Offensive-Neorealism as the International Political Theory - Literature review Example

Offensive-Neorealism as the international political theory Introduction Offensive-Neorealism theory has both strengths and weaknesses and debates have been revolving around these strengths and weaknesses. Hay argues that there is a tendency in IR theory to reduce the debate about globalization to a debate about the relevance of neorealist worldview (290). He further argues that this tendency is unfortunate because it results in confusing debates that do not do “justice either to the analytical strengths and weaknesses of neorealism” (290). Despite its weaknesses, the offensive-neorealist theory proves to be an ideal theory among the international political theories. The offensive-neorealist approach is the only realistic approach in explaining international relations and the most appropriate International political theory. Strengths Offensive neorealism argues that states are principally concerned with maximizing their power in order to preempt any threat from other states. Mearsheimer offers a discussion on how states “care deeply about the balance of power and compete among themselves either to gain power…or make sure they do not lose power” (77). As offensive realists argue, the structure of “competition for power” encourages states to maximize their share of world power. This maximization comes in terms of “pursuing hegemony which tends to intensify security competition” (77). This means that states are in constant struggle to dominate other states, since they ensure maximum security by maximizing this power. One of the strengths of offensive neorealism theory is that it has directed its focus on these differentials of power between states. Offensive neorealism directs its main focus on the analysis of great powers arguing that great powers are the only ones capable of moving first in the international power struggle. Mearsheimer applies the offensive-neorealist approach to explaining the current situation at the international level where China is seen to be increasingly becoming a global power in its own right (88). He further argues that it makes good strategic sense for states such as China and United States to gain much power and pursue hegemony. According to offensive neorealists such as Mearsheimer, domination is the only way a state can gain overwhelming power in order to ensure its survival. Offensive neorealists are right to argues that in its rise, China will imitate the USA in its attempt to become a regional hegemon in Asia. In addition, China is likely to “push US military forces out of Asia….in the same way USA pushed European states out of the Western hemisphere” (Mearsheimer 89). In conclusion, Mearsheimer argues that such policy goals make good strategic sense. To this point, it is evident that offensive neorealism theorists make a strong argument in differentiating the power between states in a good strategic sense. Secondly, offensive neorealism theory draws strong points as to how and why states make harsh decisions and take ruthless actions in their rise. Many theorists criticize Offensive-Neorealism approach due to its ability to explain why states make ruthless decisions. However, its ability to explain this acts as its strong point. On the basis of “survival of the fittest”, offensive-neorealist theorists argue that states have to make ruthless decisions in order to ensure their survival. States make harsh decisions even if these decisions appear to violate moral commands. Offensive-Neorealists explain how one state influences the behavior of other states or collective actions of international organizations to suit its purposes. Otherwise, other states, which are potentially threatening, could shape these actions and decisions to suit their purposes, which would run contrary to the state’s security interests. Hence, every state makes these ruthless decisions with an aim of transforming its capabilities. The offensive-neorealist approach considers such actions to be ethical. For example, Mearsheimer draws attention to the role of the Jewish lobby in shaping US policy towards the Middle East, which he argues that it helps explain the Bush’s administration’s decision to invade Iraq. Thirdly, realism argued that every state is potentially an enemy of the other and a threat to their security and existence (Russett 94). Offensive neorealism deviates from such an argument and in this deviation, it shows its strength. For instance, during the Cold War, states such as Britain, Germany, France, Japan, China, and Italy joined forces with the US to cripple the Soviet Union (Mearsheimer 89). If an argument were to be drawn based on realism approach, such countries would not have joined forces towards a common goal. These states made political compromises even if they have little in common with each other. This was a powerful international relationship of states aimed at fighting a common rival. According to offensive neorealists such as Mearsheimer, such a relationship between such states was necessary in order to eliminate a challenge from the Soviet Union. In this case, the keys to war and peace lay more in the international systems structure than in the nature of the individual states. Weaknesses On the other side, offensive neorealist approach for the study of politics is weak because it overlooks or does not take into account social factors that can influence government decision-making processes. Social factors affect the international environment in which states operate and indeed alter the balance between the state and the international order. They sometimes challenge states and succeed in their aim. Powerful states have been and are sometimes circumscribed by reigning social institutions. While offensive neorealist approach dictates a univocal concentration upon power, social institutions are devising non-political and non-military means, including economic, technological, and propaganda tools to change attitudes and behavior and to persuade states to cooperate rather than fight. In general, the offensive-neorealist approach does not acknowledge the role of social factors that can influence competition for power in the international system. It does not account for social factors such as Islamism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and other secular nationalist movements. Roach argues that these nationalist movements have “helped spur the rise of individual human rights and democracy” (180). Human rights groups influence the decision-making processes of states. However, the offensive-neorealist approach fails to take such factors into account. Offensive-Neorealism uses a state-centric approach to analyzing political decision-making and events. For example, Roach highlights the case of the Tunisian street vendor who lit himself to protest the government’s decision to raise food prices (Roach 180). Arguably, this act led to the downfall of Tunisia’s dictatorship with protests spreading to other Arab states. The Arab people embraced the Western democracy to fight a common enemy, namely, the Arab rulers. Offensive-Neorealism overlooks such factors. Roach further argues that such approaches are rigid and fail to “examine the significant transformations….such as the spread of international human rights, and the adoption of global democratic practices” (Roach 171). Offensive-Neorealism limits itself to the domain of political-military relations thus leaving radical theorist to question its dependency and imperialism. This theory argues that the state is the only “significant actor on the international stage” (Hay 289). None of the other approaches predicates on the ontological assumption about the centrality or non-centrality of the state in international relations. Offensive-Neorealists fail to recognize that power widely encompasses more than military strength. Efforts to increase economic capability may also be a means of balancing. The offensive-neorealist approach does not account for this. The balance of power is mainly a function of the military power that a state possesses (Mearsheimer 78). However, states also have economic assets and they can also contribute to the balance of power. Conclusion Hay considers neorealism as one of the “lenses through which contemporary trends might be interpreted” (291). He further argues that it brings interesting and important issues into focus. Therefore, it would not be fair to disregard its analytical assumptions on which Offensive-Neorealist theory is predicated. In addition, Offensive-Neorealism cannot be said to be invalid theoretically. The offensive-neorealist theory resolves many problems in many other theories such as standard neorealist theory and enhances its explanatory range and power. In addition, it focuses on the international incentives and constraints that states face as they pursue their goals. (Kurki and Wight 27) propose neorealist theory as an ideal explanatory theory. Neorealists argued that a theory should be a simplifying device that “abstracts from the world with an aim of locating and identifying key factors of interest. This is what Offensive-Neorealist theory is. The offensive-neorealist approach is the only realistic approach in explaining international relations and the most appropriate International political theory. Works Cited Hay, Colin. “International Relations Theory and Globalization”. International Relations Theories. Eds. Dunne, Tim., Milja Kurki and Steve Smith. 3rd Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 287-305. Print. Kurki, Milja and Wight, Colin. “International Relations and Social Science”. International Relations Theories. Eds. Dunne, Tim., Milja Kurki and Steve Smith. 3rd Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 14-35. Print. Mearsheimer, John. “Structural Realism”. International Relations Theories. Eds. Dunne, Tim., Milja Kurki and Steve Smith. 3rd Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 77-93. Print. Roach, Steven. “Critical Theory”. International Relations Theories. Eds. Dunne, Tim., Milja Kurki and Steve Smith. 3rd Eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013. 171-186. Print. Read More