| |
 |
|
|
|
 |
| |
 |
Chapter Six: Anarchy, Power, And War
Review |
Power and force play a central role in global politics; in why wars take place; and in how actors manage conflict. This chapter begins with an analysis of the meaning, impact, and implications of anarchy from realist, neoliberal, and constructivist perspectives. It then considers power and influence, central concepts to the analysis of global politics. It ends by examining anarchy and power as alternative explanations for the causes of war.
1. Realism and the condition of anarchy
a) For realists, anarchy is a fundamental trait of the international system.
b) For neorealists, it is the trait that most constrains states.
- Anarchy logically produces a self-help system predisposed to conflict and war.
- In this system, states must always prepare for war.
- States are consumed with achieving power and security to protect themselves.
- This preoccupation leads states to seek relative gains.
2. The neoliberal critique: cooperating under anarchy
Neoliberals also view anarchy as the absence of an authority above states, but they do not believe that conflict must necessarily follow from this condition. This is because, for neoliberals, states are most interested in achieving absolute gains in their relations with one another. But cheating is both possible and profitable, and thus poses the greatest obstacle to cooperation.
a) Interdependence, institutions, and regimes
- Liberals believe that anarchy is modified by interdependence among actors.
- Situations of mutual dependence are known as complex interdependence, in which actors are sensitiveand vulnerable to one another’s behavior.
- Liberals argue that international institutions or regimes can be used to achieve cooperation under such conditions.
(1) Not only do these arrangements limit cheating, they monitor agreements, and provide a means to punish states that renege on a commitment.
(2) They also reduce the costs of negotiating and implementing agreements, and provide information about other states interests and capabilities.
b) The rise and decline of a regime: nuclear nonproliferation
Today’s nuclear nonproliferation regime evolved out of efforts during the Cold War to limit horizontal proliferation. The cornerstone of this regime is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which outlaws the transfer of nuclear weapons technology and prohibits non-nuclear states from developing nuclear weapons technology. Other elements of the regime include the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), and several Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZs).
- The Dangers of Horizontal Proliferation
Dangers include risky leaders, a higher probability of accidents or errors of judgment, regional quarrels leading to nuclear war, pressure on others to acquire similar weapons, first-generation weapons that reduce strategic stability, and the prospect that terrorists may acquire WMD.
- North Korea and Iran
North Korea tested a nuclear weapon in 2006. Iran has followed North Korea’s tactics in seeking to acquire such weapons for itself. Talks continue in an ongoing effort to reach a deal under which North Korea would give up its WMD in return for political and economic concessions. Similar talks were undertaken by Germany, Britain, and France, with US approval, with Iran but have not yet borne fruit.
3. The constructivist critique: “anarchy is what states make of it”
a) Constructivists also challenge the idea that anarchy is the dominant feature of global politics.
b) They argue that a self-help system is not a logical consequence of anarchy, but is a product of a series of interactions among actors in anarchy, in which each actor behaves in a manner that is threatening to others. This creates an expectation that the “other” cannot be trusted.
4. The quest for power and influence
a) Actors can use capabilities in different ways to increase their influence.
- Hard power relies on coercion and rewards, while soft power emerges from cultural and reputational factors.
- Structural power is the power to “decide how things shall be done.”
b) An actor’s power is a product of its material military, economic, and societal resources, as well as intangible factors such as will, intelligence, and diplomacy.
c) Power is difficult to measure.
- Many elements of power cannot be measured before an actor uses its capabilities.
- How much power an actor is perceived to have matters more than how much power it really has.
- Power is always relative, implying a comparison among actors.
- Capabilities that are a source of power in one context may not be in another.
- Relative power can only be inferred after it has been exercised.
- Sometimes a power relationship can only be inferred.
d) The Global System
Neorealists emphasize the global system in explaining the outbreak of war. For them, the structure of a system constrain the actions of the actors within that system. Several system-level properties in particular are associated with war:
- Security dilemmas and arms races
- The security dilemma is a product of anarchy under which actors mistrust each other’s intentions and prepare for war.
- The result of a security dilemma is an arms race, an escalating spiral of fear and insecurity that is destabilizing and can produce war.
- The problem of building trust in anarchy is reflected in the prisoner’s dilemma.
- Equality versus preponderance of powe
- Rapid, threatening change in the distribution of capabilities among actors is often cited as a cause of war.
- Theorists disagree about whether peace is more likely when major actors are roughly equal in power or when one actor is preponderant.
- According to balance-of-power theory, peace is most likely when power is distributed so that no single actor can dominate others.
- According to power transition theory and long-cycle theory, unipolarity is more likely to produce peace.
|
Focus Questions |
Q1 How do different theorists deal with the issue of "anarchy" in global politics?
A1 Neorealists treat the condition of states under anarchy as similar to that of firms in a free market in which they have to compete to survive, must provide for their own security, and must be prepared for conflict owing to the absence of trust among actors. Neorealists also believe that states always seek an advantage over each other by pursuing relative gains. Neoliberals also regard states as rational egotists, but the main problem anarchy causes, they believe, is to encourage cheating. This problem can be modified by complex interdependence among states and the presence of international organizations and regimes to prevent cheating, which establish principles, norms, and rules of behavior, thereby allowing states to pursue absolute gains. Constructivists take issue with both neorealists sand neoliberals, arguing that it does not necessarily entail self-help. Instead, interaction among actors determines how they will regard anarchy. If interaction is positive, anarchy need not pose a problem, but, if it is hostile, it will produce a security dilemma in which increasing the security of any actor is seen as increasing the insecurity of other actors.
Q2 Why is nuclear proliferation dangerous?
A2 An elaborate international regime has evolved to control nuclear proliferation, centered on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Nuclear Suppliers Group, the Proliferation Security Initiative, and several Nuclear Weapons Free Zones. However, the regime has eroded in recent years as India, Pakistan, and North Korea have acquired nuclear weapons and Iran may be seeking to do the same. The acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by additional countries—known as horizontal proliferations—is dangerous for several reasons: (1) the leaders of some of the new nuclear states are ruthless and may be risk-takers; (2) more fingers on more triggers increase the probability of a nuclear accident; (3) some of the new nuclear powers are involved in dangerous regional disputes; (4) the acquisition of WMD by some states encourages others to do the same; (5) new nuclear states are armed with delivery systems that may promote strategic instability; and (6) horizontal proliferation increases the risk that WMD may fall in the hands of terrorists.
Q3 What is power, and what forms does it take?
A3 Power or influence is a relationship rather than a "thing" in which one actor causes another to do what it wishes. Analysts distinguish between "hard power" (coercion and rewards) and "soft power" (cultural and ideological attraction). Soft power is related to what some call "structural power" which is the power to shape the rules of the game that determine how things are done. Soft power also is similar to the power that postpositivists attribute to controlling language and, therefore, interpretations and meanings. Hard power can take the form of threats and coercion or of promises sand rewards. Both involve a capacity to manipulate the situation in which a target finds itself. Threats and coercion force an adversary to modify its behavior or face a more disadvantageous situation. Promises and rewards entail the possibility of an improved situation if another actor does what it is told to do.
Q4 How can we measure power?
A4 There are two basic ways to measure power. The first is to compare capabilities—resources that can be used to create influence. Some of these such as armaments, population, and economic potential are tangible. Others like morale and leadership are intangible. Although this is helpful, it may be deceptive if observers do not recognize that some capabilities can produce influence in some contexts but not in others. The second approach is to infer power by observing whether targets alter their behavior and to what extent. However, this, too, may be deceptive as it is difficult to be sure why an actor alters its behavior, and in a few cases such as that of a deterrence relationship the absence of behavior may reflect influence.
Q5 How is the distribution of power related to the outbreak of war?
A5 Efforts to answer this question are central to realist and neorealist analyses of global politics. Neorealists argue that under anarchy all states face the same challenges to survival and therefore have to act the same way. Power distribution--called "polarity"—can involve one major power center (unipolarity), two centers (bipolarity), or three or more centers (multipolarity). Under anarchy, states must fear the acquisition of power by other states (security-dilemmas), making arms races likely. The absence of trust creates prisoner's dilemma games in which actors seek to maximize security lest they become victims of aggression, but in doing so they forego the possibility of achieving outcomes that will benefit them all. Rapid change in the distribution of power is regarded as dangerous to all actors. Many realists have argued that balance of power is a profitable way of reducing that danger and of managing security. According to balance-of-power theory, peace is most likely is distributed so that no single actor or alliance can dominate the others. However, theorists are divided over whether peace is more likely when there is equality of power among key actors or when one actor or group of actors enjoys a preponderance of power. Those who believe in equality argue that it produces uncertainty about a war's outcome, thereby encouraging caution. Their opponents argue that under preponderance war is unlikely because no one can challenge the hegemon and the hegemon does not need to fight to get what it wants. However, weaker powers may try to equal a hegemon's power, and war may become likely when they catch up. |
|
|
|
|
