Introduction
Neo-Realism was the most appropriate political theory to explain events during the Cold War.
This paper will explore the rise to prominence of Neo-Realism and its assimilation to the praxis of the Cold War. The main scholar I will be concerned with is Kenneth Waltz (considered father of Neo-Realism). Before I begin my analysis, I would like to note that this paper excludes the breakdown of offensive and defensive Neo-Realism as specific strands, I mainly focus on the theory at large. The period I will be looking at here is explicitly the Cold War.
Neo-Realism
Neo-realisms main scholars are John Mearsheimer, Hans Morgenthau, and the aforementioned Kenneth Waltz. The latter has developed the theory, which ignores humans as a causal factor and argues that it is the anarchic system of the international arena, and the lack of central authority to safeguard states from each other, which brings them to the main concern: security. That motivates them to pursue more power and distrust one another. It states that a bipolar world with two great powers and smaller alliances is easier to manage. (Waltz, 1988)
The emergence of the theory dates back to the start of the Cold War. (Walt, 1998) The rise of the communist USSR and US, in a battle of ideology and power led scholars back to the drawing boards. A situation like the Cold War, had never been witnessed before, and therefore it gave a new meaning to power politics. Nuclear concerns and the then recent acknowledgement of their devastating consequences, where the main basis to the idea of what would later become the idea of balance of power and nuclear parity. These are the main elements which led to the development of Neo-Realism.
Anarchy
The primary Neo-realism assump...
... middle of paper ...
... analysis carried out by him in order to explain the situation at the time gives Neo-realism the most credibility when it comes to contrasting theory with actual events.
Works Cited
Brown, C., & Ainley, K. (2005). Understanding International Relations. (3rd ed., p. 34). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Donnelly, J. (2000). Realism and International Relations. (1st ed., p. 9).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Walt, S. (1998). International relations: One world, Many Theories. Foreign
Policy, (110), 29-32 34-46. Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228(199821)
Waltz, K. (1981). Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Waltz, K. (1988). The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, 18(4), 615-628. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/204817
New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Shiraev, Eric B., and Vladislav M. Zubok. International Relations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Silver, Larry.
Edkins, Jenny, and Maja Zehfuss. Global Politics: A New Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2009. Print.
Mearsheimer J. J. (2010). Structural Realism. International Relations Thoeries, Discipline and Diversity (Second Edition), p.77-94
Understanding the World ‘We’ Live in’, International Affairs, Vol. 80, No. I, (2004) pp. 75-87.
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.
Frieden, Jeffry A., David A. Lake, and Kenneth A. Schultz. World Politics. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2013. Print.
Anti-realism says that principles of our world depend exclusively on us, and that what you think about your world is actually only about a private world. We can only be sure of our minds existing, and what we see about all else is incredibly much personal. There is no specific, entire reality. There are merely fashioned realities that involve both the effort and the awareness. The effort is not real until it reaches the beneficiary which forms the realism. Or, they can consider no input at all, and only in the thoughts of the intellect.
Classical realism originates from the ancient times of the Greek empires. This theory in international relations has dominated the sphere and the conception of world politics for centuries. Classical realists such as Morgenthau and Thucydides outline different factors in explaining politics at all levels and emphasize that politics is described throughout the theory of classical realism. Like every theory in international relations, classical realism has strengths and weaknesses that define its impact in the international level. In our current age of diplomacy, classical realism is not a common theory in current international politics. Although it is not as relevant as it has been in the past, there is potential for classical
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
Realism is one of the oldest and most popular theories in International Relations. It offers a perspective about competition and power, and can be used to explain the actions between states. An example of realism is the U.S. reaction – or lack thereof – during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
Dimitter, Lowell. World Politics. 1st ed. Vol. 55. New York: Johns Hopkins UP, 2002. 38-65.
The study of international relations takes a wide range of theoretical approaches. Some emerge from within the discipline itself others have been imported, in whole or in part, from disciplines such as economics or sociology. Indeed, few social scientific theories have not been applied to the study of relations amongst nations. Many theories of international relations are internally and externally contested, and few scholars believe only in one or another. In spite of this diversity, several major schools of thought are discernable, differentiated principally by the variables they emphasize on military power, material interests, or ideological beliefs. International Relations thinking have evolved in stages that are marked by specific debates between groups of scholars. The first major debate is between utopian liberalism and realism, the second debate is on method, between traditional approaches and behavioralism. The third debate is between neorealism/neoliberalism and neo-Marxism, and an emerging fourth debate is between established traditions and post-positivist alternatives (Jackson, 2007).
Created by Gideon Rose in the late 1990s, Neoclassical Realism combines the Classical Realist and Neorealist theories, specifically Defensive Realism. This new form of Realism is an addition to Waltz’s model of Neorealism, which fails to explain foreign policy. Rose describes the theory in his 1998 article titled Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy: “It explicitly incorporates both external and internal variables… The scope and ambition of a country's foreign policy is driven first and foremost by its place in the international system and specifically by its relative material power capabilities. This is why it is realist. The impact of such power capabilities on foreign policy is indirect and complex, because systemic pressures must be translated through intervening variables at the unit level. This is why [it] is neoclassical” (Rose
Baylis, Smith and Patricia Owens. 2014. The globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. London. Oxford University Press.