PSIR Optional

Neo Realism Theory of international relations

POLITY for Civil services
deepanalysis

Neo Realism Theory of international relations

  • Scholar – Kenneth Waltz – “Theory of IP” published in 1978.
    • He is known as Detente Realist.
    • It was a phase in Cold War representing cooperative actions between east and west.
    • It has resulted into liberals questioning relevance of realism.
    • Hence as a response Kenneth wrote structural realism called it scientific theory of IP. He estd realism as “timeless wisdom”.
    • In IP we see four great debates. Kenneth works reflect second great debate also “Traditionalists vs Positivists”. Like political theory there were also behavioural movement even in IP. Kenneth wanted to establish realism as a scientific theory on more sound basis.
    • Though Morgenthau proclaimed his theory as scientific yet his theory can’t be treated as scientific because his six principles are based on analysis of human nature.
    • His explanation of human nature is not scientific it is historical and cultural, it is teleological in nature.
    • We can’t built scientific theory on the basis of human nature.
    • For scientific theory first requirement is observable regularities. We can’t observe regularity in human nature, hence scientific theory can’t be built on human nature.
    • Kenneth shifts analysis of IP from unit or actor level analysis to structure level analysis.
    • He shifts the focus of study from actor to structure. Hence his theory is called scientific, his theory is called neorealism and Morgenthau’s theory classical realism.
    • Features of Structural Realism (Neorealism) – 
      • It recommends to study structure rather than actor. For eg – actor denotes nation states. Actor level analysis will be the analysis of FP of the individual state.
      • If we go for analysis of FP of an individual state it shows as if actors (FP makers) have freedom to pursue the FP of their choice.
      • Structure level analysis shifts the focus towards the structure as a whole rather than unit.
      • Structure of IP – 
        • IP is not a society of states, it is a system of states.
        • All the units are sovereign nation states. In such context they are similar/symmetrical.
        • There is not international government or world govt, therefore IP is anarchical in structure.
        • There is no central actor or hierarchical actor rather IP is system of sovereign states.
      • Comparison with Domestic politics – 
        • The structure of domestic politics is hierarchical whereas IP is anarchical because state exist.
        • State is over and above individuals, state make laws punish those who don’t observe the laws.
        • In domestic politics following of laws are must, but in IP there is no compulsion it totally depends upon whether a state wants to follow it or not.
        • Hence anarchical conditions compel states to go for acquiring power. Anarchical conditions create the eternal security dilemma.
        • Anarchical conditions compel self help. Hence till the structure of IP does not change. IP will remain the struggle for power.
      • Therefore there is no point studying the FP of a particular country or choice of particular actor. It is important to understand structure.
      • Since structure is anarchical all countries will go for acquiring power, irrespective of who is running FP.
      • It implies that FPs reflect continuity. FPs are based on fundamental interest (survival).FPs do not change with actors. Thus whether it is Nehru or Indira FP choices are bound to be shaped by structure.
      • Structure constraints the choices.
      • It means FP makers are not free to make their independent choices. From this perspective no FP maker can afford to be idealist. From this perspective even Pt Nehru was also realist.
      • Thus for structural realist IP is also struggle for power. There is no difference in conclusions of neorealist and classical realists, the difference is only in methods. (Actor vs Structure) (Unit vs System).
      • Kenneth suggest that all states are similar and hence there is a symmetry yet he also suggests that states differ in terms of capabilities. Some states have more power and some has less.
      • They differ in terms of capabilities but not in terms of functions. There is no structural differentiation in IP like in domestic politics. In domestic politics three organs of govt perform different functions, but in IP all states perform common functions.
      • Criticism of Structural Realism – 
        • Neoclassical realist criticise strutural realists.
        • Fareed Zakaria, Randall Schweller, acc to them structure shapes FP but we can’t ignore the role of actors. Actors also shape FP.
        • It will certainly make difference whether it is Obama or Trump. Hence if FP reflect continuity it also reflects change.
        • We should study structure as well as personality/actor.
        • Post Colonial Realist – Amitava Acharya, Mohd Ayyub
          • Realism given by Kenneth Waltz and even by Morgenthau is ethnocentric approach, based on the experiences of the country’s of west, their principles and their suggestions are not relevant for the countries in PC world. For eg – countries in PC world do not suffer security dilemma rather suffer from insecurity dilemma.
      • Security Dilemma represent external security threats.
      • Insecurity Dilemma represent internal security threats.
      • Types of Structural Realism – Offensive (Mearsheimer), Defensive (Kenneth)
        • They do not differ in fundamental concepts, assumptions about IP, both believe that IP is anarchist. Hence there is a security dilemma and IP is struggle for power. Basic difference is in amount of power required by a country –
        • Defensive Realism – Kenneth
          • Defensive Realism argues that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to maintain moderate and reserved policies to attain security.
          • Defensive Realists argue that the anarchical structure of the international system encourages states to pursue moderate, defensive and measured policies so as to maintain state security and promote International order.
          • Acc to him nations are security maximisers.
          • It means power is a means, security is an end. Hence nations try to acquire amount of power which is enough to give them security.
          • The search for unlimited power is not a wise option. Unlimited power will compel other countries to form counter coalition. They’ll combine together to counter the country trying to gain excessive power will end up disturbing BoP.
          • Ex of defensive realism – India’s nuclear policy is based on defence realism. The nuclear policy mentions that India will strive for “Credible minimum deterrence”. Minimum denotes India will not go for acquisition of nuclear weapons madly. It will possess credible minimum deterrence.
          • As per India’s nuclear policy we can say that the objective of India is defensive. India will not use nuclear weapon first.
          • India’s nuclear weapons are not to threaten but to achieve strategic balance in Asia.
          • If India will not have nuclear weapons considering the clandestine nuclear weapons capabilities of Pak there will be a possibility of war. Hence our weapons are for deterrence and not for offence.
        • Offensive Realism – Mearsheimer – Tragedy of Great Power Politics
          • Offensive Realism seeks power and influence to achieve security through domination and hegemony.
          • A form of realism suggesting that states act to maximise power and international influences so as to create a position of hegemony and security.
          • If Kenneth is called as Detente realist, Mearsheimer is called as Post Cold War Realist.
          • Nye concluded that once soviet threat is over American FP will target on China.
          • Merasheimer’s work is focused on what should be USA’s policies towards China.
          • Merasheimer does not support the view of certain policy makers in USA who project as if China is not a threat to USA hegemony. He does not subscribe to the theory of peaceful rise of China. He warns USA FP makers not to live in world of ideas that rise of China can never be peaceful.
          • Because nations are not security maximisers. Nations are power maximisers.
          • Mearsheimer is a structural realist yet at the same time he agrees with Morgenthau.
          • Like Morgenthau he also believes that power is not just a means rather power is an end in itself.
          • Thus China is seeking power not just for its security rather for its domination. The aim of China is not just to challenge USA hegemony but to displace USA hegemony.
          • Chinese aims are not defensive, Chinese aims are offensive, hence before Chinese threats go beyond control USA has to “Balance or rebalance” the rise of China (Pivot to Asia policy).
          • Nations are power maximisers because even when security is obtained by power, it is difficult to suggest, how much power will be enough for security.
          • As fas as security is concerned (USA’s), no amount of power is enough (only sky is limit). Once every state will try to get as much power as possible, they’ll not be satisfied with just balance.
          • A country is fully secured only when that country exist, or in case of a human, only when he or she is also human.
          • Hobbes also suggested all human beings are equal. Equal in capacity to kill each other.
          • Acc to Mearsheimer many leader have been living in fantasy –
            • Rise of China is peaceful.
            • Once China will become economically integrated it will move towards democracy.
          • Like USA, China would also like to have its hegemony and for that matter any country.
        • Global hegemony is not achievable because –
          • World is too big.
          • Oceans limit the scope of a country controlling entire globe.
          • Land powers have their own advantages.
        • USA should ensure its regional hegemony.
        • USA’s hegemony was never complete in its backyard since beginning (there was influence of communism).
        • At present China has made deep penetration in Latin America. To maintain USA’s hegemony and its security has to address its vulnerabilities emerging from Mexico. Presently USA’s hegemony in Latin America is also challenged by Russia (Venezuela).
        • Prevent the rise of land power/Eurassian power (China, Russia).
          • As Britain did. Instead of establishing the direct control over Europe, Britain ensured no single country controls the continent.
          • Divide and rule was the plan of action.
        • Benefits of this policy – Max advantage at minimum cost.
        • USA should check the possibility of Asia being dominated by China.
        • Napoleon once said, “when China will come out of slumber, it will astonish the world”.
        • Even Mearsheimer suggest that no country can match the latent power of USA but if China emerges, it will put a very serious threat.
        • USA should prevent the emergence of regional hegemon in Asia, to protect USA’s interest in Asia.
        • USA should be ultimately prepared for war. However war should be the last option. Hence go for similar policy which British adopted. It means strengthen alliances with Chinese neighbours (India, Vietnam etc).
        • The ideal swing state is India.
        • He suggested two policies –
          • Bait and Blood – Support the weaker party and provoke them for war. Let the two parties feel each other. Thus keep them engaged in war till both parties become weak.
          • Blood letting – When two parties are already in war ensure that they remain engaged in war till both of them become extremely weak. For eg – USA adopted this policy in Iran and Iraq war. USA was providing support to both parties whichever used to become weak. USA should also be ready for war hence USA should come out of arms control agreement.
        • Mearsheimer does not want USA to rely on MAD. USA should develop capabilities to first strike without second strike.
        • Acc to Mearsheimer offence is better than defence. History shows that in most of the occasions the countries which have started war had won the war.
      • Criticism of Structural Realism – 
        • English School – Scholar – Martin Wight, Hedley Bull – Anarchical society (book)
          • The theory of IR is dominated by Americans. It would not be wrong if we call IR as American social science.
          • The English school is called so because it originated in LSE. This school is also called as international society school.
          • Sources of influence –
            • I. Kant – Believe in man’s capacity to reason.
            • Hugo Grotius – Father of International law.
          • Theme – 
            • Structural realism can’t be considered as scientific in real sense.
            • Structural realism gives the static view of IP.
          • It is not scientific because the way it has described the IP, is not based on facts.
          • They take state centric view, consider the structure of IP as anarchical. It means they do not recognise the existence of large no of international organisations, regional organisations, treaties and regimes.
          • Hence realists take the static view of IP. Their assumptions are still based on original Westphalian world order. However in reality there is a big change especially since the end of WW2 and at present. There is a proliferation of such bodies at present.
          • Implication – 
            • It implies that if we use the term anarchy to describe international politics it will not be appropriate .
            • It is better to call it as anarchical society.
          • At present IP is not just anarchy (absence of common rules and norms), at the same time it is not the complete society.
          • Thus IP is not just “A system of states, it is more than that”, i.e anarchical society.
          • The scholars of anarchical society do not ignore the traditional approaches altogether. They reflect the three characteristics of traditional approaches
            • Historical – They take the evolutionary view of IP.
            • Legal Institutional – They emphasise on understanding role of international organisation and international law.
            • Normative – For realist IP is nothing other than struggle for power. However for scholars of English school in IP see not just struggle for power but also…
          • Thus at present anarchical society reflect the coexistence of –
            • Anarchy and order.
            • Conflict and cooperation.
            • Power and justice.
            • War and peace.
          • Acc to Hedley IP is changing because there is a growth in human reasoning. States do realise the benefits of observing the global norms.
          • International society school (English school) is influenced by neomedievalism. In medieval times the concept of sovereignty was pluralistic. International society school also suggest that at present the concept shared sovereignty and overlapping sovereignty.
          • Acc to Bull there is more order in IP in comparison to domestic politics of many countries in third world.
          • In words of Bull, “International society comes into existence, wherever group of states come together, agree to remain bound by the shared rules”.
          • Anarchical society can be called as liberal realism. They are also realist, they don’t reject power, anarchy altogether but at the same time, they also incorporate some of the ideas of liberals. For eg – importance of international organisation, international law, peace etc.

Related Posts