Review on The Tragedy of Great Power Politics by John Mearsheimer - Essay Example

? 4 January, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” by “John Mearsheimer Introduction: “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” by “John Mearsheimer” presents a very prudent and thoughtful analysis of the underlying causes of the global tensions among nations and their conflicts with one another. Mearsheimer has adopted a very impressive approach to convey the theory of international politics as he sees it, and his opinion is no less appreciable. Mearsheimer has discussed international politics in terms of “offensive realism” and made a good effort to relate his assertion to the fundamental causes of tension among nations and break-out of war. Summary: Mearsheimer started the book with a focus on the offensive realistic theory that fundamentally emphasizes that the international political scenario is considerably anarchic. Different nations have developed a fear against one another in their race of power and autonomy. Mearsheimer asserts that all countries are basically striving hard to become a hegemon for the simple reason that they feel that this would make them secure. All the national and international activities of states revolve around one solid aim i.e. to achieve more and more control and power over the world and its resources as compared to others in the competition. All countries are included in the competition of security. Military capabilities of a nation play a decisive role in determining its power, status and global image. If a nation wants to enhance its strength, one thing that it needs to focus on and improve is its army. It is the army that enables a nation to win battles. Land power is essential in order to attain all other forms of power. Latent power that covers the financial strength, economic stability, population, literacy rate and high intellect is secondary to the actual power, though the former is extremely important to generate the latter. There are several nations that are currently accoutered with nuclear power, yet very few to none of them actually plan to ever use that power. Their disinclination towards the use of their nuclear power is a clear indication of the fact that land power is indeed, the fundamental sign of power. In fact, the same disinclination towards using nuclear power displayed by the nuclear powers of the contemporary age is in itself a cause of stability among individual nations. Offensive realism fundamentally revolves around the conception that great powers tend to look out for chances to overpower their adversaries and their ultimate goal is hegemony. This is opposite to the ideology of defensive realism that encourages the states to take necessary measures so as to ensure their safety and security. In such an ideology, the ultimate motif is not power, and hence the international relations are not as prone to conflicts as they are in the case of offensive realism. Mearsheimer believes that no state is intrinsically arrogant or aggressive. Indeed, aggression is an artificially acquired characteristic that is deemed important to survive in an uncertain global environment, altering power distribution and inadequate military support. Mearsheimer has not just made statements about offensive realism, he has actually tested and justified it in his book. In order to validate the offensive realism, Mearsheimer has emphasized that in order to survive through the time as a nation, it is imperative that people choose leaders because they struggle to make a nation strong and powerful. He has testified his own claim with clear emphasis on cases from the history. Mearsheimer has achieved this by analyzing matters with respect to several questions. He has checked if there was a direct relation between a nation’s power and aggression in its international interactions. He has judged the factors that determine a nation’s response to the aggression it is offered by external agencies. He has also studied the variation in the functionality and tendency of bipolar and multipolar systems to generate a war. Offensive realism determines tension levels between different countries. These tension levels in turn, determine how intense the competition between opposing nations would be and what is the verisimilitude of breakout of war between them. A comparison of bipolarity and multipolarity suggests that the former offers the maximum stability and generates lowest extent of fear. On the other hand, unbalanced multipolarity is the opposite of bipolarity. Unbalanced multipolarity is just as unstable and fear generative in nature as the bipolarity is stable and fear absorbing. However, multipolarity alone lies somewhere in between the two states. Referring to the large water resources, Mearsheimer asserts that they restrain the ability of land forces to project power, thus minimizing fear and justifying the non-existence of a global hegemon. According to the principles of offensive realism, there are no chances of war. Mearsheimer emphasizes that there is a great possibility of increase of tension between US and China given China may soon utilize its growing economical strength to build its military forces. In his book, Mearsheimer has improvised the Realist theory by adding traits of offensive realism to it, thus presenting a mix of his own and others’ ideas. Mearsheimer has agreed to Waltz’s defensive/structural realism that emphasizes that states, when influenced by anarchy compete with one another on the grounds of security. However, unlike Waltz, Mearsheimer is of the view that states are in a continuous struggle to achieve hegemony. Apropos the liberalism, the author acknowledges the existence of cooperation among individual states. However, he strongly believes that states cooperate with one another to achieve their personal goals and satisfy individualistic interests. Very few to no states cooperate to promote peace in the world. In the contemporary world, there is a strong competition of security among states and its need arises from the widespread anarchy. There is no doubt in the fact that there are many international institutions, though they also function to secure their personal interests. Although Mearsheimer has slightly rebutted liberal ideas, yet the book actually focuses on formulating the sense of offensive realism. Analysis: John Mearsheimer through his book “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” has indeed, taken a big step in the way of contributing towards the realist standards of international politics. It has all the potential to be adopted as a fundamental source of knowledge and the key text book for international relations students. Mearsheimer has remained very considerate, original and prudent in formulating all aspects of his theory and has also supported it with facts from the history. His wise selection of past events to support individual traits of theory makes it sound reliable and adoptable to the reader. As a result, the reader also tends to accede to the predictions he makes about the future in relation to the international political scenario. Liberalism has been considerably challenged in “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”. Mearsheimer has made use of many practical examples to support his assertions about Liberalism and did not dissect the Liberal theory as many critiques would normally do. Instead, Mearsheimer focused his discussion on the criticism of Defensive Realism right from the start till the end of his book. No doubt, “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics” is a marvelous addition to the generally known Realist perspective, and sufficiently explains the potential reasons of international conflicts, upsets in the global political scenario and the causes of breakout of war. Through his thoughtful explanations, Mearsheimer has successfully determined the significance of offensive realism, though the theory he presents does not have too much explanatory power. For example, in an attempt to defend his stance on realism, Mearsheimer comes up with historical interpretations bordering the vulnerable. This can be estimated from the way he has treated Wilhelmine Germany in the conditions of the World War I. He refers to the behavior of Germany as justified, placing little emphasis on nationalism and other domestic disorders, upsets and insecurities that surfaced in those years. His explanation suggests that Germany did not call her encirclement herself. However, owing to Mearsheimer’s opinions apropos the water’s stopping capability and the benefits of land forces to a state, domestic tensions adequately tell the reason for which Germany happened to develop a strong battle force, activate Triple Entente, isolate Britain, and retreat resources from land forces required to manage things with Russia and France (Kupchan). Likewise, the justification and reasoning Mearsheimer puts forward in regard to the lack of balancing in opposition to Nazi Germany in 1930s is far from appealing. Regarding the 1930s’ buck-passing, Mearsheimer says that it “was due in good part to the fact that Germany did not possess a formidable army until 1939, and thus no compelling reason drew Hitler’s foes together until then” (p. 331).According to Mearsheimer, Britain pacified Germany in Munich fundamentally because the former had been under the pressure of the latter’s military excellence and superiority. Another factor that Mearsheimer does not adequately address is the way in which, offensive realism offers an explanation for a peaceful change in the global scenario. The conception that destructive conflicts and balancing are fundamental traits of international interaction among states is challenged by the European Union’s successful alteration of the geopolitical landscape of Europe and the establishment of reconciliation between the UK and US in the 20th century. However, despite all these facts and controversies, Mearsheimer’s book remains just as important and valuable. Of course, it is not easy to throw light upon all of the historic truths in just one analytical framework, therefore, there can be occasional irrationalities of judgment. If Mearsheimer considered the episodes that challenge the assumptions of balance-of-power theory a little more, he would probably not be as convinced about the offensive realism’s omnipresent logic and would instead resort to electicism for amplifying international political scenario. As per the philosophy of Mearsheimer, there is no way a great power can be satisfied with what it has because there is no limit of extreme power. Every power ultimately wants to achieve hegemony. Mearsheimer has made bold predictions about many great powers of the contemporary age. Much of what he has quoted from the past as an example to his assertions does not fully support the argument. A neutral person would not have selected such examples. The overall argument would have been different had Mearsheimer been neutral in his approach. He has indeed, touched upon a unique topic. The book presents an excellent example of argumentation. However, the views presented are to some extent, one-sided and do not depict the complete truth after considering the other side of the picture. Conclusion: In “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics”, John Mearsheimer has indeed, come up with one of the most appropriate and truthful realist works concerning the reign of post-cold war. The book was published only a few weeks before the incident of September 11, 2001, and offered a reproving warning apropos a lot of optimistic stances on the global political scenario including constructivism and liberalism. Many peaceful misapprehensions were spoiled by the overt expression of terrorism in the September 11, 2001. Mearcheimer, through his book has nicely explained the reason why such optimistic visions could not materialize. Mearsheimer has referred to the great power politics as tragic for the simple reason that the international competition among states causes them to attain more and more power on the cost of global peace. In the book, strengthening land forces and acquiring military strength has been visualized as the most fundamental source and means of attaining power for any state. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics brings forward a dimension of realism, that has conventionally not been considered much with respect to its impact upon international political scenario. The book explains the factors that play a decisive role in determining the attitudes of states and tells, how they influence the state’s behavior towards others. Being one of the knowledgeable political scientists in the University of Chicago, Mearsheimer is right in his discovery that there has conventionally remained a tension between intuitively and unconsciously liberal Americans and the sensibility of realism. Liberal Americans tend to oppose its negative role in the global scenario. “Yet that discomfort by no means prevented American policymakers as far back as 1776 from adhering to realist principles” (Bacevich 1). Measheimer says about the US that her speech and actions contradict one another. A careful reading and analysis of the book suggests that Mearsheimer has adopted a biased approach in drawing conclusions from past events at several points in his book. Water does not necessarily sap the land forces’ offensive capability. Insular powers do not always abstain from indulging into wars with greater powers. This is evident from the fact that North Vietnam had opened a war with US in the 20th century. According to Mearsheimer, US will abandon the idea of developing a continental commitment for all reasons other than “to balance a would-be hegemon” (Bacevich 2). It dawns upon the reader that Mearsheimer has made a lot of effort to mould the reasons as per his own opinion so that they would favor his assertions. The offensive realism explained in the book derives its power from biased assertions of Mearsheimer. He has indeed, made use of the most selective evidence so as to get a support for his claims, though the book holds a large educational significance because it tends to open a debate at the least if not readers’ consensus with the ideas presented in it. The book addresses a topic that is not discussed quite often. The language of the book is simple and the tone is expressive, appealing and goes well with the nature of the topic. Overall, the book is informative, though it leaves the reader with curiosity. Works cited: Bacevich, Andrew J. “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. . - book review.” pp. 1-4. 2002. Web. 4 Jan. 2011. . Kupchan, Charles A. “Review of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.” Sep. 2003. Web. 4 Jan. 2011. . Mearsheimer John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: W. W. Norton, 2001. Read More