How Useful Is Waltzs Theory for Explaining What Happens in International Politics - Term Paper Example

260364 How useful is Waltz’s theory for explaining what happens in international politics? Top of Form Kenneth Waltz’s first major book about international relations and political science was entitled ‘Man, The State, And War’ and at the time of its original publication it was widely regarded in academic circles as offering ground - breaking notions and ideas about the causes of war in world politics. Man, The State, and War made Kenneth Waltz internationally known as well as respected amongst international relations academics and also their students, not to mention proving to be a seminal work within its own right (Evans & Newnham, 1998 p. 351). The ideas that Kenneth Waltz put forward in Man, The State, and War were incomparable in their scope concerning the causes of war in world politics than other international relations works written in the 1950s or indeed earlier (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41). Kenneth Waltz despite being a member of the Realist school put forward explanations of the causes of war in world politics based around a fusion of academic disciplines, rather than just concepts drawn from international relations or indeed political science. In many respects, Kenneth Waltz had adopted and used concepts from outside of international relations theory and political science to provide a wider perspective concerning the causes of war in world politics (Jackson, 1993). A multidisciplinary approach to evaluating the causes of war in world politics was according to Kenneth Waltz the best method of understanding military conflicts with a high degree of adaptability, as well as relevance even for understanding present day international relations (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41). When Kenneth Waltz put forward his concepts and explanations of the causes of war in world politics he must have hoped his ideas would appear to be highly relevant over a long period of time. The continuing relevance of Kenneth Waltz’s concepts concerning the causes of war in world politics was he argued due to the perceptive nature of his ideas about human nature and its consequences for fighting or not fighting as a result of strained diplomatic relations (Waltz, 1959). Just like any other self respecting Realist international relations academic Kenneth Waltz contended that human nature did not alter even if technology advanced, nation states came and went being made or broken as a consequence of wars. Understanding the factors that caused wars in world politics would always remain relevant, as there would always be wars being fought somewhere across the globe (Evans & Newnham, 1998 p. 352). Besides Kenneth Waltz’s use of the multidisciplinary approach to evaluating the causes of war in world politics meant that a very wide range of economic, social, political, military and psychological factors could be included amongst the catalysts for specific conflicts (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 42). As far as Kenneth Waltz was concerned the starting point for his work on the causes of war in world politics was the shortcomings of previous notions about the factors that have directly and also indirectly led to military conflicts. Kenneth Waltz basically argued that although some of the factors previously regarded as a well established causes for war in world politics, which did not adequately explain the beginning or the build up to military conflicts and wars in certain circumstances (Waltz, 1959). For instance Kenneth Waltz in Man, The State, and War noted that many international relations theorists in common with military historians attached a great deal of importance to the notion of the balance of power (Dunbabin, 1994 p.5). The notion of the balance of power was regarded as a major direct cause or strong yet indirect underlying factor in numerous military conflicts and wars throughout history as well as within contemporary international relations (Hobsbawm, 1994 p.5). The gist of the balance of power notion is that nation state in the past, in the present, and also in the future would form military as well as political alliances. These military, diplomatic, and political alliances are set up to maintain equilibrium that some nation states would fight to keep in place (Ferguson, 2003 p. 300). To a large extent the theoretical and practical merits of the balance of power can be recognised as much for understanding and analysing the numerous wars of the 17th century and the 18th century (Chamberlain, 1985). It is a notion that in many respects is better suited to understand the past than it can for the military conflicts and wars, which have taken place in the framework of contemporary world politics. According to the ideas of Kenneth Waltz the balance of power notion was declining as an important factor in the causes of conflict in contemporary international relations (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41). The notion of the balance of power is a factor that fails to cover all of the causes of war in international relations. The balance of power notion still holds a great deal of sway especially amongst the Realist school of international relations, and remains useful for evaluating the impact of rivalries between nation states and alliances, such as the Cold War. At its time of writing Man, The State, and War was a classic work of the realism school of international relations, although Kenneth Waltz’s later books would be more accurately described as being of the neo-realism school of international relations (Evans & Newnham, 1998 p. 351). Anyway Kenneth Waltz argued that the notion of the balance of power was not adequate enough to explain all of the causes of war in present day world politics. The inadequacies of the notion of the balance of power stems from the fact that some military conflicts and wars have very complex short –term as well as long –term factors that combine together to set off fighting and conflicts (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 45). In Man, The State, and War the young Kenneth Waltz argued quite convincingly that social and economic factors could be just as important for causing military conflicts and wars than the notions of nationalism and the balance of power. As a realist international relations theorist and academic Kenneth Waltz was unusual in contending that factors that acted as the causes of war in international relations went beyond the notion of the balance of power and nationalism (K. Waltz, Man, The State, and War). Kenneth Waltz contended that social and economic factors could be amongst the causes of conflict in present day international relations just as much as the notions of the balance of power and the phenomena of nationalism (Waltz, 1959). The line of argument presented by Kenneth Waltz that various social and economic factors could be regarded as prominent causes of war in present day world politics still retains a great deal of validity. Nationalism of course is a phenomenon that could also be viewed as a social factor that can in some instances play a significant role in causing war in present day world politics (Eatwell & Wright, 2003 p. 105). After all nationalism is a social sentiment that can cause, or indeed can be used to justify military conflicts and war in present day world politics. There are differing levels of nationalism and nationalist feelings, which when combined with other factors cause military conflicts and wars in present day world politics. When nobody attempts to increase nationalist sentiment or inject militancy into it then it is not always powerful enough to be the main factor in causing wars in their own right in present day world politics. Nationalism is also closely connected to the development of patriotism, racism as well as a less militant and militaristic pride in one’s own country (Ferguson, 2003 p. 301). Kenneth Waltz did not dispute the importance nationalism could have in causing not to mention escalating wars in present day world politics. In the 1950’s Kenneth Waltz only had to mention the significance of nationalism in the First World War then the Second World War to be understood by his readers and his students. The struggle of colonies in Africa and Asia after the end of the Second World War for independence also demonstrated the role that nationalism could play in causing wars in present day world politics. Nationalism in its many various guises is therefore an important cultural, social and political phenomenon that could have peaceful consequences just as much as being a major contributing factor to the outbreak of military conflicts and wars in present day world politics (Jackson, 1993). The emergence of the Cold War within a few years of the Second World War ending frequently added an ideological element to military conflicts that might otherwise have just been simple wars for independence from colonial powers such has Britain and France. The Cold War itself was like an old style competition to gain the upper hand in the balance of power, with the United States being ranged against the Soviet Union (Hobsbawm, 1994 p. 490). However, the rivalry between the two superpowers had a heavy ideological influence over it, with the US favouring capitalism and the Soviet Union espousing the virtues of communism and the planned economy. Despite the intense nature of the Cold War rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union did not end up being involved in fighting each other directly. Of course, had the superpowers ended fighting each other it would have resulted in the Third World War and the probable extinction of the human race (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 43). The Cold War did witness proxy conflicts involving in some way or another the two superpowers, especially in the Korean War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Vietnam War, not to mention the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. The Cold War perhaps because the superpowers both had nuclear weapons did not lead to a major war. Though it meant the regional military conflicts, wars and civil wars were considered to be of vital strategic and therefore military importance for the United States as well as the Soviet Union (Todd, 2001 p. 15). These military conflicts were not however considered important enough to start a nuclear war over, despite the United States being tempted to use nuclear weapons during the Korean War. The Cold War was of course already underway when Kenneth Waltz put forward his main ideas and concepts about the causes of tension if not always war in present day international relations. Kenneth Waltz found the ways in which nuclear weapons had changed the way that the superpowers made foreign policy and military decisions in order to avert the onset of the Third World War. Arms races were certainly not a new feature of the Cold War they had taken place before various wars in world politics, perhaps most notably prior to the First World War (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41). Kenneth Waltz also contended that the governments of nation states have always regarded the use of military force as valid instrument of national defence, as well as foreign policy. Governments regard wars as sometimes being necessary to protect national interests of their respective countries and short victorious military conflicts have been known to increase the popularity of the governments involved in fighting wars. Deciding to start wars to increase their domestic popularity has not always been a wise choice by national governments that have inadvertently led their respective countries to either humiliating defeat, or long drawn out stalemates (K. Waltz, Man, The State, and War). Quick fire military victories have in the past been successful for the governments that started them. For example Piedmont and Prussia leading to the unification of Italy and Germany respectively. In more recent times the Argentine invasion of the Falklands Islands as well as the Iraqi invasions of Iran and Kuwait in the end adversely affected both regimes. Governments will in certain situations seek to use war for territorial gains or increased economic resources attack other nation states in order to grab what they want. This seems to be particularly the case for undemocratic regime such as the Argentine military Junta and the autocratic regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. The Argentine military Junta lost power after the British took them by surprise with the successful recapture of the Falkland Islands, conversely victory increased the public popularity of Margaret Thatcher markedly, for without it the Conservative Party would probably have lost the next general election. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein wrongly believed that a quick victory would be achieved against Iran that had been put into turmoil by the Iranian Revolution of 1978. The subsequent Iran-Iraq War lasted over eight years, mainly because the Iranians proved to be a lot tougher than the Iraqi army had originally expected. Saddam Hussein did not learn his lesson though. The successful Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was reversed by the United Nations forces led by the United States in the Gulf War of 1990-1991. Such military conflicts fitted with the ideas of Kenneth Waltz concerning the causes of conflict (K. Waltz, Man, The State, and War). In many respects Kenneth Waltz was making a valid point when he contended that there were economic factors which can act as significant causes of war in present day world politics. However, the potential economic gains of going to war are certainly easily outweighed by the actual costs of conducting military campaigns. Kenneth Waltz was certainly not the first person and will certainly not be the last to argue that peaceful co-operation and trading between nation states will provide greater economic gains than fighting wars would. Apart from the United States, Russia or China no nation states could expect to quickly win any war that they started to makes substantial and net economic gains (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 41). Only these nation states have enough firepower to potentially defeat their enemies very quickly, for long drawn out military conflicts would be economically detrimental, rather than beneficial. Increasingly even rapid military victories do not equate to economic gains, not even the defeats of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively have brought the United States economic gains, aside from companies that specialise in reconstruction work. The military presence of the United States as well as other forces from other NATO member states such as Britain have remained in Afghanistan for longer than expected due to the inability of the new regimes in these countries to put down militant insurgents (Todd, 2001 p. 1). There have been changes to who can make economic gains from wars since Kenneth Waltz first put forward his perspectives on how wars are caused in present day world politics. In the contemporary modern world it is not the participating nation states in wars, which could make economic gains after the fighting has finally finished. The economic gains from modern wars and military conflicts are made not by nation states as such but by multinational corporations instead. Profits and economic gains are made when the nation states involved in wars are reconstructed to restore the infrastructures destroyed from fighting. In some cases, the biggest gainers from war have been from countries that were not originally involved in the fighting when the military conflict had begun. That was the case in Bosnia - Herzegovina and Kosovo when the United States and NATO eventually intervened to stop the fighting and prevent further incidences of ethnic cleansing being carried out by the Serbians. The Americans after providing most of the armed forces used in Bosnia - Herzegovina and Kosovo then proceeded to give highly lucrative reconstruction projects to American based or owned multinational corporations (Fisk, 2006 p. 1027). Indeed the United States since the Gulf War of the early 1990s has demonstrated a marked inclination to intervene in wars and civil wars upon humanitarian grounds with the proviso that American multinational companies should whenever rebuild shattered countries, whilst of course making hefty profits. It has been a pattern that has been repeated in the wake of the United States interventions in Afghanistan, as well as Iraq. Despite rapid victories over the outmoded armies of the former Afghan and Iraqi regimes, the United States has been able to provide stability in either country even though American companies have profited from reconstruction projects (Todd, 2001 p. 2). Kenneth Waltz also contended that ideological factors were certainly capable of being causes of conflict in international relations whether in there own right or in conjunction with other factors. Ideological perspectives have been able to shape and even directly cause disputes and eventually wars between nation states. In more recent years especially after September 11th ideology has caused wars between countries and non-state actors, Al-Qaeda in particular. Ideological factors have often added an extra dimension to international rivalries and wars. For instance, the Second World War witnessed the totalitarian Nazi regime against the democracies of Britain, France and the United States. The greatest ideological conflict within the Second World War was between Germany and the Soviet Union, mainly due to Hitler’s determination to destroy communism. It was no accident that the Eastern Front was the most vicious theatre in all of military history (K. Waltz, Man, The State, and War). In the last two decades or so it has not been the validity of Kenneth Waltz’s contention that ideology can cause conflicts in international relations has changed. Instead it has been the types of ideologies and the nature of conflicts that has actually altered (K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’). The Cold War had the ideological differences between capitalist liberal democracy and totalitarian communism centred at its very core. The Cold War ideological confrontation as previously noted contributed to the Korean War and the Vietnam War as well as other conflicts in developing countries such as the civil wars in Angola and Mozambique. At times it seemed that the Cold War could become a hot war particularly during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Korean War and with the renewed nuclear arms race, which followed on from the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan (Hobsbawm, 1994 p.489). American President Ronald Reagan’s decision to back Afghani resistance to the Soviet Union and then step up the nuclear arms race accelerated the end of the Cold War not to mention the collapse of the Soviet Union itself (Crawford, 2002). With the effective end of communism as a world- wide ideology, some predicted that ideology would not longer play a role in the causing of conflicts and wars. The September 11th attacks on the United States by Al-Qaeda proved that ideology cannot e discounted as a caused of wars in world politics. Indeed the Al-Qaeda attacks led to the United States interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq (K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’). It is widely assumed amongst the international theorists including Kenneth Waltz that liberal democracies are very unlikely to fight wars against each other. The image that stands out is that nation states are all prepared to go to war if their governments believe that they have to do so. Liberal democracies might not fight each other but they have frequently fought wars against non-democratic nation states when it has suited them to do so. If anything it is the governments of the poorer and weaker nation states that are most likely to be involved in wars (Brown with Ainley, 2005 p. 45). The Cold War due almost entirely to the superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union both having nuclear weapons did not lead to a major war. However the lack of a war between the United States and the Soviet Union meant that numerous regional military conflicts, wars and civil wars were considered to be of vital strategic and therefore military importance for the United States as well as the Soviet Union. These regional wars, civil wars, and military conflicts were not however considered important enough to start a nuclear war over, despite the United States being tempted to use nuclear weapons during the Korean War. The Cold War was of course already underway when Kenneth Waltz put forward his main ideas and concepts about the causes of competition and conflicts in contemporary international relations (K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’). There are differing levels of nationalism and nationalist feelings, which when combined with other factors cause military conflicts and wars in present day international relations. When nobody attempts to increase nationalist sentiment or inject militancy into it then it is not always powerful enough to be the main factor in causing wars in their own right in present day world politics. Waltz has also argued that ideological factors were certainly capable of being causes of war in international relations whether in there own right or in conjunction with other factors. Ideological perspectives have been able to shape and even directly cause disputes and eventually wars between nation states. In more recent years especially after September 11th ideology has caused wars between countries and non-state actors, Al-Qaeda in particular. Ideological factors have often added an extra dimension to international relations and conflicts. Kenneth Waltz did contend that economic gain as well as perceived national shortages of vital materials and supplies have been regarded as important factors in understanding international relations. Increasingly even rapid military victories do not equate to economic gains, not even the defeats of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively have brought the United States economic gains, aside from companies that specialise in reconstruction work. In our very own contemporary modern world it is frequently not the participating nation states in wars, which could make economic gains after the fighting has finally ended, and that means the United States as well as the sole surviving global superpower. Bibliography Brown C, with Ainley K, (2005) Understanding International Relations 3rd edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke Chamberlain, M. E. (1985) Decolonization: the fall of the European empires. (Oxford: Blackwell) Crawford, N. (2002) Argument and change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonisation and Humanitarian Intervention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) Dunbabin J P D (1994) The Cold War – The Great Powers and their allies, Longman, London Eatwell R & Wright A, (2003) Contemporary Political Ideologies 2nd Edition, Continuum, London Evans G & Newnham J, (1998) the Penguin Dictionary of International Relations, Penguin, London Ferguson N, (2003) Empire – how Britain made the modern world, Penguin, London Fisk R, (2006) The Great War for Civilisation – the conquest of the Middle East, Harper Perennial, London Hobsbawm, E (1994) Age of Extremes, the Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991, Michael Joseph, London Jackson, Robert H. (1993) ‘The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization: Normative Change in International Relations’, in Judith Goldstein and Robert O. Keohane (eds) Ideas and Foreign Policy, pp. 111-138. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press James, H (2003) Europe Reborn – A History, 1914 – 2000, Pearson Longman, Harlow Todd A, (2001) Democracies and Dictatorships – Europe and the World 1919 – 1989, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge K Waltz, Theory of International Politics K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’ K. Waltz, Man, The State and War, K. Waltz, ‘The Stability of a Bipolar World’ K. Waltz, ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’ K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’ K. Waltz, Man, The State and War, K. Waltz, ‘The Stability of a Bipolar World’ K. Waltz, ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’ K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’ K. Waltz, Man, The State and War, K. Waltz, ‘The Stability of a Bipolar World’ K. Waltz, ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’ K. Waltz, Theory of International Politics K. Waltz, ‘Structural Realism after the Cold War’ K. Waltz, Man, The State and War, K. Waltz, ‘The Stability of a Bipolar World’ K. Waltz, ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’ Bottom of Form 1 Read More