On Anarchy

After reading Alexander Wendt’s article I have a few problems with Constructivism. I understand the argument that anarchy and the relationships between states are socially constructed. I think Wendt is trying to say that the idea that all states are competing against each other, is not a universal timeless principle. Instead it has been created through repeated interactions. I think this is a very interesting argument. The way that we view ourselves and other people/states/actors does have an effect on our relationship with them. How could it not? But at the same I tend to think that human nature when you get down to it is still violent and self-serving. I have trouble thinking that there isn’t some inherent conflict and competition built into the system of international relations. Maybe I am just to cynical or pessimistic but I believe that when you get right down to it, anarchy will always be there because of human nature. There are lots of things that we can do it reduce anarchy, such as international institutions, and changing our perception of enemies into that of friends, but in the end we could still invade them if we wanted to, and who’s to say that we wouldn’t want to invade them. The logical argument against what I am saying is that I have just been taught through a process of social construction that human nature is violent and self-serving. And that if I hadn’t been taught this I wouldn’t intrinsically believe this. And I understand that argument also but I just cant convince myself to believe it. Maybe it is my cynicism, or maybe I’m just right. But either way I still believe in anarchy.

Matt Bank

Pink, it's the new Purple

Someone in class on Thursday made the comment that liberalism is the new realism. This argument was supported by the fact that in liberalism states are much more focused on their own well being and not so concerned with how other states are doing. This seems like it should be realist because the state is solely focused on its self and not anyone else. That sounds realist doesn’t it? No. Saying that in realism the state is only concerned with itself is selling realism short. Realism does not purport to say that states are only concerned with themselves. In realism states are constantly worried about other states. This is because the major concern in realism is security. Understanding security requires one to look outside of the borders of his or her own state and analyze other states. Realism is very much focused on other states because that is where threats to survival will come from. Just look at some of the basic tenements of realism, balance of power, deterrence, zero-sum game, all of these only work if states are concerned about more than just themselves. In a realist world states are continuously trying to figure out what their neighbors are doing and how they can stop them from gaining power relative to the home state. This brings me to another central point of realism, relative gains. Realism is concerned with relative, not absolute gains. In realism the only power that matters is how much more or less you have relative to other states. It doesn’t do you any good to gain power if everyone else gains more. This is because if other states are gaining more power than you this will increase their ability to thrust their will upon you. Power only works if you gain it at the expense of another. Thus the measure of a state is wholly focused on the ratio of power between two states. Thus realism is outwardly looking.

Once again in realism the state is not concerned with only itself, it is also very concerned with all the other states.

Matt Bank

Money Money

I feel that public goods liberalism is a great way to look at “humanitarian” interventions. I have placed humanitarian inside of quotation marks because when I use that term I mean all sorts of things. Peace making operations such as those we have been reading about in Kosovo, peace keeping operations such as those in Afghanistan, and other sorts of situation where a nation places its troops on foreign soil with out the intent to conquer that nation. But back to public goods liberalism. I really like this theory because of the way that it looks at the costs of paying for the public good. The hegemon in the world system has to be willing to front much of the cost of humanitarian work in order for it to be completed. I feel that this is true because most other powers simply do not have the resources or the political clout to get the job done by them selves. They need the power that an actor such as the US is able to provide. This is why nothing seems to get done with out the US. We aren’t willing to do much about Darfur or Rwanda so nothing happens there. But we decided that intervention is necessary in Kosovo and Haiti so action is taken there. Clearly with out a great power nothing gets done.

It all goes back to costs. Humanitarian interventions cost a lot but provide very little in the way of direct benefits. It is very difficult for a government to risk its military forces for people that it is not even responsible for protecting. The issue of free riding is also a problem. Countries would be less willing to put up the cost if other countries will gain the benefits with out paying. So it really is up to a hegemon that has vastly more resources and power than any other nation to pay for a humanitarian intervention.

Thus I feel that public goods liberalism is a good way to explain humanitarian intervention because it shows how it is largely dependent on the willingness of a hegemon to act. And if we look at the history of the world since the end of the cold war when there has only been one super power interventions have only really happened when the US has decided that they were necessary.

Matt Bank

Anarchy and Turkey Bacon

So what exactly is the opposite of anarchy? The consensus in class seemed to be a hierarchy but I don’t think that this necessarily gets rid of anarchy. The argument that a higher power will force all the smaller actors to follow its will is not true. Ultimately the only rules that apply to an actor are the rules that they place upon themselves, or the ones that are applied by others with force. That is the problem with the UN; its only authority comes if a state decides to listen to it, or if the UN votes to use force which almost never happens.

Ultimately this same idea applies to more local levels. The state only has authority over the actions of its citizens if they decided to give it to them, or if the state has bigger and better guns. Robbery was outlawed many years ago in the United States, yet people are still robed. Clearly just making a law doesn’t mean that everyone will follow it, even if there is a strong and recognized hierarchy in place. The only way that you can be punished for breaking a law, is if you decided to give yourself up or if the government has more power than you. I would be willing to bet that if I had a nuclear weapon the cops wouldn’t try to arrest me for robbery. Or if they wanted to it would require that they use quite a lot of their power.

Think of the rent-a-cops at AU. Theoretically they have authority over me in the university hierarchy, but they cannot stop by from breaking the rules that I don’t want to follow. I would give examples but I know better than to brag about committing crimes on-line. And even if they catch me the only reason that they can ultimately punish me is because they have more power than I do. They have the ability to expel me, and I pretty much have nothing on my side. But if I didn’t go to school they loose all their power and they can’t punish me. The only authority that they have is the power that they are willing to use against me. Thus their is no authority, only power.

IT’S ANARCHY BABY!!!!!!
The strong do what they can,
The weak suffer what they must.

Thus anarchy is always there even on the smallest of scales. Thus the only way to ever truly be free of it is if there is only one actor. The only way to get rid of anarchy in the international system is for there to only be one state, and thus no international system. As long as there is more than one actor each actor can ultimately do whatever they want and it all comes down to who has more power. There are no rules, just the limitations of our own power and our ability to harness that power.

Matt Bank