Kenneth
Waltz in his book, “Theory of International Politics”
showed how reductionist theories fail in describing the international politics.
How states as units have little influence over what transpires in world
politics. Waltz instead proposed a systemic theory and explained how the
international structure is wired to create a self-help mechanism. In his
systemic approach, Waltz takes a realist world view and finds global order to
be ‘anarchic’. Waltz describes world order in terms of ordering principles, hierarchies
and capabilities.
On
the other hand, Alexander Wendt takes middle ground in building his
constructivist approach. While he agrees on the absence of any central
governing authority leading to ‘anarchy’ in the international order, Wendt
differs on how Anarchy unfolds. Instead of taking an essentially self-help
view, he argues “Anarchy is what states make of it”. For him, all
international politics sprouts from social interactions among states.
Kenneth
Waltz: Hello
Alexander! How are you?
Alexander
Wendt: Hi Kenneth!
I am good. What about you!
KW: I am good as well.
AW:
I hope you don’t mind but I find your ‘Self-help corollary’ quite slippery.
KW:
What do you mean by that?
AW:
I mean to say that, although, ‘Self-help’ does enormous work in neorealism but
it takes the idea of an existing ‘security dilemma’ as given and assumes the collective
action problem being natural to International affairs. What I think is that “Self-help” in itself is an “institution”
and occupies a privileged position.
KW:
I see where this is going. Are you trying to say that the situation of
‘security dilemma’ is a myth made out of thin air?
AW:
No. Not a myth but an “Institution” and as is the case with every institution,
“Self-help” has come into existence after a great deal of interactions and
processes which received reciprocation and gradually became an expected norm to
be followed by the states.
KW:
That’s an idealist notion. I don’t concern myself with what should be, I rather
focus on what is, and as I see it, the global order is anarchic. Can you expect any
pair of neighbouring states willing to disarm? Even if one does disarm, it will
do so at its own peril. The first state to lose its arms will be at an obvious
disadvantage. It is natural for any state to desire for survival at least and
global domination at most.
AW:
That’s exactly what I am trying to say dear Waltz. I will state this again for
rhetorical purposes that the situation you are proposing has come to be as a
result of long time interactions which are defined by collective identities and
prevalent processes of the time. I disagree with your statement “Wars occur
because there is nothing to prevent them.” I rather argue that it is not
natural for humans or individual states to be predatory. The inspiration for
wars varies and depends upon domestic politics of a state among various other
factors.
KW:
What are you trying to say exactly?
AW:
I argue that anarchy, in the way you present it, tries to justify its disinterest in institutional
transformation of identities and interests. Furthermore, there is no structure
above process. Structure has no existence or casual powers apart from process.
To me, Self-help and power politics are institutions, not essential features of
anarchy. “Anarchy is what states make of it.” I also doubt your structure based
on: 1) Ordering principles 2) principles of differentiation 3) Distribution of
capabilities.
KW:
I think, you have confused the whole idea of my “Theory of International
Politics”. I have very clearly stated that I do not intend to describe
individual state behaviour and what will they do in a given situation. I have
focused rather on systemic features of the global order. For example, the
emergence of the Russian and American superpowers created a situation where the
erstwhile hostility of European states towards each other withered away.
Therefore, I propose, the determinants of war and peace lay outside Europe.
AW:
Nonetheless, I think your structural theory takes its arguments from an overtly
negative view of the world where no one can count on the other. It is an
essentially Hobbesian view. For you, if humans were to confront Aliens for the first
time, we should be ready with our tanks and fighter jets instead of waiting and
understanding their first response.
KW:
Alexander, my friend! What about you answer a question for me!
AW:
Yes Please! Go on…
KW:
How will you explain the ongoing crisis of Covid-19 pandemic and the response
of various countries to the situation?
AW:
I think the situation is quite dynamic to say a final word to the present
situation. However, I think, we can take clue from the exemplary spirit of cooperation
being displayed by countries in containing the virus. China shared the
information and lessons from their experience with Italy. Cuba is sending its
team of doctors to European nations. I think, with cooperation the world will
overcome.
KW:
I think you are being too idealistic once again. So much so that, instead of
acting as a bridge between the liberals and the realists, you seem to be ceding
too much ground to the liberals. I am curious, why did you not mention the US
withdrawal of financial commitments to the WHO! You deliberately avoided the
conspiracy theories being woven around the Pandemic in which China and US blame
each other.
Yet
I agree with you on this. It is too early to analyze the situation. As I say,
there are no permanent alliances and only shifting ones in the global order, the
situation around the pandemic is also a dynamic one, shifting posts every day.
Comments