In
his article, The Tragedy of Great Power
Politics, John Mearsheimer displays a realist and fairly accurate portrayal
of the international system. Mearsheimer argues that states within an anarchic
system tend to act with intentions of self-help while maintaining a primary
focus on survival. I agree with Mearsheimer’s five assumptions about the
international system and his theory that hegemony is the ultimate goal of
states in an anarchic system. I also find his opinions on state’s intentions in
regards to the ‘security dilemma’ and alliances to be true as well.
Mearsheimer’s analysis on the mentality of great powers within an anarchic
system is highly accurate and portrays their intentions and goals justly.
While
some liberals might find Mearsheimer’s opinion that no states within an
anarchic system are to be trusted to be a bit extreme and claim that
Mearsheimer is simply paranoid, I agree with the realists and find that there
is indeed truth behind it. Given that there is no one power that rules over all
the states in the international system, it is not realistic for states to view themselves
as part of a community and thus take part in actions of self-help. Mearsheimer
states, “From the perspective of any one great power, all other great powers
are potential enemies” (Mearsheimer 32). Because Mearsheimer views the international
system in terms of an ‘every man for himself’ scenario, I agree with his
statement and understand the need for suspicion among other states for a means
of survival. In this type of ‘survival of the fittest’ situation, I can attest
to the fact that one state’s loss is another’s gain. Another valid point of
Mearsheimer’s argument is his claim that the best way for states to ensure
their security is to achieve hegemony. Naturally the best way to be safe from
outside attacks is to be the most powerful force. Therefore it is quite logical
that hegemony would be the ultimate goal of states within an anarchic system.
In
addition to Mearsheimer’s opinion on state’s intentions in terms of security
and hegemony, I also agree with his logic that the anarchic system is purely
competitive at its core. Mearsheimer states, “Genuine peace, or a world in
which states do not compete for power, is not likely as long as the state
system remains anarchic” (53). The balance of power is highly important in the
international system and all states are constantly fighting to gain power,
weather regionally or globally. A state’s power and the potential to gain power
is a highly influential factor when making decisions including the decision to
form alliances. A state would not choose to enter an alliance if there was any
possibility that its power would be threatened. Similarly, the potential to
gain power may cause many alliances to form. For example, having peace
agreements with Israel is crucial to the United States as it allows us to have
gains in the Middle East. In this way, the security of Israel then becomes a
priority to the United States as well.
Lastly,
Mearsheimer makes the claim that states in the international system are
rational thinkers. He suggests that states do not simply “charge headlong into
losing wars or pursue Pyrrhic victories” (37). In a system where survival is
the primary goal, it is only logical that states think carefully about each
decision and how it will be perceived by other states in the system. Considering
how important factors such as power and strategic gains are to actors in this
type of system, rationality is key for success.
Mearsheimer offers a realist and
accurate portrayal of how states in an anarchic international system act and
think. He makes several valid points in his argument including that the primary
goal is survival and achieving survival leads to the ultimate competition among
states. His theory that states within the international system operate mainly with intentions of self help is accurate. States within the anarchic international system are on their own, their power, gains and survival is not guaranteed and must be worked for every day.
Interesting that you mention Israel. Mearsheimer is NOT a fan of our Israel policy because he does not find it to be in our national interests. Why do you think this is?
ReplyDeleteBTW, it doesn't meant that he is right, only that there is an argument to be made that supporting Israel is not a core national interest.
Your argument in support of realism is incredibly strong. However, one question that I had with regard to Mearsheimer's theory of realism is, how do states in a realist system view the potential power of a country? You addressed how they perceive the physical power (in terms of naval, army, and air forces) of another state as a threat, but do these allegedly "rational" thinkers consider the potential power of a state as well? In a system where the balance of power is constantly shifting, wouldn't it make sense for states in a realist world to pay attention to potential threats, not just current ones?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument that Measrsheimer's depiction of international relations is accurate. I also agree that the US would consider its alliance with Israel important to allow some gains in the Middle East, however, I would not call the alliance "crucial" because I believe a realist would suggest that no matter the importance of this alliance, it is still on temporary.
ReplyDelete