Waltz and Neorealism

INTRODUCTION

Kenneth Waltz is a neorealist who through his varied contributions has left an indelible mark on the field of International Relations. This paper will start by examining his three images of analysis and then move on to a general overview of how his theory of international relations is informed by his adherence to the third image in particular and then conclude by looking at some of the criticisms that have been raised against it.

THREE IMAGES OF ANALYSIS AND NEOREALIST THEORY

In his book “Man, The State, And War”, Waltz writes about three images of analysis through which he brings out the causes of war as seen from three different viewpoints: the first image posits that the root cause of war is the imperfection of humans, the second image states that wars/conditions for war are made possible due to the internal structure of individual states, and finally the third image brings out the viewpoint or image that Waltz himself seems to align most with, that war is caused due to the system that states are part of, thus countering the importance given to the unit level analyses of the first and second images. (Waltz, 2001)The best summary of the first image can be found in the first few lines of Waltz’s chapter on it- “Wars result from selfishness, from misdirected aggressive impulses, from stupidity”(Waltz, 2001). He delves deeper into this line of thought by differentiating between the various kinds of adherents to this image and then by comparing and critically analyzing the work of other political philosophers who agree with this image and use it as the entry point through which they arrive at what they think are the main causes of war as well as the necessary prescriptions to eliminate or reduce its occurrence. He begins by expounding the basic assumption of this image, that humans are imperfect. He then differentiates between a pessimistic and an optimistic approach to this image. The difference between the two is seen mainly in terms of their approach to the solutions they give to the problem of wars arising due to human imperfection.

Optimists believe that humans can be changed for the better and by doing so the occurrence of wars will decrease greatly or stop altogether, while the pessimists believe little if anything can be done about human nature and the balance of power is accorded a position of great importance by them, since according to them it stops the great powers from complete destruction of each other and the rest of the world along with them. (Waltz, 2001)He then explicates the arguments of prominent political philosophers, focusing on Spinoza and St. Augustine to bring out the reasoning behind their arguments. While St. Augustine focused on the self-preservation instinct of nature and used original sin to explain the imperfection of humanity, Spinoza bases his explanation on the conflict between reason and passion; he says that that if all actions were based on reason, harmony would prevail, but men, drawn into acting according to their passions, are drawn into conflict. (Waltz, 2001)The main criticisms against this image is that though humans are imperfect, crimes occur relatively rarely, and periods of peace persist. The imperfection of man is used as a blanket explanation for events whenever conflict rears its head, thus making one think that acceptance or refutation of the first image is based more on the mood and temperament of the reader than theoretical rigor. (Waltz, 2001)

The second image deals with the internal structure of individual states and how it affects the climate of the international relations. Since it is slightly inclined towards a liberal analysis, Waltz begins with a brief introduction of the liberal view on organization of states and then applies it to the international relations context. The main argument here is that defects within states cause wars, and democratic states are less likely to go to war when compared to authoritarian states since they are more attuned to the wishes of its citizens and are hence also more likely to cooperate for mutual benefit. (Waltz, 2001)One of the major criticisms mounted against this image by Waltz in his book is that most analyses are vague when it comes to a replacement for war as a system of settling disputes and most of them seem to suggest a somewhat arbitrary method of resolving disputes. Waltz also says that if liberals extended their logic further, they would see that their analysis and the resulting prescription for peace is rather impractical and far-fetched. It is almost as if what one should do for world peace is just wait for more states to embrace democracy.

This leads us to the third criticism, which is that this analysis is an inadequately supported generalization since expecting a single way of state organization to result in world peace discounts the complexities of the relations between the states of the world. (Waltz, 2001)The third image is based on the assumption of anarchy and that “in anarchy there is no automatic harmony”. (Waltz, 2001)He begins the chapter by comparing the thoughts of Rousseau, who seems to have influenced him the most with those of Spinoza and Kant. Though both Kant and Rousseau start from agreeing that a civil government is what is necessary to keep the behavior of people in line with the interests of the population, Kant does not let him lead him to the conclusion that a world government is necessary, mainly due to the fear that it will end up becoming a despotism and stifle the liberties of its subjects. The criticism levelled against Kant in this respect becomes obvious; there is a clear inconsistency here, he agrees that a government is necessary to maintain peace within the state but he also tries to establish that states will learn from previous miscalculations and start cooperating of their own accord. (Waltz, 2001)

Waltz then examines Rousseau in more detail before applying it to international relations, thus leading on to his neorealist theory. Rousseau differentiates between two cases; states as they are, and states as they should be. Regarding the latter, Rousseau says that they will represent the will of the population and the state will be considered a single unit. This allows him to extend his analysis of humans to states. He disagrees with Kant at this point and says that though the actions of the state are in accordance to the will of its population and they intend to be just, it could not be completely agreeable to other states, thus leaving wide open the possibility of a just state entering into an unjust war. This leads us to Rousseau’s most important area of contention with Kant; where Kant does not follow his reasoning to its logical conclusion, Rousseau does so and states that a voluntary organization is indeed necessary to bind the states of the world if peace is to be maintained.

In a nutshell, Rousseau seems to be saying that “war occurs because there is nothing to prevent it”. (Waltz, 2001)From here, Waltz moves to international relations theory in the penultimate chapter of the book. He begins with his views on the balance of power. He raises questions about the legitimacy of the balance of power approach and says “these questions can be answered only by looking more closely at the logic of the balance of power, a logic that is intimately connected with the third image” (Waltz, 2001). He uses game theory to expound his theory; stating that the activities in which people and states engage in are seldom zero-sum games and that it corresponds more to a general game, a type of game in which moves may exist which are beneficial to all parties involved and that the strategy of any one player depends on the strategy of the other players. He then says that if survival was the only goal in mind for states, military forces need not be maintained.

However, if one state started to show signs that simply surviving didn’t satisfy its appetite, then other states will also start strengthening themselves. He also says that states will be on the look out for a coalition since more often than not, states which cooperate are at an advantage when compared to the others who do not look to cooperate with other states. This shows that the balance of power has a firm base of reasoning, and that it is definitely more than an unusually long-lasting delusion. Waltz is so convinced of the legitimacy of the balance of power, he says that even if people who are anti-balance of power were at the helm of a state, they might tend to act in ways that perpetuate such a balance just by virtue of reacting to the actions of other states and that this need not negate their disavowal of balance of power politics.