Realists like to look upon national leaders for causing war between states. Looking at September 11, realists and many ordinary people thought that the US should not have gone to war. From a realists perspective you would look towards Bush as the cause. In this situation there are many reasons to have Bush’s head. The fact that he was advised not to go to war was well-documented and also the fact he never discussed the response of Mullah Omen, the Taliban leader with Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Council or any other advisors show why realists have this perspective on war. This is why realists look towards national leaders when discussing the causes of war.
Looking at the level of analysis with the realists approach, I would have to say it is both the individual and interstate level. The individual level, because this level looks at choices and mistakes made by national leaders. I have also said the interstate level because wars, by realists, are a consequence of an absence of anarchy, which is the absence of central government. Another event that can perhaps explain the level of analysis is the Hutton Inquiry, which may not be a war, but the level of analysis associated with this is both the individual (Dr. Kelly) and interstate level (government). Through problems at these levels, the Hutton Inquiry has come about.
Now I have explained the realist’s perspective on war, I will now move onto the neorealist perspective on war.
As I have already explained before, neorealist is a type of realism, they are structural realists. Realists see the quest for power and limited material goods as a result of interstate conflict and competition.
The neorealist theory is that the behaviour of competitive states is shaped by changes in the distribution of global power more than in their domestic systems.
Neorealists who are frequently referred to as ‘structural realism’ or ‘defensive realism’ come into play with Waltz’s Theory of International Relations. Unlike realists, Waltz does not assume that great national leaders are aggressive because they have a greed for power. Instead he starts by saying that states merely aim to survive and above all else they seek security. The structure of the international system forces states to pay attention to the balance of power. In particular anarchy forces states to compete with each other for security and power, as this is the best means of survival. However acquiring too much power will cause other states to join forces, thereby leaving a state worse off than they would have been had they not seeked out more power. Waltz’s view on the causes of war is very little, but he does say that wars are largely the result of uncertainty, so if states know better they would not go to war.
For neorealist, the international system provides little incentive to seek out more power and go to war but instead it pushes and urges them to maintain a balance of power. This is yet another question to be asked on whether or not a balance of power can be maintained or will greed overcome states and their leaders. A balance of power can only be achieved, as states in a bipolar system know with more certainty which states are the potential threats and miscalculation is less likely to occur in a bipolar system.
The possession of nuclear weapons by both sides makes miscalculation even less likely as the balance of power is more secure. This has rarely occurred, but at one time between the US and the USSR, both had nuclear weapons which cancelled each other out (i.e. balance of power).
Classical realism emphasizes that the roots of armed conflict rests with human nature. In contrast, neorealists see war springing from changes at the global level of analysis.
So basically, neorealists see the changing in distribution of power within the international system as the primary cause of states behaviour.
This is said to be one of the causes of the First World War. After becoming a unified country in 1871, Germany became a much stronger state especially in the economy and used its growing wealth to create a formidable army and navy. Then in came Russia as another newly developed state and a threat to the Germans. Because of this change and several other factors (Austro-Hungarian Empire) the First World War came into existence.
As you can tell by the name, neorealism is in many ways similar to realism, but tends to look at the ‘bigger’ picture, as in it doesn’t look at a certain individual for answers but a whole state.
However liberalists have a completely different perspective on the explanation of war.
Liberalists think that war is the ‘use of force to prevent the use of force’. For example, the US must use military force (go to war) to stop forces such as the Saddam Hussein government. Unlike realists and neorealist, liberals show a distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ states. Where good states pursue cooperation and hardly ever start wars, and bad states cause conflicts with other states and tend to use force to get their way.
Liberals see war as a consequence of secret diplomacy and balance of power. Liberals main objective as the cause of war is to achieve peace. World peace can be achieved through creating an international system that binds states together. Organised cooperation between states is the true definition of peace. If this is achieved then war will less likely occur. However if disagreement occurs between states on a certain issue and both sides disagree towards the other, and does not want to obey the international law, then the result of this is war. This is the problem of trying to insert an international system which is bound by all states.
Sir Karl Popper, the liberal British philosopher, argued in 1992 that the West must not shrink from the idea that war is an unfortunate but unavoidable means to achieve peace or save the world. In an interview with Der Spiegel in April 1992, he supports the view that states such as United States and Europe, must undertake joint military action against people like Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Popper also added that he believed wars are caused as fears of aggression rather than acts of aggression. People fear this aggression with other states possessing weapons of mass destructing. This fear of aggression leads to states trying to dispossess others of their weapons, which can lead to wars, to prevent wars. For instance the war on Iraq and Saddam Hussein is exactly for this reason; Saddam Hussein was allegedly to have possession of weapons of mass destruction, so the US asked him to destroy them and he wouldn’t. So a war broke out and in the end a lot of people were killed. The amazing thing was that no weapons of mass destruction were found which led to the Hutton Inquiry.
In contrast to realism, liberalists have a more optimistic view of the world, they see that economic interests are the main components for new and more acceptable power.
Liberals have this strong case that the creation of global democracy will create ‘democratic peace’, therefore, avoiding wars. However the risk with this is that, certain states will fall short of the agreement in having a global democracy and will want to have their own independent state, away from the influence of others. This would then lead to other states protesting against the state and an eventual war will break out.
Another thing the liberals believe is that world peace will only be achieved through a spread of democracy.
In conclusion, I would have to agree with Waltz, even though it seems hard to accept the idea that peace will be achieved without conflict, the idea of having a bipolar system is not likeable but is effective. However the problem in today’s society is that bipolarity is becoming more and more of a ‘uni-polarity’ lead by the United States. The way in which the US has stepped up its superior power and rise above the rest, is one that in today will create a lot of conflict. Therefore, I will have to say, I would see realism as most valid and in particular neorealist. At the present moment it is too hard to go against the US, but if there was an equal opposing force then the bipolarity system would come into effect and hopefully from looking at past events would decrease the chances of a war being erupted. Also if we think of improving states to become more equal, it will still leave us in the same situation. Because no matter what happens, we can always see the same nations become stronger militarily and economically, and the ‘weaker’ states always playing ‘catch up’ with these states. Therefore I would have to say that if there is at least a bipolar system with two big powerful states then at least peace and cooperation can be achieved and wars less likely to occur.
Bibliography
Kegley W, D. & Wittkop R E., World Politics, Boston, New York,
Goldstein. J., International Relations, New York, Longman, 2003
Nicholson. M., International Relations A concise introduction, Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1998
Sandel, M, J., Liberalism and the limits of justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Donelly, J., Realism and International Relations, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000
www1.columbia.edu/sec/bboard/003/inaf6804-001/msg00025.html