Waltz, Kenneth. "The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory." The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18:4 (1988). 615-628.
Group Blog for Prof. Shirk's International Studies: History, Theory, and Practice Class, May 2018
Neorealist Examination of the Modern World
"The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory" by Kenneth N. Waltz really resonated with me, and I believe that the neorealist theories regarding polarity provided an interesting perspective for the modern world. Waltz made the claim that the world was safer under the bipolar balance of power that was the result of the Cold War, and that there was no ambiguity in action when there are only two great powers in the international stage (Waltz, 622). Using a hypothetical example in the Cold War context, if a crisis were to erupt in Angola the United States and the Soviet Union would both be forced to react in order to gain some sort of competitive edge over the other, and both sides knew that indecision would lead to a geopolitical loss. Much of the indecision now in American politics can be seen through this lense, for example the failure to react to Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea or Russia's wars in Georgia and Ukraine, none of which evoked a significant response from the United States. The case can be argued that the cost of war in these situations outweighed the potential gains for the United States (Waltz, 624). However this would be even more accurate when describing provocations by China and Russia respectively as these crises were in their regions and would affect them more significantly than the would the U.S.. The case can also be made that a loss of a clearly defined roles and identities and the increased predominance of multiple actors playing a role in each international situation created a cloud of ambiguity for the U.S., with so many allies and no clear enemy any given move might lead to the defection of an ally. This makes threat analysis all the more difficult, particularly considering that states are now considerably more interconnected now than they were during the Cold War, and therefore dependant on each other.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Now What?
We've come a long way in this course. I am glad that Hobbes was the foundation on which we built our learning as it provided a good refe...
The prompting of action under the bipolar system is an interesting viewpoint held by Waltz because I see its merits, but it also has flaws. For instance, if the Soviet Union invaded one of its own territories (either friendly or under its direct control) would the US have acted? I think the answer is maybe. If a conflict sprang up in a country with little to offer in the way of resources, trade or influence, would either power have rushed to act? Again, I think the answer is maybe, and entirely dependent upon where the country is and how much it "matters."
ReplyDeleteWe see robust responses in places that "matter" in a unipolar (I guess increasingly multipolar) world, like Syria or Libya. I think there is definite merit to what he is saying, but also I would say that the stakes of inaction are just as high (look at the lack of American attempt to expand its influence to Central Asia), but now there are more than just two powers jockeying for power. China, Russia, the EU, the US, and others are in positions to vie for influence where in a bipolar world with only two powers leading two separate blocs such opportunity was rare.