In his article, "The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory," Kenneth N. Waltz describes the world of bipolarity. Since the article was written in 1988, this makes perfect sense. The Cold War was about to reach an end and no one could yet contemplate any other possible way for the world to work than for the United States and the Soviet Union to dominate it.
Though Waltz mentions the contrasting possible world of multipolarity, he never actually provides an example for how this kind of dynamic is much more unstable than the bipolar world he favors in the article. He also completely neglects to even consider the world of unipolarity. What happens when the Soviet Union collapses, and for a period of time the United States is the only dominant world power? (Since this became a reality just a few years later...)
Waltz description of the contemporary international dynamic was completely dead on at the time, but he was arguing for something that was already a reality, and clearly not the best situation to be in, without considering an alternative. Waltz commends the arms race, saying it was the only way for the world to avoid another world war...
But he never considered a different world? He never thought that, once again the power-balance could shift and the dynamic change entirely? Waltz failed to consider any alternative to his own theory. Aside from his blatant once sided argument for deterrence (which would be an essay in itself, so I won't touch on that here), he provides a one sided structural argument as well.
Waltz states, "Deterrence is more easily achieved than most military strategists would have us believe... In a nuclear world, a country cannot sensibly attack unless it believes success is assured," (626). What is the attacking party's definition of success? What if the attacking party is not a country?
I suppose in 1988, there was no reason for any scholar to consider these possibilities: terrorism wasn't on the real danger radar for an other few years... Yet, it would have been nice if the article was not so one sided and at least provided a counterargument to combat competing perspectives and alternative possibilities. There is clearly a reason that the multiple world powers now in existence want nuclear weapons abolished entirely, a reason that Waltz fails to address in his assessment of a multipolar world.
Some comments on Waltz:
ReplyDeleteThe "evidence" for Waltz is relatively long periods of contentious politics among multiple entities in political systems, with only short periods of peace (ie 1815-1854; 1919-1939). He focused on Europe pre-dominantly since the nation-state as a political entity arose out of this political system; and the rest of the world was turning into nation-states. He was looking at these European struggles and saw great powers rise and compete against each other. He saw that as a relative "regularity". Thus, he would ask: why consider other systems when they will eventually breakdown into great power competition?
Bipolarity in the international system, in Waltz's estimation of history, was relatively new. As he saw it, this could be an easier equilibrium (of power/capability) to manage than multiple party equilibrium. In this sense, you are correct, Waltz was a structuralist and would not deny this. His response would be: show me evidence of long-standing relations of unbalanced power where the powerful does not dominate the weak. Unfortunately, I think Waltz did not live long enough to see this hypothesis properly answered (for him). Put it this way: if multi-party war does not occur in the next 50-100 years, I think he would have been convinced.
Couple quick final points: "success" is domination/control. States are the units of analysis, so non-state actors are of little consequence in the foreseeable future. Terrorism, for Waltz, meant relatively little, since he thought a war between nuclear powers would be between states, not terrorists. Waltz would revise his position if a terrorist political party controlled a state and its assets. I listed two articles of Waltz as a comment somewhere on the Course Wall. Check them out if you are interested further.