Download Complex Interdependence: Challenging Structural Realism's Conceptions of Security and more Slides International Relations in PDF only on Docsity!
To What Extend Complex Interdependence Theorists Challenge to Structural Realist School of International Relations?
Hüseyin IŞIKSAL*
In his survey of the discipline, Banks discusses the evolution of international relations theory in terms of three ‘great debates’.^1 The first debate referred to the dualism between idealism and realism and the second one referred to the behaviouralism- traditionalism debate. The third such debate - the inter-paradigm debate - involves realism, pluralism and structuralism. Therefore, one of the fundamental discussions of International Relations in theoretical terms at advanced level appeared as how does ‘pluralism’ possess a challenge to the realist school of international relations? Within the pluralist school, especially Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye’s contributions to the development of the international relations theory were remarkable especially with their influential book ‘Power and Interdependence’ that introduced the conception of ‘complex interdependence’. If one assumes that the late Twentieth Century has brought considerable intellectual challenges to Realist understandings of International Relations, there is no or little doubt that Keohane and Nye play one of the dominant role in the early formation of this challenge.
One of the basic assumption of Keohane and Nye is, in the era of interdependence, the very nature of world politics is changing. Therefore, the task of Keohane and Nye as defined by themselves in ‘Power and Interdependence’ is “to provide a means of distilling and joining the positions in both modernist and traditionalist perspectives by developing a coherent and theoretical framework for the political analysis of interdependence”. 2 For the realist school, although it had weakened by variety of paradigms at different times, it still presumed as one of the dominant theories within the field of International Relations. Nevertheless, in this broad school there are too many realist theorists that differ on their assumptions and perceptions. Moreover, realist school offers very broad approach on understanding of International Relations Theory, which makes it very complicated and difficult to analyze. Eventually, for the sake of healthy examination, I preferred to focus on Kenneth Waltz’s structural realist paradigm and his thoughts about international security in this compare and contrast required study. One of the principal reasons for this preference is Kenneth Waltz’s reputation and challenge as being one of the dominant figures of structural realism especially after 1970s. Additionally, Waltz is generally accepted as the most systematic spokesmen for structural realism. The scarcity of room and the parameters of this paper limit its’ compare-based analysis not only between the theories and theorists but also on scope and conceptions. Stating in different words, the limited scope of this paper does not allow for very detailed comparison and contrast of structural realism and complex interdependence. In other words, since these two paradigms themselves constitute very broad scope in International Relations Theory, it is not possible to make detailed, acute and complete examination. Casually, my
foreign policy orientations of the states, and increasing role of the international institutions and influence of communication for mutual cultural ground. To epitomize, this research designed to provide the critique of structural realism with the aiming of to fill a gap in the theory based studies of International Relations on comparing and contrast structural realism versus interdependence theories. Stating differently, this study aimed to contribute to one of the classical debates in international relations leaving apart the speculation and policy oriented analyzes in the post September 11, 2001 period. Arguably, without having a solid grounding in basic but significant debates of international relations theory, a range of advanced and specialist discussions would be rootless. For this purpose, if I shall summarize the main argument of my study, it would be shown that once power ceases to be fungible, the international system is composed of multiple structures, each corresponding to a different issue-area. By challenging this fungibility assumption, complex interdependence provides a better understanding of changing security concerns of the states. There have been numerous changes in post Cold War era through increased multiple of communications and increase role of international institutions. Therefore, Keohane and Nye do successfully challenge to structural-realism security understandings simply because they successfully anticipate and demonstrated these transformations in world politics. As a last word, arguably, in order to understand the contemporary security concerns of the states, one needs to analyze both change and continuity rather than just continuity in international relations. Casually, in this new rhetoric at the international relations debate,
structural realism felt behind interdependence theories with its’ status quo oriented establishment. Structural Realism and Its’ Security Concerns In this section, I would focus on Waltz’s structural realism in order to conceptualize its’ security concerns. As have noted earlier, structural-realism developed by Waltz has been chosen because of its widespread acceptance within the discipline and because Waltz regarded as the most systemic spokesmen for contemporary structural realism.^3 The assumptions of Waltz mainly derived from his influential book of “Theory of International Politics”. Among the key assumptions of the realist paradigm, state is the most important actor and state power, in terms of military force, is the primary dynamic.^4 Furthermore, one other fundamental assumption of the realist understanding of international relations is utilization of the balance of power and according to the realist tradition, the purpose of such a balance is to achieve order. Finally, realist school suggests that there is anarchy in international relations with no ultimate authority over the states. Waltz uses these assumptions to develop a systemic theory where the internal attributes of actors are given by assumption rather than treated as variables. Outcomes are therefore determined by changes in the attributes of the system; the system being structure plus units. It is the concept of ‘structure’ that is central to structural-realism. The structure has three components: Firstly, the ordering principle; Waltz argues that the international system is anarchic, in the sense of no common government. In other words, Waltz contends that anarchy
integration among states is not easy and would be possible if only it serves the interests of the most powerful states. Therefore, transnational actors, corporations or institutions are politically unimportant comparative to states. It is the exercise of military power, threat and force that let the states to survive and achieving their ultimate objectives since the military force is ultimately necessary for states survival. Finally, it is the well-functioning balance of power theory that keeps the system stable. Waltz is critical of existing notions of balance of power theory. By examining the characteristics of the anarchic system, the expectations and outcomes associated with anarchic realms, Waltz able to posit a theory of balance of power that explains the systemic constraints, which influence unitary state actors to strive for balance of power. Casually, Waltz is able to conclude that ‘Balance of Power’ politics would prevail wherever two, and only two requirements are met: The international order should be anarchic and it should be populated by units that wishing to survive. Eventually, Waltz reaches to the conclusion that as the ordering principle remains constant, (anarchic) systemic change achieved through changes in the capabilities of the great powers. Having demonstrated this, Waltz concludes that small number systems are more stable than multipolar systems. Specifically, the most stable balance of power system is bi-polar system. To epitomize, in the light of these assumptions, Waltz appeared to limit the security concerns of the states only by military means. In other words, all states would seek military security that they focus at the first instance in the self-help system. As such, Waltz commented that:
“To achieve their objectives and maintain their security, units in a condition of anarchy must rely on the means they can generate and the arrangements that they can make for themselves…Self-help are necessarily the principle of action in an anarchic order”. 8 Therefore, according to Waltz, states could seek their security only through accumulation of military power in self-help environment. Furthermore, this security concern is valid for all states regardless their domestic power or establishments. In other words, since the ordering principle of the international system is anarchic, all states face the security dilemma and this would force them to perform exactly the same primary function. This function is to seek security through the accumulation of military power. Furthermore, by treating to all states as if the international relations goals were all the same, structural realism paradigm predicted that all international regimes directly reflect the politico-military pattern of capability. Accordingly, this is to suggest that states cannot broaden their security agenda beyond military security threats and national security is their foremost priority that would not questioned for any expense. Then, what about the post-Cold War era? After the brief summarize of structural realism and conceptualization of its security concerns, now it is the time to probe in greater detail structural realism in the post Cold War Era. With the re-unification of Germany, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and disintegration of the Soviet Union, the traditional bi-polar military structure in the world Europe was brought to an end. Casually, Kenneth Waltz has been strictly criticized in the post-Cold War era by failing to follow contemporary trends in world politics. However, in contrast, Waltz suggests that post Cold War era is the changes of the structural system rather than the changes in the system.^9 Therefore, in this era that is
the purposes of this analysis, paradigm would be defined as a set of fundamental assumptions. Theories are then derived from these assumptions. The initial assumption of Keohane and Nye is in era of interdependence the very nature of international relations is changing. 12 Therefore, the world has become more interdependent in economics, communications and human aspirations. The main actors of this era are ‘non-territorial’ actors such as multinational corporations, international organizations and trans-national social movements.^13 Furthermore, there are multiple of issues with no hierarchy and military concerns play relatively less importance. 14 Keohane and Nye discuss interdependence in the context of these assumptions. They begin by defining interdependence as a situation of mutual dependence where the loss of autonomy creates reciprocal costly effects. Therefore, complex interdependence does not just refer to situations of mutual benefit. Since postwar period was inadequate in analyzing the politics of interdependence, and traditional explanations of change become questionable, Keohane and Nye aimed to develop a coherent theoretical framework that could explain the continuity and change in world politics in order to demonstrate the reality of interdependence in contemporary world politics. To summarize, basically Keohane and Nye defined complex interdependence according to three characteristics: 15
- The actors are states and non-state actors with multiple channels of communication; interstate, transgovernmental and transnational.
- The agenda of interstate relationships consists of multiple issues that are not arranged in a clear or consistent hierarchy. In other words, there are multiple issues with no hierarchy; military security does not consistently dominate the agenda.
- Military force that plays a relatively minor role in international relations mainly because “it is not used by governments toward other governments within the region, or on the issues, when complex interdependence prevails.”^16 As a result of these characteristics, distinctive political processes raise which translate power resources into power as control of the outcomes of the linkage strategies, agenda setting, trans-national and trans-governmental relations. Keohane and Nye do not claim that military power is insignificant. They argue that military actions are costly and these costs have increased for a number of reasons. For example, nuclear weapons increase the costs associated with conflict. In addition, using force on one issue could have negative effects on other economic goals. Thus, relative to cost there is no guarantee that military means will be more effective than economic ones to achieve a certain goal. Keohane and Nye explained such a cost with four main explanations: There is a risk of nuclear escalation, negative effects on achievement of economic goals, domestic opposition to the human costs in the case of war and peoples resistance in weak countries. Also Keohane and Nye stresses that transnational actors would seek their own goals rather than a state based desire. Consequently, international organizations would play significant role on setting the security agendas as also be voice of the weaker states. Since the complex interdependence has developed during the Cold War period, then how the complex interdependence respond to the changes in the post Cold War period? Accordingly, the success of complex interdependence on challenging the security understandings of structural realism further maintained by no major change within the complex interdependence discourse even in the post Cold War era.
would not be wrong to argue that complex interdependence widened the boundaries of the security concerns of the states beyond military security concerns by including non- governmental organizations, multinational companies, ethnic groups and minorities. Therefore, the dynamics of the post-international politics along with security concerns cannot be simply explained by inter-state relationship or by the system that only states formed as main units. Instead, security concerns should taken into the consideration with multi-actors and different subsystems. Finally, as a result of all these outcomes, complex interdependence assumed its major challenge to the structural realism by arguing that the military power of strong states would not be that much influential in the post Cold War Era since military force would not be necessarily effective on pursing neither economic nor political interests of the states. By this way, states have to consider the institutions, non-territorial actors, along with multi- dimensional and multinatural threats rather than and the state itself. Complex Interdependence Challenge to Structural Realist Conceptions of Security After focusing and conceptualizing structural realism and complex interdependence, now the discussion turns to the complex interdependence challenge to structural realist understandings of security. In this section, I would advance four points on demonstrating this challenge. The challenges that would be highlighted: Challenge to structural realism with its own terms, the shift in state’s security agenda in the post Cold War Era, changing motives in the foreign policy orientations of the states, and increasing role of the international institutions and influence of communication for mutual cultural ground.
Challenge to Structural Realism with its’ Own Terms Accordingly, most apparent challenge of complex interdependence to structural- realism could be named as the challenge on the latter’s terms. In order to prove this claim, it is necessary to return to the earlier notions of sensitivity and vulnerability of complex interdependence and assess whether these concepts can be used in challenging structural- realism. Keohane and Nye expand their earlier ‘overall-structure’ model of international regime change to an ‘issue-structure model. In this model they assume that different issue- areas have different political structures that may or may not be related to the overall distribution of economic and military capabilities. Strong states in each issue-area make the rules. However, in this model, although states may want to link issues in which they dominate to those in which they are weak, such attempts will be unsuccessful. Resources in one issue-area lose some or all of their effectiveness when applied to others. Then, there would be no congruence of power across issues, unlike their previous overall-structure model. In other words, since the rules are questioned, sensitivity interdependence no longer confers power benefits on the actor that benefited by them mainly because pressures for change will reflect the different power structure. 18 As I have emphasized earlier, in Waltz’s structural realism model, it is assumed that military power is fungible and military power dominates the hierarchy. Therefore, since the military force is effective and can be used for variety of purposes, then each international system has one structure. However, in the issue-structure model since power is not fungible and states are dependent on the issue-area. This implies that the international system has
Nevertheless, it should be added that complex interdependence does not reject the realist assumptions but expands upon them. The issue-structure model does not suggest that structure is insignificant but that the international system is comprised of more than one structure. Therefore, Keohane and Nye’s ability to transform themselves on security issues and analyses, gave them a comparative advantage against Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism. Shift in Security Agenda of the States in the post Cold War Era It was the preoccupation of the military security concerns that dominated political thinking, foreign policy orientations and even the co-operation in world politics till the end of the Cold War. This paper believes that historical ‘discontinuities’ introduced and open the way for new conflicts, new tensions along with new actors in the political scene in addition to states. G. W. Rees provides a very useful definition for this situation by proposing that “The Cold War period was so dominated by the issue of military security that other important issues were relatively neglected”. 20 With the termination of the Cold War the dimension of the security issues has been shifted to cover wide variety of issues including individual human right, the economic security of individuals and societies, unemployment, immigration, international terrorism, illicit arms and drugs trafficking, AIDS, cultural/identity issues and environmental problems.^21 Therefore, one should not surprise from the division of power in international politics as a result of increased independence and technology and new emerged problems. All these weakened the role of the states and the systems that they relied upon. Thus, since the new security threats in the post Cold War Era are partially military but mainly
socio-economic and cultural, the realist assumption of each state is ready to use of force when they perceive a security threat has been weakened. Not surprisingly, Waltz and structural realism mostly criticized by their failure to respond the changing nature of security. However, one could witness the respond to the changing nature of security in Keohane and Nye’s approach. As emphasized earlier, this transformation was from the overall-structure model to the issue-structure model that both distinguish between activity taking place within a regime and activity designed to change the regime. This distinction and transformation is important because Keohane and Nye able to change the power resource for security concerns from the military power to the non- fungibility of military power according to the issue areas. Thus, they successfully demonstrate the changing nature of the security and changes within the importance relate with issues and geography. However, accordingly, this change should not be uniquely attributed to the end of the Cold War. There were signs of such a transformation from the earlier periods. The establishment of North Atlantic Treaty Organization-NATO could be demonstrated as an example at this point. The NATO established as military alliance, however even it was established for military security concerns, one of the principal objectives of the NATO was to create an atmosphere for economic development of the European countries. By this way, European countries gave their priorities to economic development and able to develop their powers not in military terms but in socio-economic terms. Eventually, rather than military power, European states concerned with their security by some other kind of politics or perhaps by no politics at all in realist sense.
others. Complex interdependence ease this objective through arguing that states would concern with their own benefits and would not opposed other states to maximizing their powers. Alternatively, states would not try to maximize their power when they are not in danger. Thus, in an atmosphere where states would not need to deal with security concerns, they could search for further co-operation and mutual economic and political gains. Furthermore, in an opposite scenario, it is doubtful how the states could ‘maximize’ their power in an international environment where they would use all their efforts and resources to defend, stabilize or preserve their foundations. Therefore, under these conditions, there would be shift within the security understandings of the states that is emphasized by Keohane and Nye in complex interdependence. This change is defined as the changing nature of the preferences and dominant norms through time along with shifts in security perceptions and satisfactions. Eventually, it would not wrong to suggest that socio-economics parameters have displaced military power as an indicator of the state power. Casually, states would prefer to be dominant or hegemon in socio-economic terms rather than military terms. At this specific point, one may suggest that realism still embedded the foreign actions of the main actors as such Waltz argues that assumptions should not be evaluated in terms of whether they are true or false, but whether they are sensible and useful. Usefulness is in turn dependent on the theory that uses the assumption. 23 By commenting on this principle to the Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism, arguably, one could catch the main failure of structural realism behind conceptualizing international security in the post Cold War Era.
Waltz, in writing ‘Theory of International Politics’ primarily concerned with explaining the consistently repeating patterns of behaviors of states throughout the centuries. He simply argued that behaviors of states and outcomes of their interactions had been repeated again and again despite profound changes within the nature of the states. Therefore, it was not the ‘change’ but ‘continuity’ that backed up by historical empirical evidences motivated structural realists on their assumptions. Furthermore, structural realist believed that their theory is the main source of foreign policy orientations simply because it bridges the past to the future and therefore attain ‘continuity’ in world politics and security concerns. Accordingly, the key failure behind structural realism initiated at this point. If this assumption is correct than it is not hard to find adequate supportive ‘evidences’ within the pages of the history. The history is full of wars, military security based foreign policies and practices and even the strategic miscalculations made due to the ignorance of military capabilities of other states. However, the new era in world politics initiated with the post Cold War Era brought brand new implications at systemic level. Casually, the examples of the past bound to erode within the history. Nowadays, one can not encounter with religious or colonial wars among the powerful Western states. Needless to say that this transformation had not happened suddenly. All these developments and shifts in security concerns was a result of painful experiences of the past, particularly two World Wars and their socio-economic traumas. These developments cultivated a new culture and new political understandings that lead transformation not only in economic and political life but also in social life and foreign policy practices. Stating in different words, the rationality and cultural cultivation of democratic countries make it clear
