Introduction
War and conflict in the international system can be explained through theoretical viewpoints of scholars; Kenneth Waltz’s and John Mearsheimers Neo Realism or Structural Realism and the anarchic structure of the international system and the distribution of world power; Classical Realism and its association with humans’ aggressive ‘nature’ and the differences with neo-realism or structural realism, as well as, the similarities between the two theories. Immanuel Kant’s Liberalism with motives that dissuade state sponsored violence can all be used to explain war and conflict in the international system. The cold war is prime case study in which all three of these theories can be shown in action in real world history.
Neo Realism:
Neo-Realism or Structural Realism is the theory that the world is in an anarchic state and there is no absolute power or governing body that set out rules and regulations. Therefore, power is the most important factor in international relations to achieve self-preservation of states in a Neo-Realist aspect. There are two stems to Neo-Realism, an offensive realism and defensive realism, both stems of Neo-Realism believe the same structural system is in place is the causation of why states conflict and are at war for the competition of being most powerful and that war and conflict is inevitable. One stem being John Mearsheimer’s Offensive Realism offers the idea that states behaviour caused by acknowledging that in order to maintain the security of their state against the rest of the world they must be hegemonic amongst other world powers to survive in the anarchic state of the world but different states desire This then removes any future or current possibility of breaches to their security from other states. The other stem is Defensive Realism is the stem of Neo-Realism that believes the majority of states, the status quo states, in an anarchic system aim to maintain a balance of power this way they maintain their security. A key element that is common between the two stems of Neo-Realism is that stability in an anarchic structural system is optimised in a bi-polar world.
Neo-Realism can be used to explain why we have war and conflict as states can never be certain about the intentions of other states which can create a large margin for miscommunication or misinterpretation of another states security aims or offensive capabilities which in turn will generate more tension and conflict in the international system. Offensive realists will focus on being aggressive in nature to obtain hegemony and expand military capabilities while defensive realists at the same time are trying to secure their borders to help themselves in surviving in the anarchic structural system. When both coexisting, likelihood of war and conflict is heightened.
The Cold War is a fitting example for displaying Neo-realism in our international political history; After World War Two, the Soviet Union’s post war aims were to rebuild its borders and to strengthen them to prevent future invasion and infiltration, this is the defensive realist stem of Neo-Realism. However, the United States can be viewed as the more offensive realist stem as while the Soviet Union was attempting to strengthen its borders, the United States had misread this as Soviet expansionism and spreading communism, both of which hinder the United States’ position of power in the world at the time. This then eventually grew in to much longer lasting conflict and proxy wars. Both states military capabilities spiralled into both states becoming offensive and defensive at the same time, for example NATO and Cominform, possessing values of both creating a security dilemma during the arms race, Mearsheimer and Waltz, who also believe that the bi-polarity is a safer playing field; in turn, the US and Soviet Union would never be at war with each other – they only had proxy wars and conflict.
Classical Realism:
Classical Realism as a theory was incorporated into the international political scene post World War two, a theory that Waltz and Mearsheimer built off of. Hans Morgenthau brought the viewpoint that humans are naturally aggressive and maximising their power is their objective. Classical Realism shares some components with Neo-Realism,
Classical realists believe the structure of the world is anarchic with no supranational authority to impose sanctions on other states for their actions or set out rules and regulations. State actors want to preserve themselves and secure themselves, as said by Thomas Hobbes, with rational thinking and do so by increasing military capabilities and/or expanding and will do so at the expense of economic wealth. The human nature of the states, the focus to enforce self-interests on an international scale is what makes up the international system. State actors will build up their military capabilities for security but this often creates a Security dilemma and in turn only relative gains can be succeeded by state actors.
Classical Realism can explain why we have war and conflict in the international system as the human nature is aggressive, their international political acts mirror and are aggressive when attempting to maximise their power and influence in the international scope. Aggressive actions can affect the rationality of other state actors as it may collide with their security policies. Since Classical realism is pursuing self-interests, it blocks out any consideration for other state actors interests which leads into conflict and war. This is shown during the Cold War; the Vietnam war was a proxy war fought by the United States and the Vietcong with aims to neutralise the spread of communism in Far East Asia and prevent a domino effect. One of the United States security aims was containment policy, to contain communism and to minimise its sphere of influence. This in the eyes of a classical realist can be deemed a rational decision as it would the United States pursuing their own self-interests to preserve their level of superiority in the international climate at the time and the money spent on the war was deemed necessary as self-interests and maximising power is of more importance than economic wealth and will spend until their self interests are fulfilled.
Liberalism:
Liberalism focuses on international governmental organisations and non-government organisations meaning it steers away from the power element that neo-realism and classical realism featured. Immanuel Kant set out a different path to the international relations with states, cooperation between states and working together to benefit each other would work out more peaceful and would avoid war. The role of organisations such as the United Nations essentially took place of the missing supranational authority and rules and regulations were enforced through trade sanctions which can damage economic growth and the stability of a nation. Democracies are less likely and less inclined to go to war with other democratic countries because of the economic ties they have with each other. Kant’s approach is more peaceful than that of classic realism and neo-realism because it eliminates the desire to be the most powerful state. However, when there is a state that doesn’t scare economic ties or positive international relations it is much harder to impose such stringent changes to the third party’s policies.
The cold war throughout is a main example of this as from the start it wasn’t just an geographical “iron curtain” it was an economical one too, the two polar opposites were competing but within their own sphere of influence Immanuel Kant’s liberalism applies; the USSR was able to trade with China and use its own infrastructure and resources to grow, although minimal, Kant’s theory was replicated on the other side of the iron curtain as well. Although Kant’s theory promotes peace and diplomacy it can also explain war and conflict. When states get greedy or “fed up” with being part of the organisation they can get greedy and move away from the states it has built relations with causing conflict. Diplomatic talks regarding Berlin when discussing borders never reached an agreement, the USSR gave up and essentially built a wall, the Berlin Wall, and resulted in a standoff at checkpoint Charlie which was the closest the USSR and the US had been to head on head war with each other since the start of the Cold War.
Conclusion
Overall, it is reasonable to conclude that with the Cold War as a case study, as the timeline progressed more liberalist views were emerging. Although the cold war started off with diplomacy, the aggressive nature of both the USSR and the US was prominently Neo-Realist and Classical Realist as the Cold War went on different leaders had come into power thus different human interactions affected relations and can explain conflict and war in the international system. As the leadership in the USSR became less aggressive, less realist, with the death of Krushchev and the election of Gorbachev the realism theories shift to more liberal. Given the state of the international system after the Cold War the ideology of Liberalism is more dominant, the promotion of international trade and international organisations had promoted more peace and the world isn’t bi-polar anymore, most of the power sits in the western world which contrasts with the Neo-realist view that war is less likely in a bi-polar world.