EKIP– Expert Club for Economics and Politics A Different Opinion
The countries of the world are like people in their natural state. They are neither perfectly good nor can they be controlled by law.
- Kenneth Waltz from Man, the State and War, 1954
The end of the Cold War was a triumph for international relations theorists who had rejected the “balance of power” as the primary explanation for human history. For people like Francis Fukuyama, 1989 became a symbol of the triumph of one ideology over all other alternatives. It was also a moment of gloating over “neorealism” and its creator, Kenneth Waltz, who passed away last week, days before his 89th birthday. Waltz, who had defended the Cold War bipolar model as the most stable international structure, was ridiculed by some of his colleagues, who were quick to declare the end of history.
Only a year after the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, history returned with all its force to the Balkans. And again, concepts such as balance of power, confrontation between the Great Powers and spheres of influence appeared in the vocabulary of observers and journalists. It is no coincidence that Waltz himself in 1993 wrote his famous article, Structural Realism in the 21st Century, where he accurately warned liberals that the global order based on the hegemony of one country, the USA, is a temporary phenomenon and that it will certainly provoke balancing by other players on the international stage. He also criticized the idea that globalization and economic interconnectedness are a guarantee of international security. He recalls that it was before the First World War that globalization was at its highest levels and this did not prevent the outbreak of the largest conflict in history up to that time. It is the interconnectedness of the countries that makes their interests mutually exclusive and thus creates the conditions for a direct clash.
Waltz's words have been confirmed over the past 5-6 years, during which we have observed a gradual change in relations between the geopolitical rivals of the United States. Unlike the 1990s, when everyone more or less supported the American position, the war in Iraq and later the global economic crisis gave Russia, China, Brazil and India an opportunity to come together, uniting around the common idea of not allowing the United States to dictate decisions on major political and economic issues. Although we cannot yet talk about military balancing due to the huge lead of the American army over all its competitors taken together, we are already seeing manifestations of "soft balancing" in the form of joint initiatives such as BRICS or the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in the field of security.
The balancing act is also very clearly visible in the conflict in Syria and the negotiations with Iran. Russia and China, originally rivals with widely differing positions, are now ready to cooperate to deter unilateral US intervention. Given the fact that both countries are planning gigantic increases in their military budgets, the trend towards geopolitical confrontation will continue.
Waltz and Anarchy
Where does the process of balancing power come from? Waltz's answer is very simple, which is one of the reasons for the huge controversy surrounding his theories. According to the now deceased American professor, the international system has an anarchic structure, in which there is no suprasovereign element controlling the actions of individual countries. Each country is responsible for its own security, which makes it look for allies, feeling the threat of a dominant player. That is why Waltz does not believe that a hegemon can exist for a long time, because sooner or later the other countries will try to protect their interests by uniting against it.
In terms of the distribution of power, according to him, there can be only two systems – bipolar and multipolar. The bipolar model is the most stable because the two great powers cannot take a decisive advantage in a direct clash and because they can control their allies without allowing them independent policies. The multipolar model, which preceded both world wars, is characterized by constant changes in alliances depending on the distribution of power at a given moment. This forces the main players to take into account their smaller partners, taking away flexibility in their strategies. The unpredictable moves of states increase the risk of unwanted war. Leaders cannot avoid the development of events, because actions are dictated by the structure of the international system, not by domestic political decisions. Paradoxically, the desire for security leads countries to disastrous decisions such as a preemptive attack or an ill-considered alliance. Although it is far-fetched to talk about a multipolar structure today, it is important to remember that no hegemonic system has lasted indefinitely without a counterweight.
Waltz and nuclear weapons
Waltz's other key theory concerns the role of nuclear weapons in international relations. Here too, his ideas have generated controversy and heated debate. In 1980, in his article The Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: The More, the Better, he argued that the presence of a large number of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union is a fundamental reason for peace between the two powers. The threat of mutual destruction after an exchange of nuclear strikes makes them very careful in their choice of strategy and provocations. Waltz's critics have accused him of playing with fire by advising world leaders to continue their armaments. In their opinion, the consequences of an accidental use of a nuclear missile are so nightmarish that nothing can justify their existence.
Waltz did not change his position until the end of his life. On the contrary, he used his reasoning about the deterrent power of nuclear weapons to defend Iran's nuclear program. For him, the only way to establish a balance of power in the Middle East is nuclear parity between Iran and Israel. This dictates the structure of international relations in the region, and by trying to oppose it, we only increase Iran's isolation and hostility. In its attempt to preserve its sovereignty, the country could easily be pushed to desperate actions such as direct military intervention in the conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and even Palestine.
The first and only
Much as he was hated by his critics, even they could not help but acknowledge Waltz's contribution to the development of a comprehensive theory of international relations. Unlike his predecessors and, to a large extent, his successors, Waltz avoided the trap of historical analysis. He insisted that the framework of the study must be fixed so that the theory is consistent. It must clearly isolate the phenomenon under study (the actions of the parties) from the causes that give rise to it. In this way, he avoided the vicious circle in which historians fall, trying to show that everything depends on everything else. A good theory of international relations does not try to explain everything (that is simply impossible), but to outline general trends.
Yet how can we explain the collapse of the Soviet Union if Waltz's model is so good? Waltz admits that his theory did not predict the end of the Cold War. However, he insists that just because there has been a redistribution of power does not mean that the world has changed much. Anarchy and the survival instinct of states are still the basic principles guiding international relations. The existence of a single hegemonic power does not change the system entirely. In this "unipolar model," as Waltz calls it, lies the germ of a new balance of power. What that will look like is difficult to predict. One thing is clear - history has not reached its end, because it is driven by a mechanism beyond our own control.
