- Written by AJ Reibel, MIR
Some scholars state that a uni-polar world replaced the bi-polar one as competing state interests lost relevance with the emergence of a single hegemonic power[1]. Others argue that the globalized world shrunk and “…intrastate violence seems to have taken the place of interstate war.”[2] While the world has changed since the end of the Cold War, tensions and state competition continue to belie the assumption that power politics and anarchy no longer exist. Neorealism remains an effective International Relations paradigm. Likewise, traditional state instruments – including both hard and soft power – remain vital to statecraft and foreign policy.
Throughout the world states continue to act in their self-interest despite the draw of multilateral approaches and the rise of regional trade groupings. China’s position at the recent Climate Change summit in Copenhagen serves as an example. To safeguard its own geopolitical interests Beijing took the lead in arguing against binding carbon emissions reductions for developing states.[3]
Similarly, Russia’s current strong-arm strategy regarding Uzbekistan has little to do with concerns over Tashkent’s ongoing gas and water dispute with Tajikistan, but rather with its independent role in a region again dominated by Moscow.[4] As a significant source of gas, Russia cannot afford to allow Tashkent to threaten its hydrocarbon interests by pursuing independent policies.
China and Russia are not alone in the use of power-politics to pursue self-interest. Israel has hamstrung the Kremlin’s ability to provide Tehran with continued nuclear technology transfers and anti-aircraft missile systems. To counter Moscow’s plan to use Iran as a counterweight to growing American influence in the Former Soviet Union, Israel has discussed weapons sales, strategic military training, and technology transfer with Russia’s neighbours.[5]
States continue to act in their own self-interest because they fear emergent powers will threaten their security by blocking their access to resources. To safeguard their position, states employ a variety of hard-power instruments, including military force, temporary alliances, intelligence collection, disinformation campaigns, and economic and trade pressure.
What appears to be an international community built on normative laws and economic cooperation is nothing more than an anarchical society[6] of states all seeking to maximise their power vis-à-vis other states. The notion that the creation of the UN ushered in an international system based on the rule of law is flawed. The UN is neither able to stop brutal civil wars[7], nor is it capable of addressing the systemic challenge posed by transnational criminal and terrorist networks.
Likewise, the European Union does not offer a viable alternative to the status quo. Not only is it unable to construct a coherent foreign policy and field a unified military force, but it faces internal division as its member states continue to pursue their interests at the expense of cohesion. Momentum to create an EU rapid-reaction force has bogged down as Paris and Berlin disagree about the future of Europe and which one will take the lead. George Friedman suggests that Europe will “…have a lot more in common with Europe of 1913 than with Europe of 2000.”[8]
Even Free Trade Agreements have failed to arrest state-centric behaviour. It is no surprise that Australia and New Zealand – both of which share similar histories and geopolitical considerations – routinely pursue their own interests over full trade harmonization. Australia continues to block the importation of New Zealand apples and pork as a means of safeguarding local producers.
As explained by Neorealists, in the absence of world government anarchy prevails, and traditional instruments of power remain important. As a result, prudence and pragmatism remain “supreme virtues in international politics.”[9] There is, however, a need to amplify the set of instruments of statecraft. Non-state challenges – including terrorism, narcotics, and small arms and people trafficking – often pose more significant threats to state security than nuclear war.[10] Increasingly, economic development, sustained propaganda campaigns[11], strategic alliances, and unconventional military strategies will be used to confront non-state challenges.
______________
[1] Although related, the question of whether the US is a hegemonic or imperial power is a separate issue.
[2] Martin Griffiths, Terry O’Callaghan, Steven C Roach, International Relations: The Key Concepts (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 270.
[3] __, “China: Carbon, Coal and Copenhagen,” STRATFOR, December 16, 2009, http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20091216_china_carbon_coal_and_copenhagen.
[4] Uzbekistan largely self-sufficient in terms of food and energy production and as it does not share a border with Russia the Kremlin has found it difficult to keep Uzbekistan dependent on it.
[5] Israel had discussed weapon sales to Poland, and the Ukraine. In addition, the Kremlin is concerned that Israeli firms will resume training Georgian military forces. Taken from: __, “Israel: Paying a Visit to Poland and the Czech Republic,” STRATFOR, October 12, 2009, http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20091012_israel_paying_visit_poland_and_czech_republic. Additional details on recent offers of weapon sales to Poland and the Czech Republic can be found at: Grzegorz Holdanowicz, “Bumar, IAI propose leasing MRTT aircraft to Poland,” Jane’s Defence Weekly, Vol. 46, Iss. 37, 16 September 2009, 16.
[6] Taken from Hedley Bull’s criticism of Realism and his argument in favor of an international society based on normative values and expected behavior. For more information, see: Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977).
[7] Recent examples include ongoing civil wars in Sudan and Myanmar.
[8] __, “Geopolitical Diary: The Return of Europe,” STRATFOR, December 7, 2007, http://www.stratfor.com/geopolitical_diary/geopolitical_diary_return_europe.
[9] Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1948), 9.
[10] Paul J. Smith, “Transnational Security Threats and State Survival: A Role for the Military?” Parameters (Autumn, 2000): 77-91, http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/00autumn/smith.htm.
[11] Here I allude to Joseph Nye’s discussion of soft-power. States are able to further their interests by persuading the inhabitants of weaker states through less obvious means. Joseph Nye asserts that soft power – based on the attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies – is a form of power that, if used effectively, can supplement a country’s overall ability to obtain desired outcomes. For more information, see: Joseph S. Nye, Jr. “Soft Power and American Foreign Policy,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 119, No. 2 (2004): 255-270.
Posts
