Neorealism and the Selfish Nature of States

As the cold war ebbed on, a movement of realists spearheaded by Kenneth Waltz sought to transition the theory into one based upon empirically measurable, objective data and away from the classical assumptions of the inevitabilities of human nature. Ultimately this neorealism is correct in its assessment of the selfish nature of international relations given the structure of the global political landscape. I will first look at defensive neorealism and how ideas such as balancing theory can be observed playing out in the world today. Secondly, I will look at offensive neorealism and how thinkers like Mearsheimer can explain periods of both war and peace by the self-serving nature of governments. Ultimately despite this dual approach to neorealism having differences in regards to how exactly states act out their self-interest, the strong argument for the very existence of such selfish nature remains and excels within both camps.

Neorealism upholds the prominent statement of classical realism that states only serve to increase their own power but diverges and claims this is entirely because of the unavoidable, anarchical nature of international relations (Sandrina Antunes, 2018). Defensive neorealists further claim that states seek power only in so far that it holds them in equal balance with other states, at which point their security is assured. Kenneth Waltz (2000), being the first to develop neorealism as a theory, was keen to maintain the relevance of realism as a whole given the relative peace time experienced in Europe in the wake of the world wars. While it would be easy to assume that times of peace indicates a world where states are not simply warring for power, Waltz (2000: 8) entertains Fukuyama’s point that there may be “no reason to associate anarchy with war” and that despite the lack of physical war between the power players of Europe, unspoken vies for power were unfolding beneath the surface. This is a great point as made evident by the recent escalation of nuclear and non-nuclear weapons proliferation and development by the likes of the UK (Sabbagh, 2021) and Iran (Mostafa Salem, 2021) amongst other nations, despite the lack of actual engaged conflict. This escalation of arms inventories is a blatant public display of power and prowess without known intention of overpowering other states but merely ensuring a mutual level of respect amongst other powerful nations. Waltz (Sandrina Antunes, 2018) was keen to emphasise two key actualities, the limitations of an anarchic global system and the basis of every course of action concerning the comparative relative power of that nation. This highlights a key strength of the neorealist approach, the supposition of states always acting in self interest is simple and applicable to virtually any scenario of international relations. Additionally, governments exist to serve the inhabitants of their nation and so in entering contract with other nations, should both parties prioritise their own net gain, such benefits should, and are expected to, in most cases be passed on to the population. An example of this could be seen in the recent dispute regarding fishing boundaries off the coast of Jersey, whereby both France and the UK continue disputes concerning post- Brexit fishing rules for maximum benefit of the French fisherman and the population of Jersey, respectively (BBC.com, 2021). In this way the idea of defensive neorealism appears attractive because even to the superficial observer, unfamiliar with either approach to neorealism it appears unlikely that every single nation is hellbent on a monopoly of world power, rather it appears the aim of many is to join the oligopolistic ranks of a few countries mutually aware of each other capabilities in warfare, thus a balancing effect ensues. Despite some countries today, particularly America outweighing others in regard to power and influence, this fact does not do away with any argument that other countries are still operating with the intention of increasing their own power to reach the levels of the United States or say China. Kenneth Waltz (2000: 9) continued his efforts to maintain realism by addressing one of the more substantial responses to the assumption that states only act in self-interest. Democratic peace theory’s suggestion that democratic states do not war with each other is shown to be both false and implying causation from correlation. Waltz pointed out that the US in 1916 deposed of Juan Bosch, the democratically elected leader of the Dominican Republic, this instance hints at something wider. Whilst we have already seen how anarchy can exist without physical conflict a further point can be made that perhaps those countries that are democratic are ostensibly seen as peaceful but merely because other powerful nations quietly depose of or interfere with the elections of, those leaders they deem as obstacles on their path to global influence. Evidence supporting this includes a 2016 study by Dov H. Levin (2016) that concluded the United States had involved itself in 81 foreign elections between 1946 and 2000. Thus, the idea of countries acting under the guise of democratic peace and cohesion whilst prioritising self-interest through artificial alignment with others holds true. So, defensive realism as propagated by the likes of Kenneth Waltz, proves to be a convincing perspective on the nature of states actions and promotes the idea of nations selfish actions within the bounds of reason making it approachable particularly to those moving away from the wishful perspective of liberalism.

Whilst defensive neorealism saw a balancing effect as the goal of states in the anarchical system, offensive neorealists see no satiation in sight for states in their pursuit of power. Offensive realism argues that given the anarchical structure of international relations, countries are forced into the offensive, they are ever seeking more power to no end (Mearsheimer, 1990: 12-14). Offensive realism outwardly appears pessimistic and somewhat unlikely in its entirety, however as I will address, the actions of some states today appear to make it more likely and seemingly reasonable. Whilst both defensive and offensive neorealism convincingly argue for the idea that states act selfishly, offensive neorealism is likely of the two given the existence of anomalistic states in regards to balancing. Mearsheimer (1990: 12) states clearly the structure of international relations is anarchic because “there is no higher body or sovereign”, he goes further in stating “no international institution is capable of enforcing order or punishing powerful aggressors” thus ruling out the future cohesion as wished upon by liberalism. In response to this, many would be quick to bring up the existence of supranational bodies, NGO’s or economic blocs as existing power structures larger than individual states. This is refuted by simply looking at the effectiveness of these organisations and their inability to unite every nation on earth under common goals, from climate to economy to culture, some states may align but ultimately others may not. This can be seen in regards to one of the largest international bodies, the United Nations, that failed to prevent the likes of Libya, the United States amongst many others, warring with one another. Thus, if it really is nations that have the final say in how they operate on the global level then it is irrelevant to claim neorealism is too state-centric. Moving on, the idea that states act to selfishly seek power to no end is perhaps most well illustrated by the continued actions of China in recent years. China has seen sustained economic growth of more than 5% annually from 1990 to 2019 (World Bank) and whose encroachment into Philippine waters (Gomez, 2021) coupled with its development of the global ‘belt and road initiative’ (Chatzky & McBride, 2020), has shown no indicators of slowing its acquisition of geographical, military and economic power. It must be said however that China is merely one example, and though it does further highlight the case for the selfish nature of states, it’s excessive reach is prominent because it stands out as a nation and subsequently is not an indicator of the will of other states.

‘Buck-passing and ‘band-wagoning’ are two methods observed by offensive neorealists as being utilised by states to increase their own power through indirect means. An example of buck-passing could well be when Germany granted the United States use of its airspace in the process prior to the war with Iraq in 2003, such a move suggests Germany willed the United States’ removal of Saddam Hussain from power without wanting explicit military involvement (dw.com, 2003). Hereby we see how refusal to engage in physical warfare may not be taken as a decision motivated by peace but rather one that serves the nations self interest at the cost of another’s. In regards to ‘band-wagoning’, we could look to the coalition of Western states within NATO in 1949, in response to the threat of the Soviet Union, thus their relative power is increased given the agreement of support from the other nations within NATO. Again, we see how a move that superficially appears benevolent and unifying can again be one made entirely for self-interest and security. Williams (1993) provides further emphasis of the strengths of the neorealist theory of the selfish nature of states. While liberalism supposes that international relations can develop into a perfect, cohesive structure with shared responsibility, Williams argues that “strategy has no future” (Williams, 1993: 103). He says this meaning there is nothing to suggest that the anarchic system of states interacting could possibly change given the consistency of its nature throughout history. From Sun Tzu to Frederick the great humans have delt with the same issues of global strategy, Neorealism is key in “distinguishing in politics between truth and opinion” rather than that which is “informed by prejudice and wishful thinking” (Williams, 1993: 103-104). Viewed as pessimistic by some, I would argue caution should always be taken given the magnitude of global decision making. Smith was keen to exert that the hopeful assumptions of liberal thinkers that countries could positively align would appear foolish if shown to be wrong, however a pessimist in the same situation would sustain an “aura of profundity”.

Both offensive and defensive neorealism adequately argue for the case of states acting selfishly. This being said, given the existence of countries such as the United States that hold such great power but yet are never encroached upon by smaller Western nations it seems that the idea of balancing is less likely and that instead it appears nations are just wholly interested in the increase of their own power regardless of to what degree they balance with others. As a result, offensive neorealism appears the more convincing of the two.

So, to conclude, the theory of neorealism comprehensively makes use of positivist, historically based objective truths to point out that the nature of international relations is truly selfish. I have looked at defensive neorealism and Waltz’ highlighting of non-violent anarchy and I have looked at the even more effective offensive realism with the likes of Mearsheimer exposing sly tactics of nations pursuing self interest under the guise of impartiality. Neorealism ultimately is correct in pinpointing selfish nature and is both the simple and prudent school of thought for which to analyse international relations with.

Sources

Bank, T. W. (n.d.). GDP GRowth (Annual %)- China. Retrieved from data.worldbank.org: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=CN

BBC.com. (2021, May 6). Jersey fishing: What's the row between UK and France about? BBC News.

Chatzky, A., & McBride, J. (2020, January 28). China’s Massive Belt and Road Initiative. Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounders.

dw.com. (2003, January 22). Germany To Oppose Iraq War in U.N. dw.com.

Gomez, J. (2021, March 31). Phillipines demands China remove vessels at 6 islands, reefs. Associated Press.

Levin, D. H. (2016, February 13). When the Great Power Gets a Vote: The Effects of Great Power Electoral Interventions on Election Results. International Studies Quarterly, Volume 60, Issue 2, 189-282.

Mearsheimer, J. J. (1990). Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War. International Security Vol. 15, 5-56.

Mostafa Salem, T. Q. (2021, January 8). Iran unveils underground missile base on Gulf coast, state media says | CNN

Sabbagh, D. (2021, March 15). Cap on Trident nuclear warhead stockpile to rise by more than 40% | Trident | The Guardian

Sandrina Antunes, I. C. (2018). Introducing Realism in International Relations Theory . In I. C. Sandrina Antunes, International Relations Theory. E-International Relations Publishing.

Waltz, K. (2000). Structural Realism after the Cold War. International Security, 5-41.

Williams, M. C. (1993). Neo-Realism and the Future of Strategy. Review of International Studies Vol 19, 103-121.