Many theories have been formulated to explain the major events in the 20th century (two world wars and the Cold War). Among those theories, I think realism theory (neorealism in particular) best explains these events. This paper analyzes how the Balance of Power theory from the realist tradition can be applied in the explaining the onsets of these events and the end of the Cold War. From a realist’s perspective, first, states are rational and their actions are all dictated by their primary interest, which is security. And states seek security through balancing the distribution of power. Second, polarity, which is determined by distribution of, has a significant impact on the choice of balancing behavior of states. And consistent with the history, this theory suggests that states are more likely to go to war under multipolarity while a bipolar system is relatively stable because of security dilemma between two great powers. After this, I will discuss two liberal critiques of the theory and further explain why realist theory best explain the onsets of these events.
First, both liberals and realists agree that international system is anarchic and survival of the state is the primary interests (Marten 9/19/2011). Contrary to liberalism, realists believe that international anarchy encourages states to concern about relative gains and distribution of power given the fungible nature of power (Jervis 2011: 335). However, thinking of international relations as a zero-sum game does not necessitate mindless offensive actions. Instead, just as Mearsheimer suggests, states “think carefully about the balance of power and about how other states will react to their moves” (35). As a result of these power considerations, the balance of...
... middle of paper ...
...11. 31-50.
Morgenthau, Hans J. “The Balance of Power.” From Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 4th ed. (New York: Knopf, 1967), Chaps. 11, 12, 14. Rpt. in Essential Readings in World Politics. Eds. Mingst, Karen A. and Jack L. Snyder. 4th ed. New York: W. W. Morton, 2011. 99-104.
Shelling, Thomas C. “The Diplomacy of Violence.” From Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1966), Chap. 1. Rpt. in Essential Readings in World Politics. Eds. Mingst, Karen A. and Jack L. Snyder. 4th ed. New York: W. W. Morton, 2011. 326-334.
Snyder, Jack L. "Correspondence: Defensive Realism and the 'New' History of World War I," International Security 33, no. 1 (Summer 2008): 174-194.
Wohlforth, William C. “Realism and the End of the Cold War.” International Security 19, no. 3 (Winter 1994/5): 91-129.
Isaacs J (2008). ‘Cold War: For Forty-five Years the World Held its Breath’. Published by Abacus, 2008.
Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War: Dividing the World. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1997. Publishing.
During the late 1940's and the 1950's, the Cold War became increasingly tense. Each side accused the other of wanting to rule the world (Walker 388). Each side believed its political and economic systems were better than the other's. Each strengthened its armed forces. Both sides viewed the Cold War as a dispute between right and wron...
New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Gregory, Ross. A. Cold War America: 1946 to 1990. New York, NY: Facts on File, 2003. McQuaid, Kim.
There have been many attempts to explain the origins of the Cold War that developed between the capitalist West and the communist East after the Second World War. Indeed, there is great disagreement in explaining the source for the Cold War; some explanations draw on events pre-1945; some draw only on issues of ideology; others look to economics; security concerns dominate some arguments; personalities are seen as the root cause for some historians. So wide is the range of the historiography of the origins of the Cold War that is has been said "the Cold War has also spawned a war among historians, a controversy over how the Cold War got started, whether or not it was inevitable, and (above all) who bears the main responsibility for starting it" (Hammond 4). There are three main schools of thought in the historiography: the traditional view, known alternatively as the orthodox or liberal view, which finds fault lying mostly with the Russians and deems security concerns to be the root cause of the Cold War; the revisionist view, which argues that it is, in fact, the United States and the West to blame for the Cold War and not the Russians, and cites economic open-door interests for spawning the Cold War; finally, the post-revisionist view which finds fault with both sides in the conflict and points to issues raised both by the traditionalists as well as the revisionists for combining to cause the Cold War. While strong arguments are made by historians writing from the traditionalist school, as well as those writing from the revisionist school, I claim that the viewpoint of the post-revisionists is the most accurate in describing the origins of the Cold War.
Stoessinger, John George. Why Nations Go to War, 8th Edition. San Diego, CA: Thomson Wadsworth 2001.
Glynn, Patrick. Closing Pandora's Box "Arms Races, Arms Control, and the History of the Cold War". New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc. 1992.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
During Ambassador Power’s speech, she discusses her beliefs about Russia as a threat to the international community and the United States by prominently expressing thoughts that are similar with the liberal theoretical tradition, additionally, due to intellectual pluralism, Ambassador Power briefly expresses thoughts that are similar to the theoretical tradition of realism. There are four basic assumptions that realism and liberalism share—states live in an international system based on anarchy, states seek power, states are rational actors, and states are the most born actors. However, these rational acting states have varying views of what anarchy is and they act in different ways to attain such anarchy. In this paper, I will explain how
New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Wendt, Alexander. A. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security.
Kent, J. and Young, J.W. (2013), International Relations Since 1945: A global History. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The realism that will be the focus of this paper is that of Kenneth Waltz. Kenneth Waltz presents his theory of realism, within an international system, by offering his central myth that, “Anarchy is the permissive cause of war”. Kenneth Waltz’s central myth helps answer the question as to why war happens in the first place. During the cold war, there was a heightened sense of insecurity between Russia and the United States due to presence of nuclear weapons. The Movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb used cold war tension between the two countries to tell the story of a general who went crazy and decided to unleash his fleet of nuclear bombers onto Russian military bases.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
To conclude, there are four main components of the realist approach to international relations, they are: state which includes egoism as the states are composed by the selfish people, self-help which includes balance of power as power is used to enhance the survival rate, survival which includes hegemony in order to maintain its position and anarchical system which related to lust for power and led to security dilemma.