ENTERING the 21st century, two trends are emerging in regards with IRs (international relations) scholars. First, as John Mearsheimer himself wrote, IRs scholars are sprawling all over the globe. It is much different from post-World War I or during the Cold War when the scholars mainly resided in Europe and the United States, respectively. Second, IRs scholars are (arguably) increasingly inclining towards liberalism or constructivism. Significant part of the society are disseminating ideas and predictions that are not just too optimistic, but ever more irrelevant to the reality of the world.
This second trend is evident from the declining popularity of realism. As Graham Allison of Harvard nicely put it, “realist is an endangered species.” And it is a regrettable irony, especially if one considers that it is impossible not to appreciate the wisdom of realism while carefully studying history of world politics.
THE underlying problem is how people nowadays (with the exception of the neoconservative) tend to discount the importance of power (or of realpolitik). They tend to view the IRs realm – the realm of relations between sovereign states – as no different with domestic realm – the relations between individuals in a state.
In short, people believe that the world is governed by law and that 21st century world represents law-based global order. They believe that law will preserve their equal rights as a sovereign state and somehow when those laws are broken (by revisionist states), they trust that the international system will punish the perpetrator. Furthermore, the notion that economic interdependence has somehow suppressed the number of revisionist states seems not losing its charm – even though it lacks the historical basis.
Most of all, most people failed to notice that the laws were written mostly by the world superpower of the day and preserved by the very same superpower – that is the United States. For sure, the laws are accepted (and even ratified) through various means by countries around the world. But try to ask ourselves, were they accepted it because it is their preferred terms? Or were it because of their inability to influence the formulation of the laws – and to avoid sanctions from the superpower had they chose not to accept the law? Given another circumstances, let say Indonesia or China or any other states were the superpower of 1945, would they dictate the same law for the entire world? I do not think so.
The same critics go to the notion of economic interdependence. Do states prefer to abandon its interest – let say, in reshaping regional order in their preferred terms – because of their fear of breaking the lucrative economic ties or is it because of their inferior power? In other words, is it because of their lust for wealth or because of inability to secure their interest? History gives us plenty of evident that the latter is the much better answer. After all, political and security considerations often trump economic one in international politics.
It is an illustration to show us an understanding of what one state can (or cannot) do with regards to the possession of their power. And as in the age of ancient Greece, the most important component of one’s power today is the military power.
For sure, economic power is important, but it is more of a means to enable one state to expand its military power. To make it simple, imagine economic power as a shaft of a spear and military power as the spearhead. It is definitely impossible to have a well-functioning spear without a good shaft. Nevertheless, the thing can never be called a spear without a spearhead. Without one, it is just a wooden stick and losing its effectiveness. Put it simply, economy is merely the foundation of national power.
One can counter that by asking, “What is the importance of military power if war is inconceivable?” It would be proper to counter that with Graham Allison’s own question, “when we say that war is ‘inconceivable,’ is this a statement about what is possible in the world – or only about what our limited minds can conceive?”
It is important to keep in mind that there always exist possibilities of war to erupt. After all, a keen student of history would have known that war used to start unintentionally. It is explainable yet difficult to predict and it used to be the results of a series of mistakes and misperceptions, of underestimations and overestimations. Given the replay option, it is doubtful that statesmen would chose options that would re-lead their states to war.
Given such uncertainty, it is imprudent to discard the relevance of military power – especially if our state is a strategic one geographically. Military power is an instrument to hurt someone’s in time of worst (re: war). In other words, it is a powerful instrument to force other to bend their will and accept ours in war. If other states believe that we do not have superior military power and therefore unable to dictate the strategic circumstances in time of worst, how can we expect to be respected and influential in a better time (re: peacetime)?
