking into account the aims of survival. The last assumption view states as rational actors. This means that they are capable of coming up with strong strategies with aims of maximizing their survival prospects. After a clear look into the assumptions, it is evident that the nations should not compete for power against each other. For instance, the third assumption keeps the system open for the possibility that there exist a revisionist nation in the world system. When all the assumptions are brought together, the atmosphere within the international politics changes making the nation become preoccupied with the power balance and seek powerful incentives to have more power at the expense of each other (Waltz, 1979). Waltz in his theory of international politics indicates that there is heated debate on how much power states should pursue to control. The offensive realists claim that nations should stand film and look for opportunities to have more power using whatever means (Waltz, 1979). In addition, the nations should seek to maximize power and make use of hegemony to guarantee their chances of survival. On the other hand, the defensive realists take into account that the international politics create strong incentives to have additional share of power and maintain that it is not logical to pursue hegemony (Williams, 2007). They claim that this is likely to lead to over explosion of the worst kind in the system. According to Waltz, States should not aim at maximizing power but rather strive to have an appropriate amount of power. The defensive realists assert that if any nation becomes too powerful, there are higher possibilities of attaining balance. In addition, the other great nations will work on their militaries and come up with a military coalition that is likely to leave the hegemony insecure or probably destroy it. For instance, such a case was experienced in Napoleonic France between 1792 and 1815, Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945, and Imperial Germany between 1900 and 1918. They intended to dominate Europe, but each of the alliance was defeated. All credits go to Otto von Bismarck, who knew well that too much power was not secure for Germany since this would result to the neighbors balancing it. He opted to reduce on German expansion after emerging victorious in the Franco-Prussian and Austro-Prussian wars. Recommendations Waltz asserts that the most stable system in the world is a two-state system. This means there are two powers within the world scale, which means that anything, that takes place anywhere, is of great concern to both of them. In addition, there are no assumptions that will take place if anything happens within the region. When the system has two powers, it becomes less likely for miscalculation to occur. Four key merits of power tend to make nations strive to have a greater share in the control of international politics. First, power provides an avenue of maintaining a state’s autonomy. Second, more power allows a nation to have wider ranges of action regardless of the outcomes being ambiguous. Third, the powerful nations enjoy a greater margin of safety in case of engagements with a less powerful state hence having a larger control of the game. Lastly, more power gives a state a big stake in the system. Structural realists such as Waltz maintain that the bipolar system is less war-prone for various reasons. In this system, the nations regarded as great powers have no opportunity to fight against each other as opposed to a multipolar system. In addition, there is guaranteed equality between the great powers hence population, wealth, and military power will be evenly distributed since any issue affecting one of the states is a concern for the other (Hobson, 2000). Conclusion Waltz theory has played a significant role in explaining international politics and making it clear why the balance of power determines the status of a nation. He clearly illustrates the main assumptions that determine how different states behave. Waltz seems to critique the reductionists’ theories that focus on the behavior of the units in the international political system. He cites that this approach fails to take into account the constraints imposed on nation’s behavior by the international environment. It is evident that there are recurrent patterns of behavior that are difficult to explain at the country level. The international systems are recognized with regards to the count of great powers they have ability to accommodate within a particular time (Waltz, 2008). Waltz’ theory has played a significant role as one of the most influential international relations theory of the twentieth century. So many scholars have praised its rigor and parsimony since it has explained peace and war. References Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and international relations. Cambridge [England: Cambridge University Press Hobson, J. M. (2000). The state and international relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Joseph, J., & Wight, C. (2010). Scientific realism and international relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Kelstrup, M., & Williams, M. C. (2000). International relations theory and the politics of European integration: Power, security, and community. London: Routledge. Vigezzi, B., & British Committee on the Theory of International Politics. (2005). The British Committee on the Theory of International Politics (1954-1985): The rediscovery of history. Milano: Edizioni Unicopli. Waltz, K. N. (1959). Man, the state, and war: A theoretical analysis. New York: Columbia University Press. Waltz, K. N. (2008). Realism and international politics. New York: Routledge. Waltz, K. N. (1981). The spread of nuclear weapons: More may be better. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies. Waltz, K. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co. Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press. Williams, M. C. (2007). Realism reconsidered: The legacy of Hans Morgenthau in international relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press Read More